logo Sign In

The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga" — Page 10

Author
Time
Post link
"When he accepted Palpatine's offer in Palpatine's original "reveal" scene he genuinely believed that the Jedi were plotting against him and was slowly feeling the darkside and being corrupted by it; in fact, in the original version when he kills Mace Windu he doesn't say "what have i done"--he says "i cant believe the jedi were really taking over." "

This is much better than what we got. It has a much stronger political subtext, i.e. that of codified law vs. natural law. Because the Jedi really were taking over, they were extrajudiciously executing a sitting head of government/state. As an officer of the Republic -- at least, I think he was an officer, probably General Kenobi's aide-de-camp -- anyway, as an officer of the Republic, he was duty-bound to protect the person and office of the chancellor against the coup attempt.

On the other hand, Palpatine was evil.

On the third hand, so were the Jedi in Anakin's humble opinion.

That's the stuff of political drama; Anakin is torn between two means to a just end, two paths to preserve the Republic, and he chooses one. He supports Palpatine as the strong executive, leading to his buy-in of the Imperial ethos. In the version we got, the choice is different: go kill a bunch of Jedi and I'll give you a dubious chance of saving your wife, otherwise she's going to die according to some dream you've had. This doesn't lead into him becoming an Imperial; it makes him kind of a wuss. Now, that's certainly a valid interpretation of Vader: I was onboard with Veitch's "weak man in an iron mask" years before the prequels. But lots of other people aren't.

The only problem is with the dialogue itself. "Hurr, I can't believe that the Jedi was rilly gonna take over!" I'd have written something like, "All along ... They've been plotting all along. I should've sensed it. I'm sorry, sir, I failed you." That adds a little paranoia, and emphasizes his subordination to Palpatine.

EDIT

I just checked DE; Palpatine called Vader, "a sick man in an iron mask," and that sickness was the fact that, "his heart was possessed by the impotent side of the Force." So it's not really a weak Vader, but it's still a line that inspired a certain amount of rage in fandom.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Jumpman

As far as the romance goes, Anakin's side is pretty clear cut from the moment he met Padme in Episode I. That's not the issue. The issue is Padme and the fact that both of these characters are essentially novice when it comes to romance. It's awkward because of the fact that they've never done this before, on this level. Padme's the worse because it's pretty clear, she's never had a childhood. Padme's accepting of Anakin has more to do with Anakin's loss of his Mother more than it has to do with actually being in love with him.

Alright, sounds good to me, I guess I’ll attribute my lack of enjoyment to bad acting by Portman and bad dialogue by Lucas. Though, I will admit that Anakin seemed a bit creepy with his interest in Padme in AotC (like he was a stalker). He didn’t seem to actually care about her until RotS. Padme on the other hand was always flat and just stared at everything blankly and boringly. Thankfully Portman picked up her acting again by the third film.


Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

You're disgusted by Lucas because he shows a character doing everything he could, even when he knows it's wrong, because of love? Because of the fear of being helpless in trying to save the one who represents life to him?

That's all Anakin did. I'm not justifying what he did. I'm not saying it's right what he did. It's completely pathetic. But, I understand the reasons why he did it. You seem to understand the reasons why and it doesn't fly for you. Fine. I can't change that. But, for me, it's sad what happened to this kid.

I understand that it makes you sad. It made me sad too, the first time I watched it, but once I looked past the on-screen emotions and start looking at what Anakin was actually doing I quickly lost all sympathy for him. What about the sadness of the lives he murdered without even stopping for even a single second to think twice?

George Lucas shows that scene in RotS where Anakin walks into the room hiding the smallest of the children and turning on his lightsaber. Lucas then quickly cuts away and we’re left to simply assume the horror. When analyzing Anakin’s motivation for that action however, I believe that was the cheap way out. He should have shown Anakin slicing down each one of the small children, one, by one, by one, by one, so we could see their tortured faces of absolute fear and desperation as man they trust slaughters them like animals.

You make a mistake at thinking I am disgusted by Anakin because he does everything he can for love. What you fail to realize is that Anakin WENT FAR BEYOND WHAT HE COULD HAVE DONE! Murdering his good friends and killing innocent children is NEVER an option! There is NO EXCUSE for what he did! You can’t pretend that he just made bad mistakes or that he got caught up in something that was out of control! All he had was a 5-second dream sequence, and the next thing he did was murder a bunch of children and Anakin KNEW the choice he was making. It’s all so absurd.


Originally posted by: Jumpman

Yes. Darth Vader is changed forever. But, there's no story in the Prequels if you show Anakin as this badass Jedi warrior with an attitude and a streak of evil behind him. What's the point of telling that tale? We already know he becomes the representation of all that is evil with the Galactic Empire. You can't just show him as being always like that before he became Darth Vader.

Nowhere did I say that Darth Vader should have always been evil. I am arguing the opposite of that. I wanted a complicated man who made mistakes and got trapped into something horrible and began to punish himself for his crimes. I wanted to have someone who believed in goodness but failed miserably.

I loved the version of Anakin that was in the Phantom Menace. He was so innocent and trustworthy that I had goose bumps whenever I anticipated how he would soon fall from the heights of grace. Instead, in AotC we suddenly got a whiny, selfish, creepy, punk! What the hell?! Then RotS made him into a complete psychopath. How is that any kind of a realistic transition? Please, give me a break.


Originally posted by: Jumpman

It would've been easy to show that Anakin was always a hothead and never was really a good person underneath.

I wanted the exact opposite of that. Though an Anakin that was evil from the beginning might have been preferable to one we got. :\


Originally posted by: Jumpman
CO,
Because of the nature of the Force and the fact that the Jedi manipulate the Force to their own will, if one is emotionally attached to an individual, one could slide easily down the path of possessiveness in wanting to keep that individual with them. The problem stems from the Dark Side. It's more powerful than the Light Side and it will "dominate you."

Interesting idea, one that I strongly disagree with, but interesting nonetheless. In terms of that concept’s portrayal in the movies though, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I mean anyone that uses the force but doesn’t follow Jedi rules about emotional attachment or possessiveness is automatically evil in the Star Wars universe? If that’s what George Lucas was trying to communicate then he easily contradicted himself many times I’m afraid.


Originally posted by: Jumpman

You would be right if Lucas didn't show Anakin questioning himself in Episodes II and III about his wants and desires. He openly admits in Episode II that what he did to the Tusken Raiders was wrong. When Obi-Wan asks what Padme would do if she were in his position on the gunship, he knows that she would do her duty, as he states. He openly tells Padme that "he wants more, but he knows he shouldn't"

Anakin is constantly battling back and forth between what he desires and wanting to do the right thing and be a good Jedi.

What was wrong about killing the Tusken Raiders? They killed his mother! Certainly killing the children went too far, but that just goes to show his inability to empathize with others or properly justify his actions. The bad feelings he felt afterwards might have come from a totally selfish place for all we can know.

Anyways, even killing Tusken-Raider children isn’t the worst of crimes. I can identify with the mistake. They don’t seem like people but more like a pack of dangerous, bloodthirsty animals.

In terms of his basic emotion about his mother, you don’t actually think there was anything wrong with that do you? Do you believe that anger is always an evil emotion?


Originally posted by: Jumpman

Plus, he really wanted to show that Anakin, even by choice, was a victim in this whole game. He did choose, but between the Jedi and Palpatine, he was also a victim.

And I can understand the idea of "Darth Vader being a victim" would piss off Original Trilogy fans.


He was a victim of people manipulating him?! No, not manipulation! Oh the poor little guy! I feel compelled to feel sorry for his horrible plight!

Sorry to disagree again. I mean, sure, I understand why he did what he did, but that motivation is not anything that anyone should EVER identify with or agree with to any degree.

On the other hand though, a complete victim route in the film would have been cool. George Lucas could have made Revenge of the Sith into a major psychological drama, where the dark side of the force begins to twist everything in Anakin’s mind. Everything he believes and knows could become more and more tainted until he begins to commit absolute horrors and is unable to turn back on them. (Still, I would have shown him letting the small, innocent children go. The REAL Darth Vader would have waited until they were old enough to have at least some kind of chance!) As it is though, the PT Anakin was in no way a “victim” in comparison to the victims of his far more heinous crimes.


Originally posted by: Jumpman

But back to Anakin, his idea that the Jedi are greedy and evil has more to do with the fact that it's the Dark Side dominating him for than having two versions of Episode III. His dialogue means squat because he's obviously out of control and dominated by the Dark Side of the Force.


Okay, we all understand from Return of the Jedi that the Force has a mystical power to “dominate” the destiny of its children. But, always implied with that thought was the notion that CHOICE is what was needed to lead you to the dark side and to enslavement! In other words, for each further step into darkness or towards evil, you always have to choose what you want. That’s why the dark side of the force is described as “seductive!” What choice did Anakin ever make that allowed the dark side to enslave him enough to instantaneously think the Jedi were evil? Plus, if his thinking was being clouded here, then why isn’t that portrayed? We have no clue in the acting or the dialogue that Anakin is being fooled by the force!

At the most I was willing to accept that the Dark Side of the force could cloud the judgment of the weak minded, but that temptation and choice were never negated. In the prequel trilogy there was absolutely no seduction or any clouding of judgment portrayed that would EVER harmonize with Anakin slaughtering innocent children! All we got was a train wreck where Anakin was suddenly revealed as a pure evil psychopath. Darth Vader never “consumed” the PT Anakin. That Anakin made all of the decisions and clearly knew what he was doing because he cared for his tiny emotional pain.


Originally posted by: Jumpman
What person blames himself of his Mother's death when he had no control over the situation?


Seriously, that would be the person that thinks he is on the level of a god whose destiny is far beyond that of other people. The person who believes that having empathy for ordinary “mortals” is a waste of time, because all that truly matters to him are his personal emotions and possessions. A psychopath.


Originally posted by: CO

Anakin should have been likeable in AOTC, he should have been a hero, this great jedi, with this great personality, so when he falls in ROTS the viewer says, "A waste of talent." -From A Bronx Tale. There is nothing more depressing then having an athlete as a role model who is totally likeable and just see them crumble later in life.


Amen. That would have been a perfectly acceptable way to approach Anakin’s tale. Instead, we sort of got a waste of talent, but one where the justification for his fall is greatly outweighed by the pure evil of his actions. That was no mistake he was making except perhaps on the tiniest of levels. It was all intentional and he thought it was justified in his twisted and sick mind.

In fact, what you are describing there is what I meant by saying that Darth Vader should have been portrayed as a “badass.” He should have been very likeable. Someone that makes mistakes out of ignorance and impatience, but someone whose intentions are at least partially justified in some sizeable way. Killing innocent children is so far beyond his wife’s life being in danger in a short and hazy dream that we are FORCED to conclude that he is a human being with virtually no empathy or remorse for others.

Now we have to ask the question, in “Episode IV,” when Darth Vader says about Obi-Wan, “I must confront him alone,” is he saying that because he has an honorable warrior ethic as a remnant from his life as a Jedi, as I had ALWAYS thought from the first time I had ever seen Star Wars?! Or, did he say that simply because his whiny feelings had been hurt from being bested earlier and they now wanted a rematch? After the prequel trilogy I’m sadly forced to conclude the latter. Otherwise, without that motivation, the PT Anakin’s style would be to hunt down and surround Obi-Wan with Storm Troopers and let them do the hard work. He prefers killing little children and doesn’t mind unfair battles.


Originally posted by: zombie84
And he added the great scene were Anakin is absent for the Mace-Palpatine fight, comes in halfway and is goaded by both of them to choose a side--and then choses Palpatine, saying "what have i done...just help me save padme." But now after this section is finished, it returns to the original version--why the hell is Anakin suddenly killing his children, when he was just loyal to Mace windu a few minutes earlier when he told him the truth about Palpatine?? His acceptance of the Sith was a spontaneous emotional response related to Padme, not any sort of personality flaw or corruption/betrayal issue.


Amen. I never knew that stuff about re-editing the movie, and that greatly helps to explain why so little of it makes sense at that very point.

The only good part after that is the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin. Obi-Wan clearly is hurt by the betrayal and you feel for him at least. But Anakin is just too evil for me to feel empathy for. I’m only sorry that Obi-Wan walked away and didn’t have the strength to finish the job, even though I understand why he didn’t.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

And I hate the route that Anakin is the victim. That completely rules out any semblance of tragedy. A tragic hero has to be the agent of action, not the patient of action. He has to be intelligent enough to see the ethical implications of his actions, and to be able to determine the probably outcome of those choices. Anakin just seems to be a dumbass who never considers anything and never seems to have enough intelligence to question why he's doing what he's doing.


Amen! That is so true! Real tragic heroes are tragic because of their own faults. If you make him too perfect or into a victim his plight becomes sad, but meaningless. If you make his faults too huge on the other hand, he is no longer a hero, but someone evil who you no longer have any desire to understand.

"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
Post link
You fellows have some really good ideas. If you have time, I was wondering if you could check this out and leave any ideas on Anakin's "seduction", and how he should be likeable at first, etc.

This may very well be my next project.

Thanks!
-TM

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time
Post link
Heh, I should hope it's true. I was just tested on it yesterday in my Dramatic Theory class! That was pretty much verbatim from my notes. ^_~

I agree with most of what you're saying, Tiptup. I really don't mind the children slaughtering, but it needed to have a more compelling reasoning behind it. In the original, if Anakin had convinced himself that the Jedi were evil, then maybe killing children would seem justified. But for Anakin killing children in the hope of saving his wife... I don't buy it.

Again, I don't mind seeing him get very, very evil to the point of not being likeable, because, after all, he IS the villain, no matter what George says now. The problem with the prequels is that they try to make him too sympathetic (even though it doesn't work) by diluting the reasoning for his turn. "His heart was in the right place. He sacrificed himself for love. He was the victim. Blah, blah, blah, blah." No! He's supposed to be "twisted and evil." He was supposed to be "seduced by the dark side of the force." There was supposed to be an impatience and a lust for power. Like he says to Ben, "When I left you, I was but the learner. Now I am the master." He did it for the kind of power he didn't feel he could get from Obi-Wan. I don't mind Padme being the catalyst, because it would work that way. But the way it is now, Padme is all the motivation there is, so, like I said, there's no reason for him not to open his eyes and realize he f'ed up once she's gone. There must be some choice beyond Padme about choosing the dark side. Like Tiptup said, it's all about choice. He could tell himself he's doing it for Padme (after having been seduced by the power of the dark side and resisting it a lot), maybe vowing to use the power once to save her. He does, but then he realizes how wonderful this new power is and refuses to give it up. There we have the wrong thing done for an arguably right reason (in fact, an ethical choice outlined in the definition of a tragedy: a choice between something that's ethically right and something not inherently ethically wrong) but then the choice to keep it when there's nothing at stake except for his own greed. His change to evil forces Padme to leave him, thereby losing the wife he just saved. Now that's much more compelling and leaves him with a much more lasting reason to stay with Palpatine.

I really hate the plot point that Vader spends the next 20 years trying to overthrow Palpatine exclusively. That makes no sense to me. I mean, in the original movies, he seems to be pretty comfortable where he is. Maybe he entertained the notion of becoming the leader himself, but it seems like he was mostly loyal or at least realized enough that he had no chance of doing so. And I always thought the line, "You can destroy the Emperor" to Luke was mostly a trick. But, Jumpman, you seem to think that everything evil that Vader does is just him realizing that it's wrong but he has to do it for his plot to destroy Palpatine? That makes no sense. Obi-Wan and Yoda had a plot to destroy Palpatine too, but it didn't involve them killing innocent people. If Vader was truly "good" the whole time and didn't believe in Palpatine's Empire, but just biding him time undercover, then why would he go to so much damned trouble to destroy the Rebellion, the only opposition the Empire has?

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
Post link
I think another one of the big problems, as CO, already pointed out is the jarring disconnectedness between Episode I and II.

Lucas has said "the point of this movie is to see how a good person turns bad. Thats why i set Episode I up to introduce Anakin as an innocent--not 'well, he was a demon-seed, so it was obvious that he was going to turn bad.' But to explore how people turn to evil and the choices they make."

Well, here is the thing--this, the most crucial linchpin in Anakin's character--is 100% absent from the film. It occurs in Episode 1.5.
We meet Anakin as a 9 year old--cheery, full of compassion, resourceful, always helping people, the sweetest kid you could meet. What a brilliant irony to present Vader this way. Then next we see him--he is angst-ridden, emotionally-upset, power-hungry and with aspirations of dictatorship. What the fuck? How did we get there? Who knows! Use your imagination--assume things. Asssume everything. The problem is that these issues are the core of the PT, and according to Lucas they are both the main reason why Lucas wanted to do the PT and the only reason Lucas introduced Anakin as a child in part 1. But he not only botched it--he completely threw it away. He didn't even try. The Anakin in Episode II is not the same character from the previous film--i never even once imagined that Jake Lloyd grew up to be this person. And whatever reasons that made him become that way are not even so much as hinted at--its not that we have to use our imagination: we don't even have a frame of reference.

Thus, we don't understand why he's a whiney brat, why he's a power-hungry prick that can't take hearing the word "no." Not only do we not sympathize with him, we don't even understand him. Thats the reason why people hate him. Luke was a bit of whiner in ANH but we could understand his situation because we've all gone through that kind of stuff. But with Anakin people just say "what the hell are you whining about now? Shut the fuck up and be a man." And its because there's absolutely no character motivation. People say "oh well he's a teenager." That doesn't cut it. "Oh well he was a slave and separated from his mother and has no friends." That doesn't cut it. Show us these things--or at least indicate them. Thats the real issue--most people who like Anakin or claim to understand him are reading into his character things that aren't there, probably simply because they want to like him.

And thats one of the reasons i thought ROTS was kinda good. Finally there was character motivation and emotion. You could understand why Anakin was confused in the first half of ROTS, where everyone is telling him to stab people in the back, you could understand Anakin's fear at loosing his loved one and the drive that made him become obssessed with finding this greater power. The first half of ROTS is great because its the way an actual dramatic movie is written--ie, not a piece of shit (for the most part). Once Anakin kills the kids of course everything falls apart because the arc gets destroyed (due to the revisions as stated before).

I also came to another conclusion today--in retrospect, many feel that TPM is the closest to having the "Star Wars feel", even though the style and aesthetic are completely dissimilar to the OT. But, I finally realised why this, the movie that should be the complete opposite of the OT (and is, visually) still retains a strong Star Wars feel through much of it. As CO pointed out, the OT is a macro story. And so is TPM. It has no central character, although it revolves around Qui Gon Jinn--just as the OT had no central character, though revolved around Luke. Jar Jar and Obi Wan share equal screentime with Anakin, just as the droids and Chewie share equal screentime with Han, while Padme acts as a plot motivator just as Leia does, with Qui Gon centring the film just as Luke. Theres also a clear and very active villain, unlike AOTC, with a somewhat lighthearted plot and scenes that at least develop and resolve instead of being rushed through like the sequels.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Trooperman
You fellows have some really good ideas. If you have time, I was wondering if you could check this out and leave any ideas on Anakin's "seduction", and how he should be likeable at first, etc.

That might be very difficult if you're starting with what was actually filmed. The parts where he is friendly to people and not complaining about everything could help. The parts where he shows all of his concern and care for his wife might also help too. I don't know.

Heh, a possible angle would be to make it like a horror film. Then all of the inside-Anakin's-head narration could slowly reveal his unstable and completely-self-centered thoughts as time goes on. Then display all of his horrible actions in that light but with horror-movie music.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

I agree with most of what you're saying, Tiptup. I really don't mind the children slaughtering, but it needed to have a more compelling reasoning behind it. In the original, if Anakin had convinced himself that the Jedi were evil, then maybe killing children would seem justified. But for Anakin killing children in the hope of saving his wife... I don't buy it.


Ahh, yeah, very true. I don’t mean to imply that I could never see Darth Vader killing children. Darth Vader is an evil person after all. But, we needed a reason for it.

For instance, in the original Star Wars, Tarkin blows up a planet filled with innocents and Vader helps him do it. In that case it is an act of war, and the innocents were not Vader’s target but the rebels instead.

In the attack on the temple on the other hand, it was close quarters combat, and Anakin had every chance to stop himself from killing the youngest children with the rest who would not submit. There was no reason offered for why they needed to die beyond an unrelated dream sequence and a promise of help from an evil and untrustworthy man. Absolutely sick.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

He could tell himself he's doing it for Padme (after having been seduced by the power of the dark side and resisting it a lot), maybe vowing to use the power once to save her. He does, but then he realizes how wonderful this new power is and refuses to give it up. There we have the wrong thing done for an arguably right reason (in fact, an ethical choice outlined in the definition of a tragedy: a choice between something that's ethically right and something not inherently ethically wrong) but then the choice to keep it when there's nothing at stake except for his own greed. His change to evil forces Padme to leave him, thereby losing the wife he just saved. Now that's much more compelling and leaves him with a much more lasting reason to stay with Palpatine.


That would have also worked. He betrays the Jedi and does save his wife. Then he doesn’t want to give up the evil he’s chosen for himself. I like that idea.

"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
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84

We meet Anakin as a 9 year old--cheery, full of compassion, resourceful, always helping people, the sweetest kid you could meet. What a brilliant irony to present Vader this way. Then next we see him--he is angst-ridden, emotionally-upset, power-hungry and with aspirations of dictatorship. What the fuck? How did we get there? Who knows! Use your imagination--assume things. Asssume everything. The problem is that these issues are the core of the PT, and according to Lucas they are both the main reason why Lucas wanted to do the PT and the only reason Lucas introduced Anakin as a child in part 1. But he not only botched it--he completely threw it away. He didn't even try. The Anakin in Episode II is not the same character from the previous film--i never even once imagined that Jake Lloyd grew up to be this person. And whatever reasons that made him become that way are not even so much as hinted at--its not that we have to use our imagination: we don't even have a frame of reference.


Yeah, that’s exactly the problem there. I can’t identify with Anakin in AotC because he doesn’t seem like the same character anymore. We got no transition from the previous character, so we couldn’t care about that good side anymore. People can’t argue that it was just a teenage thing, because, even though everyone has their problems in those years, a kid that nice, outgoing, and bursting with optimism will not become that much of a jerk unless something big happened to mess him up. A humble life as a Jedi should have only given him more self discipline if anything. It just makes no sense to 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
Post link
Tiptup,

"Training to become a Jedi is not an easy challenge. And even if you succeed, it's a hard life. Take that line by Qui-Gon, add the fact that Anakin was raised by his mother exclusively for nine years but can't see her because of the Jedi way, on top of the fact that he's been labeled the Chosen One and he knows it(literally) and feels it and end it with his superiors constantly keeping a watchful eye on him and holding him back.

I think you can possibly see why Anakin is a little different, 10 years later...and why he goes back and forth between doing his duty and training as a Jedi and he desires toward Padme in Episode II. He's a good kid in Episode II. He's just dealing with some angst when it comes to the Jedi Way.

"Must be difficult having sworn your life to the Jedi. Not be able to visit the places you like or do the things you like."
"Or be with the people that I love."

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
Post link
This is not bashing the prequels, per se, but I'm just wondering if anybody felt the same way I did when they first saw TPM. Of course, we all remembered the line where Yoda says to Luke, "He is too old. Yes, too old to begin the training." Then we get to this movie where Obi-Wan says about Anakin, who is less than half Luke's age, "He is too old!" I know I was wondering, "Geez, how frickin' young do you have to be?!"

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
Post link
Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

"Training to become a Jedi is not an easy challenge. And even if you succeed, it's a hard life. Take that line by Qui-Gon, add the fact that Anakin was raised by his mother exclusively for nine years but can't see her because of the Jedi way, on top of the fact that he's been labeled the Chosen One and he knows it(literally) and feels it and end it with his superiors constantly keeping a watchful eye on him and holding him back.

I think you can possibly see why Anakin is a little different, 10 years later...and why he goes back and forth between doing his duty and training as a Jedi and he desires toward Padme in Episode II. He's a good kid in Episode II. He's just dealing with some angst when it comes to the Jedi Way.

"Must be difficult having sworn your life to the Jedi. Not be able to visit the places you like or do the things you like."
"Or be with the people that I love."



This is exactly why Lucas should have started with 20 year old Anakin in TPM, and have 4-5 flashbacks scenes of 10 year old Anakin similar to Batman Begins. The only thing needed to show about 10 year old Anakin was that he was innocent, and wasn't this bad kid, but Lucas didn't need to waste a whole movie because of it. TPM has so much wasted opportunities because 10 year old Anakin, and the reason as Lucas explains is that he is too young to really do anything. He can't fall in love with Padme yet, he can't really talk to Palpatine like he does as a confused boy in ROTS, and he can't develop a friendship with Kenobi cause Kenobi isn't in that much of the movie.

TPM should have been about Anakin & Kenobi and how they try to steer Padme from the attack on Naboo, and have literaly the same plot, minus QuiGon, and through the movie Lucas uses 4-5 flashbacks of Kenobi finding Anakin on Tatooine, using those same plot points (finding him in a junkyard, meeting his mom, the podrace, and leaving his mom), it all could have been there in Episiode I, but it would have given a good 2 hours of showing how much Anakin & ObiWan are friends, and wouldn't have been cool to see Anakin kill Darth Maul? That would show that this jedi is special to kill a sith lord.

Then AOTC could show that the killing of Maul could have went to Anakins head as now you see he was this wet behind the ears jedi in TPM, and a couple years later, the power he possesses has gone to his head, as he wants more. Then Lucas would have two movies where he doesn't have to develop the Anakin/Kenobi friendship like he finally does in ROTS.

Jumpman, it drives me nuts how good TPM could have been, but it is almost like an EU book where there is a couple of key plot points you need to know, but overall it is so detached from even Episode II. And don't get me started on how I would just get rid of Jar Jar altogether, and have C3PO & R2 tag along the whole time to have that consistency for 6 movies.
Author
Time
Post link
I've got to say, I never saw anything in the PT which convinced me that Anakin was:

(a) a hero.

(b) a nice guy.

(c) Obi-Wan's best friend.

(d) at all capable of any response other than selfishness.

I regard the PT as a poorly written, poorly produced trilogy and I see these problems as resulting from the team that Luca$h assembled to help him make it. I think that the team that Luca$h produced the OOT with were a huge influence on the content and style of those films. Luca$h is not, and never has been, an auteur filmmaker. My opinion is that the team with which Luca$h made the PT are convinced that he is an auteur and never questioned anything he wanted to do. Consequently, I think that the PT is a much weaker production on every level than the OOT.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
I don’t know who invented the idea, but when George Lucas agreed that it would be great to make Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader into the same person, he made quite the job for himself. On the one hand we had a man that was established as very evil, and the other spoken of in glowing, wonderful terms. Did the prequel trilogy explain how that seeming dichotomy took place?

Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

"Training to become a Jedi is not an easy challenge. And even if you succeed, it's a hard life. Take that line by Qui-Gon, add the fact that Anakin was raised by his mother exclusively for nine years but can't see her because of the Jedi way, on top of the fact that he's been labeled the Chosen One and he knows it(literally) and feels it and end it with his superiors constantly keeping a watchful eye on him and holding him back.

I think you can possibly see why Anakin is a little different, 10 years later...and why he goes back and forth between doing his duty and training as a Jedi and he desires toward Padme in Episode II. He's a good kid in Episode II. He's just dealing with some angst when it comes to the Jedi Way.

"Must be difficult having sworn your life to the Jedi. Not be able to visit the places you like or do the things you like."
"Or be with the people that I love."


Yes, I see how that would be a very difficult life, but Anakin should have also learned some discipline at the same time, should he have not? Also, how was the life of a slave not that much different in those same ways? (He couldn’t go to the places he liked do the things he liked whenever he wanted.) And quite frankly, what does that say about him as a person if his virtues are totally dependant upon his external circumstances? The goodness of his mother was the only thing that ensured that he was a good boy? The instant he was on his own he becomes ungrateful and whiny?

According to TPM’s view of the Jedi, Anakin was allowed to become a Jedi under very, very special circumstances. He was not only an odd case but a potentially dangerous case and Anakin knew this. We’re supposed to believe that he’s then justified when complaining about being held back?! How on earth is that such a terrible plight? He can’t take his time and, at the very least, try to be industrious? Talk about a bad attitude.

And whether Anakin enjoys the life of a Jedi or not, HE CHOSE IT FOR HIMSELF, did he not? He was told it would be hard and he fully knew that he would not be with his mother. Now he’s going to whine about his choice and the audience is supposed to still like him for that much of a weak will? Seriously, does he have no self-respect? What about dedication or perseverance? Sticking to his personally chosen goals no matter the hardship and taking it all like a man?

The character we saw in Menace was not a character that would grow into what we saw in Clones. It doesn’t matter how much Jedi “angst” builds up, he wasn’t the kind of person who’d allow it to affect him towards such extreme levels of pessimism and distrust. That just was not his character. If anything, if the frustrations and hardships of the Jedi lifestyle were truly so difficult, they would have worn on him hard and he would have become tired and depressed, not energetically angry and nasty. In addition, the Jedi lifestyle should have constantly been teaching him proper attitudes and ethics, so if anything, the good, humble side of Anakin should have gotten plenty of reinforcement along with the bad. Attack of the clones introduced a totally different character with no connection to the previous one.

"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
Post link
Tiptup,

I see what you're getting at but this is what I'm saying the two films are saying:

Yes, Anakin did make the choice to be a Jedi. He has this romanticized view of being a Jedi, but Qui-Gon warned him of the hardships. He still chose. But, that doesn't change the fact that his Mother taught him a certain set of values, values that indirectly clash with the Jedi Way. Most of the those values deal with the caring of people. This is why I say previously that Anakin is loyal to people, not ideals. Anakin cares for people, but not people as a whole in the way the Jedi do.

The prime example is in Episode III at the beginning when one of the Clone fighters is asking for help and Anakin wants to go help him out. Obi-Wan states, "No, they're doing their job so we can do ours." The next shot shows Anakin pissed off about it. And when it comes time for Obi-Wan to about bite the dust, Anakin goes to his friend. Obi-Wan orders him to finish the missing and leave him but Anakin isn't having any of that.

Do you see where I'm getting at?

Now, we also have the Chosen One factor, that I believe was a mistake by the Jedi. They know he's the Chosen One. They TELL him he's the Chosen One. But, then tell him he can't be trained. I think a nine year old can comprehend that. But, they change their mind out of their own circumstances(make sure the Chosen One doesn't fall into the hands of the Sith) but that already breeds resentment in Anakin. Not only that, but they give him over to a Master who isn't ready to be one and doesn't even care for the boy in the first place. The relationship is barely held together in the beginning only because of Qui-Gon's wishes.

And with Anakin being the Chosen One and feeling that he is, when it comes to his abilities and his training, he feels that is more capable of what Obi-Wan is allowing him to become. When you get that constantly back and forth along with other Padawan's rising in the ranks, that has to breed some frustration. On top of all that, he can't see his Mother. She raised him but the Jedi Way obviously dictates that you must break the attachment to your previous life. And this is the aspect where the Jedi should've given him special circumstances...if they were going to train him. There is absolutely no way a kid can just forget the one person who raised him all those years....who was his only life at one point....his family. You can't break that bond. It's forever. Clearly, Anakin struggles with this. This is why his dreams in Episode II scare him. And when he tells Obi-Wan of his dream, what does his Master tell him? "Dreams pass in time." Or, in other words, forget about your Mother. You're a Jedi now.

This is why I say it's a constant back and forth between what he knows he must be and do as a Jedi and what he feels as just a human being. It's just a clash between what he is taught and what he's being taught, on top of the fact that he knows he's the Chosen One. He is disciplined, moreso in Episode III, but he has his moments outside of that...and that's mainly a cause of his beliefs in his abilities.

The key to any film of this type is the likeablity factor with a character. Anakin has his good moments. Most of them, in Episode II, are with Padme. We all can tell he's desperately in love with her, eventhough we also know this is wrong. It's clear to me that Lucas went more towards "understand the character and his problems" than "like the character." It's definitely a combination of the two in Episode II with it obviously leaning toward "understanding." Still, when the chips fall in the latter half of Episode II, he comes to the rescue of his Master. He's galant in the battle. He saves Obi-Wan just as he's about to get it from Dooku. And then we see his marriage and understand the reasons behind the marriage. With all of that, I personally like him. And Lucas makes a very great effort in the opening moments in Episode III to make the audience really like Anakin now that we see him as a full Jedi and we see how much better the relationship between he and his Master really is....because there were some moments in Episode II. But, Episode III really puts it in the forefront. And between the two films, Lucas makes it work, the Anakin character.

And given all the crap I just said, CO's right. There's another version of Episode I and it's Anakin as the same age as Padme...but I wouldn't do it with the flashbacks(mainly because Star Wars doesn't do flashbacks). And making him that age would or would not ruin some of the thematic devices that are integral apart of his story through the three films as it stands now.

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
Post link
Man has this thread taken off well (I have yet to catch up, but I'd like to just respond to some things as I do).

Tiptup was talking about how the beauty of the classic trilogy is taken away because of the way the prequels reveal certain things that are revealed in the classic trilogy as surprises for the audience. Things like Yoda being Yoda, Vader being Luke's Father, and Leia being Luke's sister. It is true that these things uses to be surprises for the audience, but now that the viewer goes in with prequel knowledge, the Audience is not surprised by the details of the revelations. Tiptup was saying that the emotional resonance is now just gone with nothing to replace it, but to me there is a more substantial drama in waiting to see how this new information (which is still a surprise to Luke) effects him. With Yoda, we see how Luke reacts when he doesn't realize he is Yoda, and the audience now knows from the get go that Yoda is testing him. To me it underscores Luke's impatience better. Also, I think that without the setup in the prequels, the "Leia is my Sister" revelation was fairly hollow on it's own. I remember people back in the day complaining about "well who isn't related to Luke anymore"? Now because it's been there all along it's more substantial to me now. Before it seemed to be just a convenient way to tie everything up for ROTJ, now it seems like a solid backed up plot point.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
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? To be sure the "I am your father" revelation" is one of the best revelations in cinema history. It really blew all our hair back when we first saw it, wondering if he was telling the truth between ESB and ROTJ. To a lesser extent, it was also surprising to find out that Yoda is really Yoda. These are some great surprises, but once you see them, they are over. They are like one trick ponies for the audience. To me the long-term dramatic value in these scenes really rests on how Luke will react to these revelations. If anything, knowing this information ahead of time puts more emphasis on Luke.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
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. Luke started training when he was what 18-19, and ends up training for like what 10 years total by the end of ROTJ? To me it's more logical to assume Luke would -not- be as good as Jedi who had been training since at least 9 years of age, taught by a whole community of Jedi when they were still in their prime. Luke is a huge underdog as far as Jedi Hopefuls go, and that's another way the prequels augment the drama in the classic trilogy, by underscoring Luke's chances compared to fully trained Jedi.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
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. Light sabers 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, light sabers are a very simple and acceptable subject from a logical standpoint, and very enjoyable from a logical standpoint as well. Your assumption that light sabers needed the Force to work is unsubstantiated by any of the Star Wars films, and in fact, Han Solo uses one which pretty much disproves your assumption outright. But it is good to see you actively suspending your disbelief for this concept, because it will come in handy later on for other points I may make about the prequels.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
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. I agree, in cases like this one, less it certainly more.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
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? Let's examine how people hear things. In any movie with humans, it is usually assumed that people just hear things. If a movie got into the idea that there are these sound waves hitting a membrane inside our ear which causes these little bones to resonate, which in turn allow us to perceive sounds, then nothing is really changed, it's just now we have this additional information that is usually assumed. Beyond giving Qui-Gon a way to show that Anakin is particularly strong in the Force, the Midichlorian concept serves Lucas' theme about Symbiotic relationships. The Midichlorians are an example of life forms that live with other life forms for their mutual advantage. The saga shows all these symbiotic relationships, and parasitic relationships to show how symbiotic relationships end up making better sense in the long term.

To me, the questions it raises about the Force are similar to the kinds of questions that are raised about religious concepts here on Earth with the study of Mitochondria. So it's not just some space bacteria Lucas made up, it's very much in line with the dynamic faced by our culture today with science and religion both in existence. To me this isn't "distracting" it's thought provoking. I personally think it's good to think about stuff like this. It's more important to think about it, than it is to actually answer any of the questions being raised. It's just something that's good for our development as a society, and I think it's great the way Star Wars puts deep philosophical concepts like this in front of children at a fairy early age so they can start thinking about concepts like this as soon as possible.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
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. But that contrast is what makes the parallels more meaningful than if they just repeated the exact same things.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
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. If they make enough sense to be predictable, why would you suggest Lucas is insulting your intelligence with them? The point of making a parallel is so the audience realizes there is a parallel. It's not like he was trying to sneak them by you, the goal isn't to make them so obscure that most people wouldn't notice them.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
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.
Well most of the time, you are just supposed to accept these things at face value. If you don't want to think about why something is the way it is, then all you have to do is -not- question it. Suspend your disbelief and roll along with it.Originally posted by: Tiptup
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.
Such as?Originally posted by: Tiptup
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.
To me the most important component of Art is what the observer brings to the table. For a viewer like me who loves to wonder about stuff like this, this dynamic brings more enjoyment than if all of the concepts were wrapped up into a neat little package and sat on our lap with instructions on how we should feel about it.Originally posted by: Tiptup
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.
If you prefer "standard" fare that's fine. To me Star Wars is more meaningful because it is so much more thought provoking than "standard" fare. Most movies present their themes in such a way as to tell the audience how they are supposed to feel about everything. Star Wars presents it's themes and then forces the audience to make sense of it.Originally posted by: Tiptup
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?
To call Anakin a complete psychopath is to miss the humanity in his feelings of selfishness.Originally posted by: Tiptup
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.
It teaches us that evil can happen to anyone, even us. By relating to an evil person such as Darth Vader, we can see how even a person who sees themselves as "good" can end up making the wrong choices. It teaches us to be ever vigilant of the evil lurking within ourselves.Originally posted by: Tiptup
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.
Fear is bad. It's debilitating. It only serves to make us unstable. Wanting to be with his mother is fine, being afraid of losing his mother is natural, wanting to save his mother or wife from death is natural. Fear is not a good thing, but it's a natural occurrence in the human condition. It's not the fear that's evil, it's the anger and hate that it can lead to that is evil.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: CO
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 fan base, 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 fan base. 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 fan base 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 Anakin’s story is the reason I am a diehard fan.
I think that ROTS is certainly the "payoff" movie in the prequels. But certainly it wouldn't have been able to do what it did without the previous 2 films to set everything up for it. It's important to understand how the political system works, it's important to understand how the Jedi order works. There ends up being a lot of exposition in the first 2 films that doesn't pay off until ROTS, but if they didn't do that, then ROTS would have had to have done it.

I know Lucas is quoted as saying he only had like 20% of TPM and AOTC figured out ahead of time and most of his original outline ends up being in ROTS, but that doesn't mean everything else he put in there is meaningless filler, it just means he ended up fleshing that much out as he went. It all still points to the conclusion of ROTS, and the entire Saga for that matter.

I am glad your brought up how re-watch able the OT is, because the "I am your father", "Yoda is really Yoda" and "Leia is my Sister" are all blown after the first viewing. So despite these surprises being blown, many of us still find these movies to be compelling enough to watch over and over and over again. So I don't see why having the prequels blow these three surprises impacts things for the OT in an irrevocable way. Sure now we don't even get that initial shock, which was substantial, but at the same time, those surprises were not the only reason we enjoyed the classic trilogy.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
I find that ROTS plays well as a stand-alone movie. In fact, to me it truely is the only "prequel", a filling in of back story to the main story which is the OOT. It introduces everything so you don't have to have seen the first two, and you even get the impression that Anakin has always been a heroic warrior, that he and Obi Wan are best buds and that he and Padme have a somewhat believable relationship. Its ironic that after all this "set up" in the first two movies--none of it was necessary! And treating ROTS as simply a "prequel" and not "episode III" of the Tragedy of Darth Vader, the OOT is mostly unaffected in its perception. For me, i can re-watch ROTS as an interesting-but-not-great prequel to the OOT trilogy, and TPM even as an unrelated stand-alone space fantasy film. But the trilogy as a whole doesn't work. You get back story (ROTS), then a back story to the back story (AOTC), then a back story to the back story to the back story (TPM). All that was needed was ROTS. Everything in AOTC and TPM that was actually relevant to ROTS is in ROTS itself--all you lose are a few expositories pieces (ie how Anakin is found, how his mother dies, how Padme falls in love) but those were conveyed in ROTS in a better manner than the poorly written corresponding scenes in the previous two films. Lucas screwed himself because he numerically bound himself to three films. He didn't need three. He only had enough story for one.
Author
Time
Post link
You also loose how the galaxy works. You lose how the Republic works, you lose how the Jedi Order works. You don't get any of that in ROTS.

TPM and AOTC are: Here is how the galaxy was.

ROTS is here is how the way it was blew up into the way it is in the classic trilogy. It's all resolution, no setup.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
There's enough of it set up that you get the idea. You see that there is a senate, with senators in pods that presumably vote of things, and that a supreme chancellor is the top authority in said body. You know that Padme is a senator and opposes the war with other government officials. You know that a seperatist movement within the republic created the clone wars. You know Anakin and Padme fell in love and are secretly married. You know that Dooku is a sith working with a higher mastermind named Darth Sidious. You know that Anakin was seperated from his mother and the he had dreams of her before she died and that he killed the sandpeople--these last points would have been made clearer and emphasized had the film been actually designed as a stand-alone piece. But for one that is supposed to fit into a trilogy it is incredibly self-sufficient.

Additionally, all that other stuff gleaned from the first two films is boring, superficial expository information. How does the voting process in the senate particularly work? Who cares. How did Palpatine actually get himself voted in? Who cares. How did the clones specifically get created? Not necessary. How did the Republic stand at the height of its glorious power? Who knows--TPM and AOTC don't show it either, as Lucas has stated many times we enter TPM with the Republic already crumbling and corrupted. Furthermore, all the actual character exposition that we aren't privy to--such as Anakin's courtship and his relationship with his mom and Obi Wan--are so poorly handled that the best thing about ROTS is that it ignores such things and simply presents them as they should be, with motivation, believable writing and dramatic interest.
We don't need to learn EVERY detail. This is what made the original film so intriguing. In fact there is a specific literary device to describe this technique--"in media res". In the middle of things. The story begins in the thick of action and increases audience interest by not revealing how things exactly got to be where they are. ROTS accomplishes this nicely--it explains things and shows how the important events occured but enough is left unsaid that it not only makes things more interesting but the audience fills it in with their imagination much better than the shitty writing Lucas used to give us those same things in AOTC.
Author
Time
Post link
By that rationale, we didn't even need ROTS.

By that rationale, all we -really- needed was ROTJ. After all they touch on the fact that there was a first Death Star by saying the one in ROTJ was the 2nd Death Star. They go over why Anakin fell to the dark side on Dagobah, and even recap why Luke was kept in the dark about Anakin.

I guess perhaps the divide here is between people who can't get enough Star Wars, and people who only want as much of it as is absolutely necessary.

A lot of your questions equate to "Who cares"?

Well -I- care.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
By that rationale, we didn't even need ROTS.

By that rationale, all we -really- needed was ROTJ. After all they touch on the fact that there was a first Death Star by saying the one in ROTJ was the 2nd Death Star. They go over why Anakin fell to the dark side on Dagobah, and even recap why Luke was kept in the dark about Anakin.

I guess perhaps the divide here is between people who can't get enough Star Wars, and people who only want as much of it as is absolutely necessary.

A lot of your questions equate to "Who cares"?

Well -I- care.


ROTJ seems like the only "needed" film because you are looking at with the pre-conceived Tragedy of Darth Vader "Saga" mindset. The PT were built to support this so once you strip those away, ROTJ hence becomes useless in that regard, and because ESB is part 1 of 2 it becomes unneeded as well. Hence, all you need is Star Wars. And yeah--the back story was not necessary. Star Wars became the biggest hit ever made in 1977 without that story, and as Lucas has admitted on many, many occassions--"the back story was never meant to be a movie." But it certainly had the potential to make a good one.

I think the divide, as you have indicated is indeed between two groups of fans--one group who just wanted more Star Wars films, who love the PT, and the other group who wanted more Star Wars films but only if they were good, and these people love the OOT but hate--or tolerate/sorta-enjoy-parts-of--the PT. The PT as a whole was just a badly written series but with a lot of really good moments sprinkled about. ROTS fares much better because it is constructed the way a dramatic film should be--which is unsurprising given that Lucas has admitted that the actual story only begins in ROTS.
Author
Time
Post link
I am actually in the camp of people who only wanted more Star Wars films if they were good as well.

The only difference is I thought the prequels -were- good.

Lucas doesn't say the story begins in ROTS. He says the real meat of the outline he had come up with before is contained in ROTS. The story still starts with Episode I.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Okay, regarding Jedi Jumping: The Jedi in the prequels have been trained since children to use the Force. Luke has been only given a few years and has had to figure a lot out on his own. It makes perfect since that we only see him doing the occasional flip. As for Obi-wan and Vader, they were in the confined corridors of the Death Star. Not much room to "jump as high as mountains" there.

As for the message of needing to let things go, it was best demonstrated with Anakin's mother. Anakin needed to let her go and move on. But he opted to cling to the past and, when it came time for her to die, he was not prepared for it. If he had let her go, he could have come to terms with it and not started down that path to the Dark Side. He would not have clung to Amidala, and the Emperor would not have been able to use the fear of loosing her for his ends.

That is one of the reasons the Jedi shun such material possessions. Greed and fear of loss controls us too much.
Author
Time
Post link
The bare minimum setup and exposition used to be one of the hallmarks of the Star Wars style. 2 entire movies of setup is an awful lot.
Author
Time
Post link
If you ask me, that was the bare minimum. I don't see how Lucas could have done this properly otherwise.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
I wouldn't really count Episode II as setup. I mean, it's the story that leads to the moments that many have been waiting on but I wouldn't call it setup. It has its own story and its own conclusion. But, because we know what it leads to, we call it "more setup" and I wouldn't really categorize it that way...
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.