"explanations" about Vader — Page 2

Erikstormtrooper said:

I think Tarkin should have been in the PT more. Regardless of the quality of the makeup, it would have bridged the trilogies better. Does anyone complain about Obi-Wan's character because he didn't look enough like Alec Guiness?

Tarkin could have saved Anakin from the lava. Or been a close adviser to Palpatine. Tarkin's a cold calculating bastard, and they could have had a lot of fun getting him in the PT.

I'm not sure about Tarkin, the way I see it The Clone Wars (which killed billions) could be seen by the reactionary element of the military as the fault of the Jedi and flaky democracy.

I always thought that people like Tarkin were legitimately concerned with restoring and maintaining order, they just went around it in a tyrannical and undemocratic way.

Proof that the ends do not always justify the means.

Palpatine is truly evil but Tarkin came across to me as someone who would enforce peace in a ruthless fashion.

Rhikter said:

It's not like it's laid out in front of you waving a Mr. Obvious cap.

Oooh, where can I get me one of those?

Erikstormtrooper said:

I think Tarkin should have been in the PT more. Regardless of the quality of the makeup, it would have bridged the trilogies better. Does anyone complain about Obi-Wan's character because he didn't look enough like Alec Guiness?

Tarkin could have saved Anakin from the lava. Or been a close adviser to Palpatine. Tarkin's a cold calculating bastard, and they could have had a lot of fun getting him in the PT.

That's giving Tarkin too much significance in the Star wars universe. He's not meant to be that central a guy. Having him all over the PT would definitely have been like making Chewbacca and Yoda best buds. As it is, his appearance was already in that direction

Rhikter said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

It most definitely does detract. It increases the ridiculous end of ROTS = start of ANH factor, making the universe yet smaller.

I don't think I understand what you mean by this.

So nothing changes in 20 years. Tarkin goes with the Death Star...

I think that's an interpretation you have to choose to make.  It's not like it's laid out in front of you waving a Mr. Obvious cap.  You can't say that, just because Tarkin took a brief stroll across a Star Destroyer's bridge whilst overseeing the Death Star's construction one afternoon, that he hung around for an extra 20 years after that.

...which should never have been in the prequels.

Yeah, I'm forced to agree.

Nor is Tarkin's appearance merely an easter egg like those things you mentioned..

You're right, I could have described it better.  Easter Egg is not the right term.  It is similar to an Easter Egg in that, yes, it is fan service.  However, it's harmless fan services as opposed to obtrusive fan service (EX: Boba Fett in AotC, Chewbacca in RotS, or the Death Star in the PT).

Vaderisnothayden said:

It most definitely does detract. It increases the ridiculous end of ROTS = start of ANH factor, making the universe yet smaller.

Rhikter said:

I don't think I understand what you mean by this.

It's like making Chewie and Yoda best buds. It makes the universe smaller. Lucas made the status of the universe at the end of ROTS match ANH too much, allowing little room for change over 20 years. 3PO and R2 are with the same captain on the same ship and the Death Star is already well on its way and Tarkin is already hanging out with Vader. It's like 5 minutes pass between ROTS and ANH.

Vaderisnothayden:

So nothing changes in 20 years. Tarkin goes with the Death Star...

Rhikter:

I think that's an interpretation you have to choose to make.  It's not like it's laid out in front of you waving a Mr. Obvious cap.  You can't say that, just because Tarkin took a brief stroll across a Star Destroyer's bridge whilst overseeing the Death Star's construction one afternoon, that he hung around for an extra 20 years after that.

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. 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. And he's tied in with the Death Star being built already at the end of ROTS, which shouldn't have happened. The ROTJ Death Star took about a year to build, so it's a bit  far fetched that the original would take 20 years. It makes it look like imperial technology didn't develop much in twenty years. In ANH, the Death Star was clearly intended to be cutting edge and something most people had never heard of, not something the imperials had been working on for twenty years. If the Death Star was developed so much back then, then wtf changed in 20 years?

You're right, I could have described it better.  Easter Egg is not the right term.  It is similar to an Easter Egg in that, yes, it is fan service.  However, it's harmless fan services as opposed to obtrusive fan service (EX: Boba Fett in AotC, Chewbacca in RotS, or the Death Star in the PT).

I'm not sure it's a fan service. It may be just a Lucas service. Put in just so Lucas can feel he has one continuous tied-together story, like Hayden being put in ROTJ. Same goes for Chewbacca and the Death Star.

And if it was a fan service, it certainly wouldn't be a harmless one. It's precisely the same as putting the Death Star in the PT and tied to that. 

Jeez, I wish this whole thread hadn't become about Tarkin. I started it to find out info about stuff that had nothing to do with Tarkin.

C3PX said:

Rhikter said:

C3PX said:

...I chalked it up to typical bad CG, when in reality it is was bad makeup job.

I personally don't have any problem with Tarkin's appearance in RotS.  I felt like they successfully managed to portray him as younger, and even more built.

Yeah, that portrait shot of Wayne Pygram in his Tarkin make-up is pretty messy, but in RotS, since he's only in a wide shot, all I see is a Tarkin that's 20 years younger with broad shoulders and a chiseled jaw.

 

I am wondering if we saw the same film?

This is what I remember,

Which I think looks absolutely awful. I couldn't find a larger resolution image than this one, but in higher resolution he looks even more awful than this. He just looks fake, even more so when the shot is in motion.

 

 

Well, to me "Tarkin" there looks like the actor Wayne Pygram in his Scorpius role, which is Pygram in a skull mask basically.

http://www.farscapefantasy.com/creative/gallery/372.jpg

But yeah, I agree with you that Tarkin's character would have made a nice addition to the series, he was a fantastic villian, one of my favorite SW characters actually, way more interesting than wasted and empty villians like poor Dooku and Grevious. I would have liked to see Tarkin's character play a much bigger role in the PT, but as I said before, I am not so sure they could have filled Cushing's shoes (though once I may have said the same about Alec Guiness' shoes, yet I feel Ewan was beyond perfect for that role which makes it all the more ashame he was given nothing but crap to work with).

I think it would be better not having yet another situation where another actor is supposed to be the same character, a situation best avoided when possible. It was necessary with Kenobi and Anakin. It was not necessary with Tarkin.

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.

SilverWook said:

  

Tarkin wearing the same uniform for twenty years might explain the stench though! ;)

 lol

Not having Vader in "prototype" armor modeled after McQuarrie's early concept art was a missed opportunity. Not to mention the suit looks too modern compared to the 1977 costume.

The prototype armor would have been a good idea. But Lucas clearly wanted everything  to match up perfectly with the OT. So Anakin's ghost has to be Hayden. And Leia's memories of her mother, no wait what about Leia's memories of her mother? ;) I think there's been some claim that the Leia's memories thing willl be tied up in the live action show, but we all know it'll just be some messy fix patched on to fix up where George messed up. Though I'm sure we'll be told it's story Lucas had all along.

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.

... and knowing is half the battle!  (To finish your reference, Gaff)