logo Sign In

What did we all expect from the Prequel Trilogy?

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Hey y'all.

I remember only too well the uneasy feelings I had going into the theatre to see The Phantom Menace in 1999. I had already been thinking about the changes to the 1997 versions of the trilogy and how they just didn't seem like they belonged, they 'felt' wrong somehow.

As I waited in line for my session to go in I looked at the hundreds of other GenXers in the crowd, some in costume, some with their own kids but all with a particular look in their eyes, a far away stare like a kid who can't believe that his parents actually got him what he really wanted for christmas.

I had grown suspicious due to internet talk about a CGI Stepin Fetchit character named Jar Jar who damned near ruins the film but I was still shocked and excited to once more be standing in line for a Star Wars film having seen the originals in their initial runs here in Sydney when I was a wee lad. I remember the excitement of playground Star Wars where we'd each pretend to be a character and act out the film as we remembered it, then later as the toys became more widely available we would play in the forested area of the schoolgrounds having new adventures and loving George's creation.

Flashforward to 1999 and approximately 130 odd minutes later and my excitement had slowly and excruciatingly turned to quiet and then not so quiet disappointment as I have previously written here and continued on the next page here.

Now I know that the excitement one feels as a child and the awe of experiencing something new for the first time can never be recaptured but I was not looking to have my youth back I was merely hoping for some connection to the original films which I had grown to appreciate over the two decades since. The vibe was not there, this was not a film from the same style or mold and it 'felt' wrong.

I have been told, mainly by blinded apologists, that these films are not meant to be viewed critically as thet are for children. Well that may be true of the PT but it was not exclusively true for the OT. My parents loved these films when they came out. They took me to the cinema and I didn't have to drag them along. They saw Star Wars and figured it might be something I would like.

I have since studied these original films academically, like a great many of you, and as we know they do conform to the monomyth of the Hero's Journey and are technically brilliant films presenting a rich lived in galaxy with well defined characters and snappy memorable banter. They are an allegory for the Vietnam war and a corrupt and powerful government ruled by a cruel dictator who is surrounded by 'yes'-men but who ultimately comes undone through his own hubris. The films show over and again that that a willing spirit can defeat technology. The intertextuality of themes, scenes, characters, mythology and plot are many and varied.

In short they are modern classics.

The origins of Star Wars have been well detailed. They were meant, first and foremost to be a fairytale for the modern era cribbing this and that from here and there and making it a unified whole which would appeal to all ages in every country.

Then came the prequels.

Bored actors playing uninteresting characters reading stilted dialogue to hamfistedly advance an overly complicated plot whose only purpose seems to be to show off as many CGI sets and toyetic creatures as possible in two hours. Bleh. Take away Williams' music and the opening crawl and you wouldn't even know it was a Star Wars film at all, and most people wouldn't give it a second glance if you did.

I never saw AOTC in the cinema and I only just recently sat through the whole thing, MF's version thanks to Rikter. Thanks again man. Clearly these are not the films we were expecting after the sixteen year wait.

I had been expecting something more like what John L. Flynn writes about in his essay Looking Back To The Future Of Star Wars. All the information was there in GL's original drafts of The Star Wars so why did he choose to ignore it and tell a tale of taxation and whatever else?

So my question is what did YOU expect from the Prequels?
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
I expected:

(a) a darker, moodier feel to both ATOC and TPM and I guess a more 'mature' film.
(b) more original Star Wars music. I was very disappointed with the music in TPM, you had the opening crawl music and the closing title, but pretty much nothing else!
(c) a decent villain, ie more screen time for Maul

I guess this question could be better answered by what I wasn't expecting and resulted in me too going, "This is not Star Wars!":

(a) Jar Jar- fart jokes, slap stick every 5 minutes, IS NOT STAR WARS.
(b) the 'sleek' design of everything.
(c) all that CGI
(d) Qui gon not disappearing


Author
Time
Post link
I guess I would say that I had pretty high expectations. These stemmed from the greatness of the OT, and more importantly from the teaser trailer for TPM. I remember the first night we downloaded it, we must have watched it 100 times. I remember guaranteeing the other dudes I was with that if it didn't beat Titanic's box office, I'd eat my keyboard. And well, then TPM came out, and was, you know... I didn't, however, consider it a total failure. Then the DVD came out, and I really fell in love with it (even though I still thought it was crappy).

Then came AOTC. I was willing to give the PT another shot, especially since everyone was shouting about how "George is going eliminate the things he did wrong in TPM". Well, to quote Jeff Goldblum, "he didn't make the same mistakes, he made all new ones". I can't describe it any other way. AOTC was so horrifying that I'm not even remotely interested in Episode III.

Anyway, the bottom line with me is that I expected more. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I honestly believe that given the budget ($100+ million), resources (ILM, THX, ect), acting talent (Samuel Jackson, Ewen McGregor, ect) and especially the source material, the prequels couldn't possibly be worse. There are too many flaws and mistakes to point out one by one, but I think I can cover them in one general complaint, and that is my belief that George Lucas wasn't interested in making the best films possible. I expected more, George.
40,000 million notches away
Author
Time
Post link
I had some expectations coming into the theater, being a big fan at the age of 10, nearly 11 at the time. I had watched the OT and afterwards the SE thousands of times and had already read many of the EU novels, the adult ones. I went in there with quite a few preconceived notions. And it seems I was one of the few who was PLEASANTLY surprised. I loved The Phantom Menace. I thought so the first time I watched it. Strange, I know it is to read. I can personally testify to many of the negative reviews associated with this movie and Attack of the Clones. Yet, I still loved it. I remember I watched it 2-3 times in the theater and waiting a whole month the next year to get my widescreen tape with soundtrack my mom bought me for my 12th birthday. And I had an interesting idea with The Phantom Menace. My goal was to watch it 100 times before the then untitled Attack of the Clones hit theaters. I counted up to (including theater viewings and rental of pan and scan) 28 times, bare minimum. I didn't quite get there by the end of it, I stopped counting but I didn't stop watching. I could go on and on why I like it, the different scenes that keep me glueing to my seat, but the question was expectations. When I saw the Breathing Teaser for Attack of the Clones I was thinking, this is going to be even better and wow is it good. I hoped to see Anakin and Obi-Wan finally start that long and arduous relationship of theirs, more with Padme, the Jedi Council, Supreme Chancellor Palptine, and the three whimsical characters Jar Jar, C-3PO, and R2-D2. And I got all that and more. To me, a great love story that in some ways I like more then Han/Leia, some less. I look both on my big screen and enjoy them immensely. I'll never forget their scenes together or my favorite one connected to it with Ani/Padme, when he must choose whether he will jump off the gunship. And I must say, as much as I truly love them as well, I think both Han and Luke would have jumped right off, unfortunately.
Finally, I will also mention yes I liked the SE, I don't hate the OT, I love the OT as well because I have the LD's and stuff, and I will be buying the DVD set. Hopefully the same day so I won't have to watch, and yes I am a PROUD owner of my DVD's of The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.


That will conclude my two cents.
Author
Time
Post link
Great monologue there. You seem to have taken a very intelligent view on the prequels without resorting to too much general bashing (IE, there seems to be a point to everything you said.

I don't think the prequels were "as bad as all that," but after reading SW Insider leading up to it (I have since canceled my subscription, thank Christ) and being a fan in general I expected quite a bit more. Most of the talent was wasted. Such a shame to see a great actor like Neeson being misused.

That being said, I look forward to Episode III. AOTC was a noticable improvement over TPM, and I'm hoping to see that same jump in quality.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
Personally, I read the novel of TPM before the movie came out. I had a great time waiting for tickets and to see the film. I saw it three times in the theater, bought the widescreen tape, than bought is again when I found a cheap used copy. I even bought the DVD. I saw AOTC in the theaters, but I wasn't as big on Star Wars at the time. I enjoyed both films.

How'd I do this, you ask. Simple. I didn't go in expecting the OT. I know that the reason I love the OT so much is because I grew up with them. Same goes for the original Star Trek. I knew that no matter how good the PT is, it shall never measure up to the OT. End of story. So I went in expecting enjoyable films that didn't contradict the EU, which I got. Sure they could be better. Yes, Lucas should have wrote them in his prime. Sure there are things that bug me(such as killing off Qui-Gon and Darth Maul before really using them). Maybe they aren't the films people expected. Then again, I found that most people had too high of expectations to begin with.


Made for IE Forum's Episode III theme month - May 2005.

Author
Time
Post link
Figirin' Dan was right on the money. I expected something more mature, something darker. If these are troubled times and something evil is moving behind the scenes let us feel this. The slaves (anakin and his mother) being held captive by...Watto...a flying CG character with a dirty Italian accent. Bad. It could've been darker there. No Jar-Jar, flat out, GL was lazy with CG and overused it. When CG is combined with slapstick and regular characters all I think of is...Roger Rabbit. Jar-Jar, Dex, Watto, Gungans, those retarded Roger-Roger droids...its overkill. The ships looked more real in the old trilogy when they were models. I say only use CG here and there to add to the movie not become the movie (LOTR used it appropriately). I really would've like to have seen more darth maul (didn't GL learn his lesson when he killed of Boba in a stupid way). Maul and Obi-wan should've been the main characters. There is no central character. BTW, dooku was stupid and not threatening in the least (unless we were given a darker back story). I expected Anakin to not be a whoopie type of kid and a whiny brat as a teen. Irritating, whether that is realistic or not, I don't want it. This is a kid held captive in slavery in a very seedy place, less whoopie and more harsh world quietly poignant (haley-joel osment in Sixth Sense for Episode I would've worked). The more music is a good point, there is music, but we needed more of the original score. The Yoda is Episode I is worse than the Yoda of 1981, why? No the CG worked pretty well for Yoda in Episode II, but still could be better to me (gollum?!)

What kills me is when I watch the deleted scenes with commentary in Episode II and every scene GL says this would've added alot to the plot or developed the characters. And they did, I liked almost all those scenes. Yet, he dropped them for time he says. So we get that crappy scene with Anakin riding that Bull thing in the pasture wooing padme...c'mon. We get a little brat telling Obi-wan the planet is gone...rrggh, that's irritating on two counts, Obi-wan is a jedi and its cooler for him to figure it out himself...but also GL puts a wise little kid here that has the good life, but a kid in poverty and slavery (anakin Ep.I) is all whoopie?!

As hypersonic5 pointed out in his editing of Ep.I the use of accents for aliens instead of languages (which Magnolia added back) was atrocious. Dex, Watto, Jar-Jar, Boss Nass...unacceptable.

I felt like someone stabbed me in the heart after sitting there watching Episode I for the first time, something I was so excited about went sooo wrong.

Basically, I feel like my signature down below. That's a long time to not get something right. Then when you see a new trilogy like LOTR look so polished, have extended cuts...it makes you sick inside to know that the greatest trilogy of all time didn't get a prequal trilogy on par with those. I feel like throwing up just speaking about this.
16 years I wait and this is what I get???
Author
Time
Post link
I too felt more could've been done with Maul. I thought it over and realized how it could've worked. Basically, after killing Qui-Gon, Maul withdraws. Then, in II and III, he becomes a focus for Obi-wan and Anakin. Obi-wan skimps on his attention to Anakin while hunting down leads to Maul. Anakin also might seek Maul as he had befriended Qui-Gon. The Jedi are all convinced Maul is the master, drawing their attention away from Palpatine, just as he hoped. At least something to that effect. Personally, I liked the Yoda instructing scene as it shows how all Jedi were, in a way, instrucyed by him. Otherwise, we'd have a plothole in Ben's line, "There you will learn from Yoda, the Jedi Master who instructed me".


Made for IE Forum's Episode III theme month - May 2005.

Author
Time
Post link
What Klingon_Jedi just said reaffirms my belief. His idea in that one paragraph was more sensible, logical, and especially showed more imagination than what I've seen the in either prequel. I'm really not an arm-chair quarterback, and by all means, feel free to jump all over me. But I believe, given the the budget, source material, resources, and acting talent, that I, or anyone else here (save maybe Jimbo - j/k) could have done a better job than Lucas with the prequels. Commence flaming.
40,000 million notches away
Author
Time
Post link
No flames, dude. I agree. I did what networking I could (I was in the bay area at the time) to get involved and got a significant way up the chain, but in the end all I got was a couple nice letters and a free Darth Maul bookmark. Even after Episode I, I saw how it could be taken and crafted into an amazing twist on the old Star Wars. But I failed, they didn't want my help. It was silly to try, but I did it anyways. I could have written certain parts of the story better (or so I feel).

There's a ton to say on this point, but this is central: in the OT, the main character is Luke. Luke learns the force, struggles between good and evil, makes a commitment, a sacrifice, and reaches victory. Vader, Leia, the Emporer, and so forth are all steps in his journey. They are foils, obstacles, etc. Vader especially take the shape of Luke's challenge and his decision, just like in the cave scene with the vision of the duel. Vader embodies Luke's struggle. Vader is a vehicle of Luke's developemnt.

I expected the new trilogy to turn that completely on it's head, and that excited me to no end. Suddenly, Vader would be the main character. We would see his own journey, his fall, and his eventual redemption. Luke would now be a vehicle of Vader's development, and the final scene would be first and foremost about Vader's ultimate victory, rather than Luke's. (they will always both be there, but the focus changes.) I thought this complete overturn would be awesome. The story of Luke, which could sustain itself, would be set against a new backdrop and support an even greater story.

What I found was the story of Vader subjugated to the history of the empire, special effects lust, and political drama. Vader is woven in, but while it should be the center-piece, it's a subplot.

I actually LOVE Hayden in the role (you all can kill me now). I think he's awesome and perfect. But the script, the philosophy of his development, and the attention it receives drain the new trilogy of what I, personally, thought it could be.

(Speaking of all this, this always gives me chills. What if Luke, upon his father's redemption, had just stayed there with him in the throne room and held him until the Death Star blew up? (they still take off the mask and have the same conversation, they just don't get on the shuttle) Would have been a very different ending, but what it does to Luke's character...)
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Starboy

(Speaking of all this, this always gives me chills. What if Luke, upon his father's redemption, had just stayed there with him in the throne room and held him until the Death Star blew up? (they still take off the mask and have the same conversation, they just don't get on the shuttle) Would have been a very different ending, but what it does to Luke's character...)


This is what the ending would be:

Lando is blowing up the death star, and scaping the fire. Cut to a close up on Luke's face, when he realize the whole thing is blowing up:

LUKE: Oh crap.

K-BOOM

Leia meets Lando after he lands on the Endor Moon:

LEIA: So, Lando, do you know where Luke is? You waited for him before you blew up the death star, didn't you?
LANDO: ...... Uh... Yeah sure. I did. I.. uh... you see... when I... uh...
LEIA: You blew his ass off didn't you?
LANDO: Yes.
LEIA: Oh for the love of benji, what have you done! You killed the only remaining Jedi on the... oh well, who cares. Luke's dead, but we don't need him anymore.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Truthfully, with all the insane marketing and hype, I didn't know what to expect.

I was 11 at the time, so I would go through wal-and-K-mart in the toy aisles looking for Star Wars toys. There were so many characters I didn't think the movie would ever be able to fit them all.

The point of that anectdote is that even then I knew that the more characters there are, the less character development you can get into a two hour movie. So if anything I was sort of dissapointed that all the plastic used to make Ric Olie action figures was a total waste. Then again, Bossk got even less screen time and his old figures were selling $30 for five inches last time I checked. But Bossk had more character development roaring at an imperial officer in two seconds than Ric Olie or Captain Panaka did in a whole film.

Darn it, now I am confused.

4

Author
Time
Post link
If you mean through the Expanded Universe, that is simply because Bossk has been around longer, that's all. As for character development in the movies, I think lines I can understand are more developed then a growl not translated.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Jedi Master DJR If you mean through the Expanded Universe, that is simply because Bossk has been around longer, that's all. As for character development in the movies, I think lines I can understand are more developed then a growl not translated.


I have to disagree a little bit here. It's not so much that Bossk has been around longer and has been developed in EU stories since TESB. I think Bossk is a fully realised character and I've never read or seen anything to do with him outside of the five seconds of screentime he gets in that film.

It has more to do with the effectiveness and context of the screentime be it a few frames or a few thousand frames.

Ric Olie's 'Irving The Explainer' type dialogue, where he just tells you what you're looking at, comes across not so much as character development but as bad exposition. He's like an in-movie audio commentary for the blind.

Whereas an untranslated growl, in the right director's hands, can give so much depth to a character and so much emotion to a scene if played right. Think Chewie when the Hoth doors are closing in TESB.

"GnUuu-aaAarrrR!" means a Hell of a lot more to me than "Coruscant! The whole planet is one big city!"

Yeeaahh Ric, we can SEE that.

The difference is Brackett/Kasdan/Kirshner vs Lucas/Lucas/Lucas. It's a major quality gap.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
But you were talking about Bossk, not Chewie, and there is a big difference. Bossk growing at an Imperial tells me's he's a badass and might have killed a few people, just maybe. However, that's about it. When Ric Olie tells us about Coruscant, we already know he's the captain of the ship, a fair pilot since he's flying, and as a vet is impressed with Ani and that fact that Ani "catches on pretty quick." I am saying in summary, yes you can argue Ric is in-movie audio commentary and you can also argue Bossk is in-movie cliche monster badie.
Author
Time
Post link
Ok... But we don't learn anything about Ric, other than he is a pilot. So what?
The fact that Bossk dared to hiss at an Imperial officer on the bridge of a Super Star Destroyer tells us instantly that he is bad(good bad), and he isn't afraid of anyone.

Ric Olie is just some Nabooian pilot who seems to be on anti-depresants and likes to point out the obvious. As if we couldn't tell from the next few scenese that Coruscant is one big city. That line seriously needs to go.

Besides that is an understatement. The place covers a huge planet and is Kilometers deep. Even after being thrashed and settled on top of by the Yuuzhan Vong, there are miles of Coruscant buildings still standing under the new vegetation, and that is just above ground. It would take somebody longer to explore every inch of Coruscant than to travel to every system in the galaxy.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Okay Jedi Master DJR, I can see what camp you're in on this so I'll only say that all I said in my example about Chewie also applies to Bossk.

As I said it's about the effectiveness of the screentime used and the context in which it is used.

Quote
-- INTERIOR: VADER'S STAR DESTROYER -- BRIDGE -- CONTROL DECK

Vader stands in the back control area of his ship's bridge with a motley group of men and creatures. Admiral Piett and two controllers stand at the front of the bridge and watch the group with scorn.

PIETT: Bounty hunters. We don't need that scum.
FIRST CONTROLLER: Yes, sir.
PIETT: Those Rebels won't escape us. 

Bossk, one of the bounty hunters, looks down from his perch and growls at Piett.  A second controller interrupts the moment.

SECOND CONTROLLER: Sir, we have a priority signal from the Star Destroyer Avenger.
PIETT: Right.

The group standing before Vader is a bizarre array of galactic fortune hunters: There is Bossk, a slimy, tentacled monster with two huge, bloodshot eyes in a soft baggy face; Zuckuss and Dengar, two battle-scarred, mangy human types; IG-88, a battered, tarnished chrome war droid; and Boba Fett, a man in a weapon-covered armored space suit.

VADER: ...there will be a substantial reward for the one who finds the Millennium Falcon. You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them alive...

Vader walks to a stop in front of Boba Fett and turns to face him.

VADER: ...No disintegrations.
BOBA FETT: As you wish.


Here we see Boba Fett being singled out as, we can assume, a hard-arse who is prone to disintegrating his quarry. This one detail helps to flesh out this whole group of 'Bounty Hunter scum'.

It's true that Bossk doesn't do anything much in particular to advance the plot but in the context of the scene and by virtue of being included in a group of Bounty Hunters with Boba Fett he becomes more than a mere archetype and is given a small 'moment' which layers his character. Granted it's a thin layer but it's still thicker than any of the paint-by-numbers prequel characters.

An audience doesn't need characters to spout of reams of dialogue about who they are and where they come from and what their motivations are. That kind of information is all well and good for the actors to build the foundations of their characters on and extremely useful in helping film novelizers to fill the page count but all it does to the movie is bloat it like a three day old corpse in a summer stream.

My point is there's no difference between the methods used to realise the characters of Bossk or Chewie. Given their respective screentimes we know enough about each to move on with the story. Whereas expository dialogue slows the film down to a halt and neither endears the characters to us nor the screenwriter.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
Yes, yes, to RM you listen.

Not only do you get what he just explained, but you can draw even further inferences about the entire scene. The Empire doesn't like bounty hunters. You get that from Piett's line, but also by the fact that the Empire is rigid, organized, and orderly. Bounty Hunters are not, and they contrast mightily with the bridge of the Star Destroyer.

That means Vader is skipping the Empire to do his work. He's gotten the most badass of the badassest folks assembled on his bridge. Bossk is indeed a tough character. The contempt that is conveyed for Piett's comment in his little growl is really well done too. There is a lot of depth to that simple growl. And the fact that he does so with impunity, as mentioned, also further elaborates on the situation at hand. What would Vader do, I wonder, if Bossk leaped down and killed Piett? At that instant, who is more valuable to Vader?

And the fact that the remark made by Bossk is unintelligible makes it that much better. What did he say? I have no idea. But that allows my imagination to dwell on it, to be thrilled by it. It was obviously something not intended to please the listener. Some horrible slander against Peitt? Almost certainly. A death threat? Possibly. But my mind can make more out of not knowing something, than anything that would actually be locked in to my mind. It also makes it seem more spontaneous. Its the whole "an unseen monster is often more scarey than one that is seen" concept. Your mind can imagine a nebulous "worst."
Author
Time
Post link
okay i hate to get lazy in my old age but i've only been away from these boards for a day and im way to lazy to go through every post...
i skimmed through some of them so i hope i dont repeat much of what was said.....

I was greatly dissapointed with both prequels. I had huge expectations for these movies and was greatly let down. You cant tell me the hype for the first movie wasnt off the charts. I mean there was constant mention of it on TV, the internet and movie enthusiasts alike which couldnt do anything other than give us fans things to think of that could be in the movie.

So as i see it the first movie was just an utter letdown. AOTC on the other hand was more less just like any other movie for me. Especially after seeing what was in the first one i had no expectations whatsoever. I know im going to rant and rant on this so i will finish with saying this....

I disliked TPM for almost every reason possible (except for everything before the appearance of Jar Jar and everything after the final lightsaber duel) if they had just changed what was in between there the movie would have been fine. AOTC on the other hand was better but still suffered from many of the problems the first one did... especially when it came to dialogue.
"Never. I'll never turn to the darkside. You've failed your highness. I am a jedi, like my father before me."
Author
Time
Post link
Quote

It's true that Bossk doesn't do anything much in particular to advance the plot but in the context of the scene and by virtue of being included in a group of Bounty Hunters with Boba Fett he becomes more than a mere archetype and is given a small 'moment' which layers his character. Granted it's a thin layer but it's still thicker than any of the paint-by-numbers prequel characters.



I didn't say that! I just singled out Ric Olie because he is such a pointless character. Not all the prequel characters are like that.

4

Author
Time
Post link
and to think they made an action figure of Ric Olie....

"now with super standing and saying one line ability!!"
COOL!!
"Never. I'll never turn to the darkside. You've failed your highness. I am a jedi, like my father before me."
Author
Time
Post link
for a planet that appeared to have a population of about 30 people, there was an awful lot of superfluous characters on Naboo that added practically nothing to the storyline of the prequals, Ric Olie, Captain Panaka, Captain Typho, Queen Jamilla and what the fuck did Si Bibble ever do for anyone?
Author
Time
Post link
we're never gonna see half of these characters again....
i dont care what anyone says here...

I think Lucas is making this all up as he goes along...
why do we have so many pointless characters...
they could have used major characters in these scenes to help further develop them...

and who the hell is Si Bibble?
LOL
"Never. I'll never turn to the darkside. You've failed your highness. I am a jedi, like my father before me."