The problem is that Qui-Gon is an awesome character... in the EU. For whatever reason I've held onto those Jedi Apprentice books, and some of them still hold up pretty well. However, it shouldn't be left to the EU for a character to be explained, let alone be likable.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
TPM IS eu.
Vaderisnothayden said:
TPM IS eu.
bkev said:
The problem is that Qui-Gon is an awesome character... in the EU. For whatever reason I've held onto those Jedi Apprentice books, and some of them still hold up pretty well. However, it shouldn't be left to the EU for a character to be explained, let alone be likable.
Jedi Apprentice was the best thing to come out of the Prequels-hands down!! Even though they were "for children" they still hold up really well. You actually get a sense of the stubborn character of Qui-Gon (not to mention actually liking the now three dimensional character) along with the foundations of Obi-Wan's character.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
TV's Frink said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
TPM IS eu.
And you go by wookieepedia's definition of eu? How follow-the-herd.
Not really. I admit that I don't know a thing about the EU (other than reading the Thraw Trilogy years ago). I just like Wookieepedia because it has a clever name and it has a page for my buddy Ric.
My opinion is that the EU is how you define it. I don't have a problem with you or anyone else saying that everything is EU except for the OT. I certainly understand why you feel that way and won't try to convince you otherwise. But I enjoy the PT (well, the fanedits of the PT, anyway), and so for me, anything except the OT and PT is the EU.
Um, the EU really isn't up for debate on its definition, its the "expanded universe" which makes it everything that isn't the films. You can chose to ignore whatever films you like, for instance the OT is clearly a seperate story reality from the PT to some, but this is a different matter. To say defining something that is "EU" as "EU" is "following the herd" is a bit stupid since LFL are the ones who coined the very term "expanded universe" to describe the extra-film stories. I mean, by this logic using the very term "EU" is following the herd since you are abiding by the company terminology. What you really mean is that you acknowledge certain story elements and not others. EU is just the label ascribed to the merchandise that isn't an episodic film.
Lucas' role in the prequels should have been the same as Empire Strikes Back:
Write the story and pay for it, let other people do the rest.
Instead, he decided to write and direct it all by himself (Jonathan Hales co-wrote the Clones screenplay, credit where credit's due).
The Special Edition in '97 was Lucas going "I am the auteur of these movies even though I only directed one of them."
But that's the thing. Giving the OT an update in the form of the SE wouldn't have been so bad if it didn't mean going onto a PT where close to every last shot has some sort of cgi effect in it. It's pretty ridiculous when you consider how each of the original films only had a year of post-production whereas the prequels had two years.
zombie84 said:
Um, the EU really isn't up for debate on its definition, its the "expanded universe" which makes it everything that isn't the films. You can chose to ignore whatever films you like, for instance the OT is clearly a seperate story reality from the PT to some, but this is a different matter. To say defining something that is "EU" as "EU" is "following the herd" is a bit stupid since LFL are the ones who coined the very term "expanded universe" to describe the extra-film stories. I mean, by this logic using the very term "EU" is following the herd since you are abiding by the company terminology. What you really mean is that you acknowledge certain story elements and not others. EU is just the label ascribed to the merchandise that isn't an episodic film.
Expanded universes are an idea that exists outside Star wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_universe We can thus acknowledge the existence of a Star wars eu without having to follow Lucasfilm's definition of it. We can draw our own lines dividing EU off from core material without following theirs. To many people, the PT is eu, which I think is being quite generous to it. As it stands, the eu's definition is often debated and its boundaries are not universallly seen as being so clear-cut as you describe them. The status of novelizations and ewok movies and whatnot is much debated in Star wars fandom. Also relevant here is that there's a personal conflict involved here in that this comes on the end of a weeks-long conflict between me and TV's Frink on the off-topic board. Being used to sneers from him, I took his post to be a sneer at me, implying I didn't know what I was talking about while deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that I was clearly rejecting the official definition of the eu. Hence the herd-following comment.
Vaderisnothayden said: I took his post to be a sneer at me, implying I didn't know what I was talking about while deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that I was clearly rejecting the official definition of the eu. Hence the herd-following comment.
That was neither clear nor obvious to me as an impartial observer. Your post stating, "TPM IS eu," came across as a simple factual correction to the poster before you. You did not preface the statement with a phrase, such as "from my point of view" or "it could be argued", that might have made it clear that you were rejecting the accepted definition of EU.
I had exactly the same thought as TV's Frink when I saw your post. If he had not posted a link to a definition, I would have been sorely tempted to do so.
Chewtobacca said:
Vaderisnothayden said: I took his post to be a sneer at me, implying I didn't know what I was talking about while deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that I was clearly rejecting the official definition of the eu. Hence the herd-following comment.
That was neither clear nor obvious to me as an impartial observer. Your post stating, "TPM IS eu," came across as a simple factual correction to the poster before you. You did not preface the statement with a phrase, such as "from my point of view" or "it could be argued", that might have made it clear that you were rejecting the accepted definition of EU.
I had exactly the same thought as TV's Frink when I saw your post. If he had not posted a link to a definition, I would have been sorely tempted to do so.
That would have been assuming I was too dumb to know the official definition of EU. I try to avoid making such assumptions about people when there's another obvious explanation. Like if you didn't assume I was dumb you'd figure I knew the official version and was discarding it. The view that the pt is eu despite Lucasfilm's view is common enough.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Chewtobacca said:
That was neither clear nor obvious to me as an impartial observer. Your post stating, "TPM IS eu," came across as a simple factual correction to the poster before you. You did not preface the statement with a phrase, such as "from my point of view" or "it could be argued", that might have made it clear that you were rejecting the accepted definition of EU.
I had exactly the same thought as TV's Frink when I saw your post. If he had not posted a link to a definition, I would have been sorely tempted to do so.
That would have been assuming I was too dumb to know the official definition of EU. I try to avoid making such assumptions about people when there's another obvious explanation. Like if you didn't assume I was dumb you'd figure I knew the official version and was discarding it. The view that the pt is eu despite Lucasfilm's view is common enough.
VINH (see, I'm using your correct name now, as you are using mine), I appreciate that you are acknowledging my presence once again (no sarcasm intended). I apologized for my childish name calling and I shall do so again here.
However, I continue to insist that you are too sensitive for your own good. My linking to the Wookieepedia article was not an attempt to call you "dumb." Believe me, I have read plenty of your posts on the EU to know that you are familiar with the official definition. I just didn't feel like typing out a long argument on the subject. And frankly, I knew it would annoy you a little, again, because you are too sensitive.
I really think you take yourself too seriously in these debates. I will continue to make fun of you (and similar posters like skyjedi) because I do not take these debates too seriously. I know my teasing will continue to "offend" you, but there's little I can do about that. But I will refrain from calling you names again.
The PT kicks the OT's ass!!!!!!!!!!! (kidding)
-TVF
Vaderisnothayden said:
That would have been assuming I was too dumb to know the official definition of EU. I try to avoid making such assumptions about people when there's another obvious explanation. Like if you didn't assume I was dumb you'd figure I knew the official version and was discarding it.
I made no assumption about whether or not you were "dumb". I simply described how your post came across.
Not knowing something does not make one "dumb" - simply unaware. It was possible, in my mind, that you had made an honest error.
Seeing as this is a discussion board it would be beneficial if we assumed that all posts were from "a certain point of view" unless stated otherwise.
It's a real pain whenever someone chirps in and vents a built up frustration about the perceived haughtiness of a postee based on their non-disclosure of their humble or honest opinion or personal view (IMHO) ;-)
Bingowings said:
Seeing as this is a discussion board it would be beneficial if we assumed that all posts were from "a certain point of view" unless stated otherwise.
It's a real pain whenever someone chirps in and vents a built up frustration about the perceived haughtiness of a postee based on their non-disclosure of their humble or honest opinion or personal view (IMHO) ;-)
On a discussion board, people will always post both factual statements and opinions, and it does not seem at all beneficial me to treat what sound like factual statements as opinions. I don't see that any "perceived haughtiness" was at work here: what sounded for all the world like a factual statement quite naturally provoked a correction because it was phrased in a categorical way.
TV's Frink said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Chewtobacca said:
That was neither clear nor obvious to me as an impartial observer. Your post stating, "TPM IS eu," came across as a simple factual correction to the poster before you. You did not preface the statement with a phrase, such as "from my point of view" or "it could be argued", that might have made it clear that you were rejecting the accepted definition of EU.
I had exactly the same thought as TV's Frink when I saw your post. If he had not posted a link to a definition, I would have been sorely tempted to do so.
That would have been assuming I was too dumb to know the official definition of EU. I try to avoid making such assumptions about people when there's another obvious explanation. Like if you didn't assume I was dumb you'd figure I knew the official version and was discarding it. The view that the pt is eu despite Lucasfilm's view is common enough.
VINH (see, I'm using your correct name now, as you are using mine), I appreciate that you are acknowledging my presence once again (no sarcasm intended). I apologized for my childish name calling and I shall do so again here.
However, I continue to insist that you are too sensitive for your own good. My linking to the Wookieepedia article was not an attempt to call you "dumb." Believe me, I have read plenty of your posts on the EU to know that you are familiar with the official definition. I just didn't feel like typing out a long argument on the subject. And frankly, I knew it would annoy you a little, again, because you are too sensitive.
I really think you take yourself too seriously in these debates. I will continue to make fun of you (and similar posters like skyjedi) because I do not take these debates too seriously. I know my teasing will continue to "offend" you, but there's little I can do about that. But I will refrain from calling you names again.
The PT kicks the OT's ass!!!!!!!!!!! (kidding)
-TVF
Taking things seriously is not a crime. Far more offensive is going around sniggering at other posters, insulting them or criticising them. It seems pretty weird to me that the former should be considered unacceptable and the latter ok.
I just didn't feel like typing out a long argument on the subject. And frankly, I knew it would annoy you a little, again, because you are too sensitive.
Please drop this myth that I get offended by people just disagreeing with me. Had you merely disagreed with me, such as saying you didn't believe the PT should be called EU and saying you believed we should stick to the official definition of the eu, I would have disagreed with you, but I would not have gotten offended.
I don't think it's your buisiness to criticise me, nor do I think you have license to poke fun at me. (And you have done a lot worse than merely "tease".)
Chewtobacca said:
Bingowings said:
Seeing as this is a discussion board it would be beneficial if we assumed that all posts were from "a certain point of view" unless stated otherwise.
It's a real pain whenever someone chirps in and vents a built up frustration about the perceived haughtiness of a postee based on their non-disclosure of their humble or honest opinion or personal view (IMHO) ;-)
On a discussion board, people will always post both factual statements and opinions, and it does not seem at all beneficial me to treat what sound like factual statements as opinions. I don't see that any "perceived haughtiness" was at work here: what sounded for all the world like a factual statement quite naturally provoked a correction because it was phrased in a categorical way.
It wasn't phrased as a neutral factual statement. That would have been "PT is eu". Instead I said "PT IS eu". The stress on the "is" indicated that I was arguing a contentious point, some that needed to be defended and fought for, rather than merely providing information. If I was merely stating what I thought was the accepted orthodox position I would not have needed that stress on the "is". One could still misread it as merely attempting to go by the orthodox position, but the clue was there. And this is OT.com, where people choose to reject the PT. It's not a big jump in thinking to recognize my statement as more of that. And many people on this board are familiar with my posting and views. They know I reject the pt and that I am aware of the official definition and that I wouldn't be making a big mistake like that and that I would be likely to state pt-rejecting views.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Expanded universes are an idea that exists outside Star wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_universe We can thus acknowledge the existence of a Star wars eu without having to follow Lucasfilm's definition of it.
And you go by wikipedia's definition of eu? How follow-the-herd.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
Vaderisnothayden said:
Please drop this myth that I get offended by people just disagreeing with me. Had you merely disagreed with me, such as saying you didn't believe the PT should be called EU and saying you believed we should stick to the official definition of the eu, I would have disagreed with you, but I would not have gotten offended.
I don't think it's your buisiness to criticise me, nor do I think you have license to poke fun at me. (And you have done a lot worse than merely "tease".)
We've both gone off topic so I don't want spend too much more time on this. Call it a myth if you want, but I stand by belief that you are too sensitive and you get offended at the drop of a hat. I've read through plenty of your other posts (ones I was not involved in) and it seems obvious to me.
You're right, "teasing" was a poor word for me to use, as we do not have a friendly relationship. "Mock" would have been more fair. I don't think it's your place to tell me that I have no business criticizing you. If you want me to stop, either prove me wrong, ignore me, or go complain to your Moth3r or Jay-daddy. I hope you do go complain - I suspect they'll tell you to get over yourself. If I'm wrong, I'll drop it.
Akwat Kbrana said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Expanded universes are an idea that exists outside Star wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_universe We can thus acknowledge the existence of a Star wars eu without having to follow Lucasfilm's definition of it.
And you go by wikipedia's definition of eu? How follow-the-herd.
Lol. Nice one :-)
Now then...
I've heard a lot of good about this TPM review and I'm looking forward to watching it in the next few days. I did sample it a bit after burning it, and I'm not sure I can take the dude's voice for 70 minutes. But we'll see.
Man.....this whole thing concerning VINH sounds familiar to me for some reason.
Star Wars Episode XXX: Erica Strikes Back
If you want Nice, go to France
TV's Frink said:
I've heard a lot of good about this TPM review and I'm looking forward to watching it in the next few days. I did sample it a bit after burning it, and I'm not sure I can take the dude's voice for 70 minutes. But we'll see.
Don't forget that the youtube segments are about ten minutes each, so you can easily watch the review by segment rather than all in one sitting. :)
Personally, I'd planned to do that, but found it so entertaining that seventy minutes blew by before I knew it, and I'd done watched the entire thing.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
Vaderisnothayden said:
It wasn't phrased as a neutral factual statement.
Oh yes it was. Writing a word in capitals has nothing to do with how it is phrased. Phrasing has to do with the words used, not the orthography.
Vaderisnothayden said:
The stress on the "is" indicated that I was arguing a contentious point, some that needed to be defended and fought for, rather than merely providing information.
Using capitals usually means the opposite. Example: You ARE wrong. I'm certainly not trying to signal that this statement is contentious, quite the opposite: it comes across as, "I know better and the capitals emphasise the fact."
Neither I, nor TV's Frink, nor anyone else read your post as anything other than a factual statement meant to correct the person you quoted. If you wish to provide clues, you might you might wish to be clearer in future, for those of us who don't share your obscure writing style.
Davnes007 said:
Man.....this whole thing concerning VINH sounds familiar to me for some reason.
Exactly.
Akwat Kbrana said:
TV's Frink said:
I've heard a lot of good about this TPM review and I'm looking forward to watching it in the next few days. I did sample it a bit after burning it, and I'm not sure I can take the dude's voice for 70 minutes. But we'll see.
Don't forget that the youtube segments are about ten minutes each, so you can easily watch the review by segment rather than all in one sitting. :)
I was already going to watch it over a couple sittings, but good point.
doubleofive said:
There can be no "prequel person" response to this. You cannot defend a movie without a protagonist, introduction, plot, or sense. As weird as some of the off topic wanderings, you can't ignore that every point he made was right on the money, though maybe could have been put more eloquently.
Except it really isn't "right on the money" at all. The protagonist clearly is Anakin, whom might I add, being 10 at the time of release I identified quite nicely with- he is not an unlikable character, and honestly I think people who dislike him simply hate kids and won't admit they're a bunch of old cranks. But even without him you can quickly make out from the beginning that Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon are the characters we are following and that it is their adventure. And this actually follows the structure of ANH quite closely by introducing us to the world and the other characters through the two characters who ultimately ends up being probably the least important to the narrative.
That's 3x protagonism right there. 4 if you count Padmé.
And I wouldn't call it plotless either. Maybe you slept through the opening crawl, but it's being made clear that there is a trade dispute, and that the trade federation is quite upset with this and want to force something they want with a blockade. We really don't need to know more than this to understand the story. And considering the rest of the Prequels I'm actually surprised we don't get every detail scrutinously painted out. The important bits is that it's all a plot by the sith. And this leads me to one of the real problems with the movie. There's a lot of accusations about Jar Jar Binks and weak story and blah blah blah floating around. These really aren't the problems the film has. The real problems is that it spends an ungodly amount of time on... well, nothing at all really. There's maybe one or two scenes in the whole movie that are actually relevant to anything we should know. The real problem is that fundamentally it's not a story that takes place within the same continuity as the OT. The script may or may not have at one point. But ultimately it turned into something else. Much like the OT's scripts turned into what they are I suppose. I don't understand why people drone on and on about Jar Jar Binks and Hayden Christensen and all that jazz and almost never touch upon these things. RedLetterMedia is no less guilty.
You may argue that it is senseless in a lot of places. But hey, this is STAR WARS. The ultimate in space opera cheese. It never really made any sense. It's a blind collection of stereotyped plot devices thrown together in a big tasty, cheesy pot. ANH itself doesn't make too much sense most of the time. But that's part of the fun.
And ultimately as a movie it's quite enjoyable, between the pod race and the very well put together finale sequence there's a couple of good popcorn hours to be found inthere. Narrative genius? Perhaps not. But certainly narratively accomplished.
Also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJKMmwvo7Y
Hats off to Pernilla August for that performance.
The protagonist is meant to be the needle that guides us through the thread of the story.
Anakin doesn't turn up until more than a third of the way through the story and is absent for much of the action that takes place even after we meet him.
Even if you can channel yourself into the mind of this largely featureless place holder of a character you can't use him as a guide to what is happening in this story.
Luke in the PT may not be physically present in every scene but is largely the focus from ANH through ROTJ.
The nearest thing we have to a protagonist is Padme in TPM.
The struggle of the film is largely hers and Anakin is as much a secondary character in that story as Qui-Gon or Palpatine.
Sadly there isn't much development of her character, she hits one tone throughout.
If she started out as someone willing to defer to mechanisms of the Republic but then come to lose faith in it and take matters into her own hands her path would have been similar to Luke's (willing to defer to his Uncle's demands until events allow him to stand on his own feet).
The bare bones of that are there but it's not worked on and actually undermined by the hamfisted deployment of the decoy plot device borrowed from The Hidden Fortress.
The film needed a re-write.
The sad thing is most of the elements could have made for a very good film with a bit of re-shuffling and merging Qui-Gon with Obi-Wan to make a single character with more depth.
Re-editing can nudge it a bit nearer to being a better film but really only remaking the thing can really save it.
The tone is way off too.
We really don't feel that Naboo is suffering or that Anakin and his mother aren't better off as slaves (which is a big mistake).
If Anakin and his friends were kept as Pod jockeys (because of their size) it could explain why his life as a slave doesn't seem superficially so harsh.
The threat could then have been from being forced with his friends to race until they ultimately died in the arena.
His mother and the other adult slaves could be breeding stock for producing other racers and if he was lucky enough to survive his childhood of racing he could become a trainer (still a slave).
That would have made sense of the slave quarter.
Having a pod race where the racers were either small aliens or other children would have added a darkness to the podrace on par with the murder of Owen and Beru.
Sebulba as another human child and a rival to Anakin would have been much more interesting especially if the character turned up later as rival student in the Jedi Temple (thus intensifying the Vader revelation in ESB).
At least in Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (for all it's many flaws) child slavery is made to be the horror that it is.