Rhikter said:
Yes it is laid out for you obviously. Here's Tarkin already implied to be at the center of things and hanging out with Vader 20 years before ANH, as if nothing developed in all that time.
If it is implied, it's a very light implication. One might say "circumstantial evidence" at best. I just don't see how you can get all this big stuff from such a small amount of screen time.
We all know he didn't just happen to take a stroll. He was put there for a reason, to make the ROTS-end situation match up with ANH. So yes, matching it up like that does imply he "hung around" for the next 20 years.
Do you think you'd feel that way if you didn't know anything about Star Wars beyond there being 6 films, and you'd only watched them in chronological order? I think this is an instance in which having defined, behind the scenes knowledge of the Star Wars saga and GL's thought process, is actually a hindrance. I think you're reading too much into it.
Watching the films in Lucas's 1-6 order is mistaken. Nobody should do it. I wouldn't need to know anything about Star Wars beyond the films to come to the conclusion I did. It's obvious. I'm not reading too much into it. I'm just recognizing Lucas's obvious intentions. The later part of the film is very obviously all about tying ROTS in with ANH and the "Tarkin" appearance is very obviously just more of the same. It's clearly setting up the ANH situation. Do you honestly think Lucas didn't put him in there for a reason? It was alll about tying up ROTS with ANH. That's obvious.
Vaderisnothayden:
Yes it is laid out for you obviously. Here's Tarkin already implied to be at the center of things and hanging out with Vader 20 years before ANH, as if nothing developed in all that time.
Rhikter:
If it is implied, it's a very light implication. One might say "circumstantial evidence" at best. I just don't see how you can get all this big stuff from such a small amount of screen time.
No it's not a light implication. It's very clearly conspicuously implied. And implications in film don't work by courtroom evidence rules. You shouldn't need something proven for you onscreen courtroom style to recognize it's in the film. This is an important point for reading film -a lot of things in film are suggested rather the spelled out. That's how film works. As for how I can get that stuff from what we see onscreen, it's right there in the image of Tarkin lumped with the bosses of the empire 20 years before ANH in a scene that's clearly meant to set up the ANH situation. He's not put with them for no reason. This isn't a real live world you're watching, in which things happen for any old reason. This is something created by a filmmaker who puts things on the screen to convey certain things. Tarkin being put with Vader and Palpatine in a key scene representative of the rise of the empire, 20 years before ANH, implies he's important in the empire twenty years before ANH and implies he's associating with the Emperor and Vader twenty years before ANH.
Not to say I think it looks like Peter Cushing. I just doesn't look to me like this person on screen couldn't, in 20 years, look like Peter Cushing's Tarkin.
He could only look like Cushing in 20 years if he could morph into another person. This is a very different person with a very individual look. It's not Tarkin.
Vaderisnothayden:
Nor do I think Ewan was all that good as Kenobi. I think people put his performance on a pedestal because it was way better than Hayden's. I don't think he makes a great connection with the viewer, unlike Guinness. And he came off totally false (like Hayden and Natalie) in AOTC, while in ROTS he usually wasn't much to cheer about either. He was a bit more alive in TPM, but nothing special. A lot of the time his performance was pretty bland. If his performance had been all that good, the prequels would have been better than they were. As it is, he had his moments, but his work was often mediocre and sometimes pretty bad.
Rhikter
I don't deny that there are some pretty bad performances in the PT, but why all the actor bashing, especially on performers who have proven themselves exceptional in work outside of Star Wars (i.e. not Hayden)? If anything what we should be saying is "Gosh, it's such a shame that GL didn't give Ewan the resources he needed to make his performance really shine."
You seem to be operating under the assumption that it's somehow wrong and nasty to criticise an actor's performances. It's not. It's part of the acting business that performances get criticised. It's fair game. Art of any sort is up for criticism. That is a very important principle. And just because an actor isn't Hayden doesn't mean their performance shouldn't be criticised. Hayden wasn't the only actor who did awful annoying painful work in the prequels. As it is, all I did was some pretty mild balanced acting criticism, so there's no call to be getting all offended and complain about "actor bashing". Just because an actor did good work outside the prequels doesn't mean we should pretend ther prequel performance was ok and not criticise it. And I disagree with your example of what you think we should be saying on the topic. I don't think we need to bend over backwards like that to avoid being critical in tone about performances that very much deserve criticism. And Ewan's performance was worse than just not shining. We have every right and reason to directly criticise any performance in the prequels that is bad and helps to make the prequels as bad as they are. Without any pussy-footing around about it. Ewan's performance involved some distinctly bad stuff and gave us yet another unrelatable uninvolving prequel character. Criticism is due. I'm certainly not going to pussy-foot around on the topic and if you were familiar with my posting on this board you would know that. Ewan and Natalie screwed up badly in the prequels and that added to how bad those films were. That is a fact and I intend to say so.