Originally posted by: CO
You have 2 1/2 movies minus Bail Organa, then he suddenly has this big role in the last hour of ROTS, only cause he has to. Uncle Owen who has strong feelings on Anakin & Kenobi in SW, has about 5 minutes of screentime in AOTC.
Yeah, considering how much the movies revealed every major revelation in the OT, they sure shortchanged Uncle Owen and Bail Organa. Though, ideally, from my perspective, the PT should have kept most the OT plot a secret and shouldn’t have had either of those characters present in the films in any revealed way. I feel the same way about Yoda.
I also agree that the main characters of the prequel trilogy were pretty flat. In a basic sense they had roles, much like the OT characters, but those roles were never used to any great dramatic effect. And Go-Mer listed some transitions for those same characters, but those transitions seemed pretty empty as well. The prequel trilogy was so superficial that you never actually felt the character’s going through their major transitions in a personally visceral way. It was more like, “Okay, Annie, you’re a Sith Lord now . . . and that means you’re evil . . . Oh! Obi . . . you’re a dessert hermit now . . . Padme, you have a broken heart . . . yeah, I’m afraid that means you’re dead.” It was more like a dry checklist than a truly heartfelt portrayal of personally devastating consequences (more often than not).
Anakin had it all worked out in his head that what he was doing was for the greater good of the galaxy, but it was all really motivated by his selfish desire to save Padme from a potential death. His rationalization was just how he coped with that decision.
You have 2 1/2 movies minus Bail Organa, then he suddenly has this big role in the last hour of ROTS, only cause he has to. Uncle Owen who has strong feelings on Anakin & Kenobi in SW, has about 5 minutes of screentime in AOTC.
Yeah, considering how much the movies revealed every major revelation in the OT, they sure shortchanged Uncle Owen and Bail Organa. Though, ideally, from my perspective, the PT should have kept most the OT plot a secret and shouldn’t have had either of those characters present in the films in any revealed way. I feel the same way about Yoda.
I also agree that the main characters of the prequel trilogy were pretty flat. In a basic sense they had roles, much like the OT characters, but those roles were never used to any great dramatic effect. And Go-Mer listed some transitions for those same characters, but those transitions seemed pretty empty as well. The prequel trilogy was so superficial that you never actually felt the character’s going through their major transitions in a personally visceral way. It was more like, “Okay, Annie, you’re a Sith Lord now . . . and that means you’re evil . . . Oh! Obi . . . you’re a dessert hermit now . . . Padme, you have a broken heart . . . yeah, I’m afraid that means you’re dead.” It was more like a dry checklist than a truly heartfelt portrayal of personally devastating consequences (more often than not).
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I can see how you had an expectation for the Jedi to have similarly more subtle powers as Luke displayed, and understand how making them more extreme can approach "hoakie" status, I just think that the light saber is also fairly "hoakie" from the get go. It looks cool but there's really no logic behind it, it just is.
Well, the reason I believe the super jumps take on a cheesy nature is because they don’t really serve a purpose to me. Sure, we get how they’re uber-professional Jedi compared to Luke, and Jedi jumps are just cool in general, but, the smaller force jumps weren’t amazing enough? Do we need to make it so the Jedi can jump so high? It seems to cheapen the fine edge of frailty for the Jedi that I had always imagined.
And the lightsaber is hardly a corny or forced concept if you as me. If anything it was very cool and got my imagination very excited. Hell, lightsabers should excite the imagination of just about anyone. They’re just awesome! (Oh, and I love the cool stuff that Qui-Gon did with his lightsaber in Menace.)
That line is actually dumb to me since Obi-Wan uses the word “only.” He can’t attack the use of absolutes by using an absolute. Plus, the Jedi talk in terms of absolutes all the time if you follow the prequel trilogy alone. It’s a totally hypocritical line of dialogue. I don’t know what George was thinking . . . he probably wasn’t.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Anyway, I don't see Anakin as a complete psychopath.
When it comes to the Tusken Raider slaughter, Anakin knows what he did was wrong after he did it, so you could argue temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of having his mother die in his arms because of them.
As far as slaughtering the younglings and betraying the Jedi order, he did rationalize that even if only to himself:
"I will not betray the Republic."
"My loyalties are with the Chancellor, and the senate, and with you."
"From my point of view the Jedi are evil".
I can see how you had an expectation for the Jedi to have similarly more subtle powers as Luke displayed, and understand how making them more extreme can approach "hoakie" status, I just think that the light saber is also fairly "hoakie" from the get go. It looks cool but there's really no logic behind it, it just is.
Well, the reason I believe the super jumps take on a cheesy nature is because they don’t really serve a purpose to me. Sure, we get how they’re uber-professional Jedi compared to Luke, and Jedi jumps are just cool in general, but, the smaller force jumps weren’t amazing enough? Do we need to make it so the Jedi can jump so high? It seems to cheapen the fine edge of frailty for the Jedi that I had always imagined.
And the lightsaber is hardly a corny or forced concept if you as me. If anything it was very cool and got my imagination very excited. Hell, lightsabers should excite the imagination of just about anyone. They’re just awesome! (Oh, and I love the cool stuff that Qui-Gon did with his lightsaber in Menace.)
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Okay, so it's not that it doesn't make sense that the Jedi are more powerful than Luke, you just don't like that they are. It's not "artistically" pleasing to you. I'm sorry it took so long to understand that.
Well, first, technically, we don’t know that Luke couldn’t have jumped higher since we aren’t really aware of too many situations where he wanted to jump higher.
The heart of this matter is that I’m a fan in this discussion. A fanatic. By definition I become extremely devoted to the way certain things are. Having Jedi powers depicted in the more subtle style of the OT is something I was really attached to. Therefore the Jedi in the prequels just seem too extreme to me. I know they were supposed to be even more amazing back in their heyday, and their skills were goose-bump inducing in the opening scene of Phantom Menace, but after that, over and over again, the endless portrayals began to seem cheap to me. It was as if Jedi powers weren’t really special to anyone making the films anymore. The Jedi could do a little too much if you ask me. Their capabilities became gratuitous.
No, what you are seeing there is totally accurate. The problem is when you try to say that personal values are somehow evil or less important than universal values. That is a simplistic and wrong concept even if you only analyze the motivations from the prequel movies. There were many, many times where prequel-trilogy characters acted from personal motivations to intentionally accomplish things that are good for everyone. They personally desired things that were compatible with and helped work for the greater good.
Seriously, how can you even value the “greater good” if you don’t value the greater in a “personal” sense? Also, did not Anakin of the prequels believe that his personal desires for power were for the greater good in some way?
In ethics, there is no clear distinction between personal values and universal values. The greatest goal in this regard is to seek a state where our personal desires are compatible with the greater good. Even the prequel trilogy teaches this in a straightforward sense, over and over again. The characters have personal desires that are good because they are on the side of the greater good. To have the movies preach an ethic that contradicts the ethic that is taught through its portrayed deeds and motivations seems a little pathetic to me. There’s no way you can say that the Jedi in the prequels throw away their personal desires or sentimental attachment. They just don’t. I can pick out numerous examples where they acted in personal ways.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes! (I love that line
)
Okay, so it's not that it doesn't make sense that the Jedi are more powerful than Luke, you just don't like that they are. It's not "artistically" pleasing to you. I'm sorry it took so long to understand that.
Well, first, technically, we don’t know that Luke couldn’t have jumped higher since we aren’t really aware of too many situations where he wanted to jump higher.
The heart of this matter is that I’m a fan in this discussion. A fanatic. By definition I become extremely devoted to the way certain things are. Having Jedi powers depicted in the more subtle style of the OT is something I was really attached to. Therefore the Jedi in the prequels just seem too extreme to me. I know they were supposed to be even more amazing back in their heyday, and their skills were goose-bump inducing in the opening scene of Phantom Menace, but after that, over and over again, the endless portrayals began to seem cheap to me. It was as if Jedi powers weren’t really special to anyone making the films anymore. The Jedi could do a little too much if you ask me. Their capabilities became gratuitous.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I am altering it's meaning, pray I don't alter it any further.
Heh, alright.
I understand that point of view. It’s good to at least try to enjoy what you spend your time and money on. But there should be limits to that. When you said that you try to enjoy movies as much as “possible,” I got the impression that you were arguing that you should force yourself to like everything when sometimes there are simply things in movies that are bad and cannot be enjoyed.
I too am always trying to understand where a filmmaker is coming from. I see no point in forcing him or her to meet my preconceived notions about what good movies supposedly should have. However, starting with that as a basis, sometimes a filmmaker can fail when it comes to communicating their artistic point of view. I personally believe that George Lucas failed to communicate what he wanted the PT to communicate in a way that is highly enjoyable for most audiences. Did he have enjoyable moments? Yeah. Are the movies horrible? No, they just aren’t very good.
Even worse for me though, is that Star Wars already had so much established content that was already very enjoyable, and his additions lessened my enjoyment of that content. His new additions didn’t heighten my enjoyment of what was already so masterfully communicated. He irrevocably altered what those films were already successfully trying to “get across,” in my estimation.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Could you be more specific as to what you find to contradict what I am seeing? To me Anakin's desire to save Padme from possible death is a good thing. It's personal for Anakin because he has a personal interest in keeping her around because he loves her. The path he goes down in pursuit of that goal pushes the whole galaxy into the dark times of the Empire. In that way, Anakin put himself above the rest of the galaxy and it ended up being bad for everyone.
I am altering it's meaning, pray I don't alter it any further.
Heh, alright.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I imagine it to be like a force push. You can't just levitate yourself, but you could lessen your impact if you were falling. To me it looks like Zam Wessel's speeder was impacted by Anakin landing on it.
Well, assuming Jedi can force-push themselves, if that is what Anakin did in that scene, I never noticed any clue in the film showing him doing that at that moment. Therefore I deem that scene to be overly sensational and cheap. :\
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
To me the point of watching a movie is to be entertained. The more I enjoy it, the more I have gotten out of the deal. For that reason, I try to work with the entertainment as much as possible. The Star Wars Saga is just where I happen to get the most enjoyment out of the deal when it comes to movies.
Also I'm not saying that I force myself to enjoy things that aren't enjoyable, I just strive to see what the filmmaker was trying to get across, and don't let my pre-conceived notions about "how it should be" get in the way of enjoying it for what it is. I don't spend a whole lot of time second guessing the film maker, and instead just enjoy what he has done as much as possible.
I imagine it to be like a force push. You can't just levitate yourself, but you could lessen your impact if you were falling. To me it looks like Zam Wessel's speeder was impacted by Anakin landing on it.
Well, assuming Jedi can force-push themselves, if that is what Anakin did in that scene, I never noticed any clue in the film showing him doing that at that moment. Therefore I deem that scene to be overly sensational and cheap. :\
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
To me the point of watching a movie is to be entertained. The more I enjoy it, the more I have gotten out of the deal. For that reason, I try to work with the entertainment as much as possible. The Star Wars Saga is just where I happen to get the most enjoyment out of the deal when it comes to movies.
Also I'm not saying that I force myself to enjoy things that aren't enjoyable, I just strive to see what the filmmaker was trying to get across, and don't let my pre-conceived notions about "how it should be" get in the way of enjoying it for what it is. I don't spend a whole lot of time second guessing the film maker, and instead just enjoy what he has done as much as possible.
I understand that point of view. It’s good to at least try to enjoy what you spend your time and money on. But there should be limits to that. When you said that you try to enjoy movies as much as “possible,” I got the impression that you were arguing that you should force yourself to like everything when sometimes there are simply things in movies that are bad and cannot be enjoyed.
I too am always trying to understand where a filmmaker is coming from. I see no point in forcing him or her to meet my preconceived notions about what good movies supposedly should have. However, starting with that as a basis, sometimes a filmmaker can fail when it comes to communicating their artistic point of view. I personally believe that George Lucas failed to communicate what he wanted the PT to communicate in a way that is highly enjoyable for most audiences. Did he have enjoyable moments? Yeah. Are the movies horrible? No, they just aren’t very good.
Even worse for me though, is that Star Wars already had so much established content that was already very enjoyable, and his additions lessened my enjoyment of that content. His new additions didn’t heighten my enjoyment of what was already so masterfully communicated. He irrevocably altered what those films were already successfully trying to “get across,” in my estimation.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Could you be more specific as to what you find to contradict what I am seeing? To me Anakin's desire to save Padme from possible death is a good thing. It's personal for Anakin because he has a personal interest in keeping her around because he loves her. The path he goes down in pursuit of that goal pushes the whole galaxy into the dark times of the Empire. In that way, Anakin put himself above the rest of the galaxy and it ended up being bad for everyone.
No, what you are seeing there is totally accurate. The problem is when you try to say that personal values are somehow evil or less important than universal values. That is a simplistic and wrong concept even if you only analyze the motivations from the prequel movies. There were many, many times where prequel-trilogy characters acted from personal motivations to intentionally accomplish things that are good for everyone. They personally desired things that were compatible with and helped work for the greater good.
Seriously, how can you even value the “greater good” if you don’t value the greater in a “personal” sense? Also, did not Anakin of the prequels believe that his personal desires for power were for the greater good in some way?
In ethics, there is no clear distinction between personal values and universal values. The greatest goal in this regard is to seek a state where our personal desires are compatible with the greater good. Even the prequel trilogy teaches this in a straightforward sense, over and over again. The characters have personal desires that are good because they are on the side of the greater good. To have the movies preach an ethic that contradicts the ethic that is taught through its portrayed deeds and motivations seems a little pathetic to me. There’s no way you can say that the Jedi in the prequels throw away their personal desires or sentimental attachment. They just don’t. I can pick out numerous examples where they acted in personal ways.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes! (I love that line
) That line is actually dumb to me since Obi-Wan uses the word “only.” He can’t attack the use of absolutes by using an absolute. Plus, the Jedi talk in terms of absolutes all the time if you follow the prequel trilogy alone. It’s a totally hypocritical line of dialogue. I don’t know what George was thinking . . . he probably wasn’t.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Anyway, I don't see Anakin as a complete psychopath.
When it comes to the Tusken Raider slaughter, Anakin knows what he did was wrong after he did it, so you could argue temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of having his mother die in his arms because of them.
As far as slaughtering the younglings and betraying the Jedi order, he did rationalize that even if only to himself:
"I will not betray the Republic."
"My loyalties are with the Chancellor, and the senate, and with you."
"From my point of view the Jedi are evil".
Anakin had it all worked out in his head that what he was doing was for the greater good of the galaxy, but it was all really motivated by his selfish desire to save Padme from a potential death. His rationalization was just how he coped with that decision.
I see how that works. But that’s really stupid. Anakin would have needed to be completely retarded to ever believe that rationalization justified his actions. Its far too weak otherwise. I never saw Anakin’s intellect debilitated in that way though, so again, I believe we can only conclude he was a psychopath. Either that or George Lucas just messed up.