Enough Lucas Bashing Already!

[SoonerJBD]

I know what a trade embargo is. What I don't know is how this will affect Naboo. We don't see anyone starving or suffering under the trade federation's thumb. Yes, Sidious orders the Jedi be killed, but that's a far cry from blowing up an entire planet. And even with you writing a long post explaining, I still don't know how Naboo fits into the Emperor's plan. Our protagonists FOIL his plan on Naboo, and that is what results in him becoming chancellor. If he'd gotten his way and the jedi had been killed and the embargo had succeeded, the Queen would have signed the treaty and never made it to the Senate and he would never have gotten the power he needed. So, yeah, it's dumb. And FAR too complicated for what was essentially a kids movie. In the original trilogy we have a simple conflict with huge stakes. Rebels steal plans for superweapon. Empire is hunting them down. Try explaining the conflict of Phantom Menace in 10 words.

 

Again, the only stakes we know of are what was established in the original trilogy (Palpatine becoming Sidious). The Phantom Menace has no discernable conflict of its own and the potential consequences of our heroes failing are never explained.

 

And before you accuse people of trolling, perhaps you should recognize that the vast majority of critics, movie-goers and Star Wars fans all agree that the original trilogy was very poorly executed. You are the one with the unusual opinion here.

[SoonerJBD]

One other thing about Grievous.... I don't know what his motiviation is. I knew Darth Vader had fallen to the dark side. I can assume the trade federation guys want money. Dooku is a Sith. Dark side. I know nothing about Grievous. I don't know his motivation. This is what I'm saying. No character development. And it's not like I need a half hour of back story. Two sentences explaining what he is and why he is working with the bad guys would suffice.

[Jaavik]

I know what a trade embargo is. What I don't know is how this will affect Naboo. We don't see anyone starving or suffering under the trade federation's thumb. Yes, Sidious orders the Jedi be killed, but that's a far cry from blowing up an entire planet. And even with you writing a long post explaining, I still don't know how Naboo fits into the Emperor's plan. Our protagonists FOIL his plan on Naboo, and that is what results in him becoming chancellor. If he'd gotten his way and the jedi had been killed and the embargo had succeeded, the Queen would have signed the treaty and never made it to the Senate and he would never have gotten the power he needed. So, yeah, it's dumb. And FAR too complicated for what was essentially a kids movie. In the original trilogy we have a simple conflict with huge stakes. Rebels steal plans for superweapon. Empire is hunting them down. Try explaining the conflict of Phantom Menace in 10 words.

 

Far too complicated for whom? There are PLENTY of people in this forum alone that followed it. I followed it and even explained it clearly. And please excuse me if this comes off as insulting, it's not my intention but I'm a bit puzzled by this...

 

Why 10 words? In order for a plot to be followed by you, does a summary have to be able to be reduced to 10 words?

 

If your point is that the plot is complicated, then okay. I agree, I just don't agree that it makes it a bad thing or that it's TOO complicated to follow. Granted it is more complicated than the standard "farm boy dreams of adventure and runs off and becomes a great hero" format, but I wouldn't call it impossible to understand.

 

So, (in MORE than 10 words) here's the "conflict" you are looking for, quoted from my previous post:

You don't know what he is trying to accomplish? You know that there is an established Republic and in the Original trilogy, he is the Emperor of a vast Galactic Empire. I would think his "master plan" was obvious, as well as Naboo's role in it. Palpatine was playing both sides. He was using the Trade federation as a tool to make the Senate sympathetic to Naboo (him being Naboo's senator), and influencing the Senate to no longer believe in Chancellor Valorum as a leader, knowing that he would be next in line. It was a political power play. You see that Sidious wanted Amidala out of the equation, but since he couldn't stop her, he USED her. He's a tactician. If one part of a plan break, there are always contingency plans and improvisations. He manipulated Padme into being the one to blame Valorum of insufficient leadership, hoping that whomever replaced him would help her. Even after Padme went back to Naboo, Sidious made comment that the play was "too aggressive for her". Once Padme retook naboo with the Gungans, Palpatine was already the new Supreme Chancellor. He got what he wanted.

There we go.

 

 

Again, the only stakes we know of are what was established in the original trilogy (Palpatine becoming Sidious). The Phantom Menace has no discernable conflict of its own and the potential consequences of our heroes failing are never explained.

 

You are dealing with a layered narrative. The primary villain is the prequels is the "little fish" working from the shadows to obtain more power and using deception and manipulation to achieve his goals. In the Original Trilogy he already has achieved ultimate power and the heroes are the "little fish". In the Prequels, the Jedi aren't aware of what Palpatine is doing, so the hero's "discernable conflict" is simply survival (after their attempted gassing) and getting the Trade Federation off of the planet of Naboo. After that, they discover that the Sith are back, and they are trying to discover who they are, after that - they are fighting a war against "seperatists". In stories of manipulation, one side is being maneuvered without knowing it, but we, as the viewer, can see it.

 

And before you accuse people of trolling, perhaps you should recognize that the vast majority of critics, movie-goers and Star Wars fans all agree that the original trilogy was very poorly executed. You are the one with the unusual opinion here.

 

First off, unless you are posting under two different names, I never said anything about YOU trolling anyone. I was talking to the guy that claimed that Phantom Menace doesn't identify Darth Sidious as "truly evil" and then resorted to insults to make his point.

 

I'm assuming you mean the prequel trilogy. If you bothered to read ANY of my posts, I challenge you to quote ANYTHING showing that I am disputing anyone's "OPINION". I have said there is wooden acting and awful areas of dialogue myself. I have also stated that I like the Original trilogy more than the Prequel Trilogy as well. I have offered my OWN opinion, and if that means I'm diminishing the legitimacy of yours, I'm open to hear it.

 

The problem is that we seem to have degraded this conversation into Original Trilogy versus Prequel trilogy and personally, that's not what I'M talking about. That's all based on OPINION.

 

Most of my responses are to people complaining that things weren't explained, didn't make sense, factual errors, etc. I'm talking about the story itself. I have also made the argument that basing criticisms on the PT based on it's inability to live up to the OT are doomed to begin with. It was never going to.

[Jaavik]

Sorry, but you are just completely wrong here. Obi Wan explains Vader's character. Jedi seduced by the dark side. More machine than man now. The stuff about him being Anakin is a plot twist later. It is not essential to establishing his character as the bad guy.

 

Okay I realize I worded that incorrectly. I concede that. I was not attempting to say that there is absolutely NO back story, I should have said MINIMAL. But other than the sentence you just posted. What other back story do you really get? But once again, how much back story did you get on Jabba and Boba Fett? Nobody claims how ridiculous it was that they weren't "thoroughly explained".

 

I didn't know grievous was a cyborg until you just told me because it is never explained. He looks completely like a droid. Never is it explained that he is anything other than a droid. We never get anyone explaining what Grievous is or where he came from.

 

There are 3 things that tell you he is NOT a droid.

 

1. Has clearly organic eyes and visible skin around the eyes (There was a fullscreen close-up on the eyes)
   
2. Has an organic heart that Obi-Wan sees "beating" in Grievous' chest and then later shoots him in the heart with a blaster.
   
3. Has regular "coughing fits".
   

 

I have no idea if this misunderstanding is common or not. I can understand the confusion a little, but I assumed it was a pretty easy call.

 

General Grievous is explained about as much as any of these other characters. It is known he is the General of the Droid armies and that since Dooku was killed, as far as the Jedi knew, Grievous was the one they needed to find to end the war.

 

And I realize you said you didn't watch the cartoons, but If you watched the Tartakovsky Clone Wars episodes, you got to see him take out several Jedi and take their lightsabers as trophies. You also saw Dooku training him to fight with lightsabers, and you saw him lay waste to several Jedi while kidnapping Palpatine. If you haven't seen them, I highly recommend them.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

One other thing about Grievous.... I don't know what his motiviation is. I knew Darth Vader had fallen to the dark side. I can assume the trade federation guys want money. Dooku is a Sith. Dark side. I know nothing about Grievous. I don't know his motivation. This is what I'm saying. No character development. And it's not like I need a half hour of back story. Two sentences explaining what he is and why he is working with the bad guys would suffice.

 

He's clearly identified as the General of the Droid armies. His motivation is to win the war for his side and carry out the orders of Darth Sidious. pretty much the same motivations as Darth Vader in "A New Hope". He's essentially a "henchman" for Darth Sidious.

 

Edited May 26, 2012 by Jaavik

[Captain_Zone]

*bashes George with a coconut*

 

Ahhhh, the daily dose of George bashing. It satisfies.

[Jaavik]

Let me go ahead and clarify something since we have gone through SO many posts on here.

 

I am NOT here to tell anyone their "opinion" is wrong. I was disappointed in the overall execution of the Prequel trilogy. I really enjoy the PLOT and STORY of the Prequels, but I hated some of the dialogue and performances.

 

If you HATE the prequels, that's absolutely fine. It doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other. Personally, I really love to talk about Star Wars in all it's forms.

 

This is FUN to me, because it's a website I can access at work when I'm stuck here all day.

 

I'm not here to fight with anyone and I don't enjoy flame wars.

If you think it's getting too heated, we can stop and frankly I'd prefer to before it degrades into something that ISN'T fun. If you like discussing it as well, then let's keep it friendly and enjoy the conversation.

 

I'm pretty sure if we didn't ALL like Star Wars, we wouldn't be here...

[Jaavik]

*bashes George with a coconut*

 

Ahhhh, the daily dose of George bashing. It satisfies.

 

What is OPOD? Is that a guild?

[SoonerJBD]

It's not one versus the other. The point that most folks are making is that the prequels were extremely disappointing, poorly executed and could have been vastly better if Lucas didn't completely isolate himself from those who might offer constructive criticism. You keep defending the story and character development in the prequels, when they are indefensible.

 

Your breakdown of the conflict is inaccurate and doesn't make sense. As has been stated, Sidious' goal in the first film is unclear. The way it worked out in the end was good for him, but that was apparently not what he intended. If the Jedi had indeed been killed by the Trade Federation (which by the way would have been easy if they weren't bumbling morons), or if Maul had been successful in thwarting them, or if they didn't have the Gungans helping, or Anakin hadn't stumbled his way into destroying the control ship, Palpatine never would have been made Chancellor. So either his plan was stupid and made no sense, or he planned all along for this extremely unpredictable and random chain of events to unfold, giving Amidala and the Jedi a "hollow" victory and tricking Amidala into calling for the vote of no confidence. Again, if things had gone how Palpatine planned, she NEVER WOULD HAVE MADE IT TO CORUSCANT and he NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE CHANCELLOR. The entire conflict makes no sense given the greater context of the prequels. It's not that I personally don't understand the plot, it's that the plot doesn't make sense even if you take it at face value.

 

The point of being able to distill the plot to 10 words is that for a story that is primarily an action movie, you need an unambiguous plot. Indiana Jones... they are trying to find the Ark of the Covenant and keep it out of the hands of the Nazis. Die Hard... Our hero is trying to thwart terrorists who have taken a building hostage. A plot that centers around a trade embargo is (1) boring and (2) an awful choice for a series that has always been about basic concepts of good versus evil. How many trade embargo movies do you watch in a given year? If this were a political thriller, perhaps a more convoluted storyline would be appropriate. It isn't. It's Star Wars.

 

As for the villains, I will try to explain once more. We don't need more than a line or two about Vader or Jabba or Grievous. But we got the line or two we needed about Vader and Jabba. They are unambiguous. Their motivations are clear. Vader is a Jedi who fell to the dark side. Jabba is a gangster who is motivated by greed. What is Grievous motivation? I have no idea because it was never even mentioned in the prequels, not even in a throwaway line. We don't know what he is because it isn't explained. I bet if you polled everyone who saw the movie, 99 out of 100 people would say he was a droid. It's never explained that he is an alien who for whatever reason has the torso, head, arms and legs of a droid. It would have taken one line to fix this.

 

The reason I bring him up is he is a perfect example of the multitude of mistakes made in the prequels that could easily have been fixed. It's not the worst problem of the prequels, but it illustrates many of the other problems that are also present, such as the relationship we never see develop between Obi Wan and Anakin. If you want people to care about your main characters, which is a primary concept of any story, you need to show us the character development in the movie. You don't bury it in a cartoon that isn't going to be seen by 99 percent of the people watching the movie.

[SoonerJBD]

He's clearly identified as the General of the Droid armies. His motivation is to win the war for his side and carry out the orders of Darth Sidious. pretty much the same motivations as Darth Vader in "A New Hope". He's essentially a "henchman" for Darth Sidious.

 

 

Why? Is he a Jedi who fell to the dark side? Has Sidious promised to make him prime minister? Riches beyond his wildest dreams? Where did he come from? We don't see him in the earlier movies. Was he hired by the Trade Federation?

 

Darth Vader was a Jedi seduced by the dark side and its promise of power. That is why he is a henchman of the Emperor. I have no idea why Grievous is a henchman because it isn't explained. We are never given that basic explanation of the character that is necessary in any story.

Edited May 27, 2012 by SoonerJBD

[Captain_Zone]

What is OPOD? Is that a guild?

 

You don't remember the Orange Pixel of Doom from Beta?

[RDeanOU]

Okay I've been pretty diplomatic in this debate and never resulted to trying to insult you. After reading that last ridiculous post of yours claiming you didn't understand what made Sidious a "bad guy", and then seeing this one, calling me either a liar or "over-sensitive", I can only assume you're trolling or aren't capable of supporting your own points and are now trying to end the debate by just being a twit.

 

We were having a discussion about a work of fiction. If it's upsetting you this much. Maybe we can see who the "over-sensitive" one actually is. Grab some tissues and take a few deep breaths. Nobody is going to make you watch those nasty ol' Prequels ever again...

 

If you claim that you are emotionally affected by something that nobody I know (including some extremely sensitive people) is emotionally affected by then I don't see any explanation other than that you are either being disingenuous or you are exceedingly sensitive. If you have a third alternative I would be happy to give it a hearing. As it is, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are still being truthful. I don't think that being extremely sensitive is an insult. It isn't like I called you a twit or accused you of trolling. Now that would be insulting wouldn't it?

 

Someone else had the line about Sidious being evil. Maybe you want to go look at SoonerJBD's posts and see if maybe you are confused about who said what.

 

I am beginning to conclude that you are just an apologist. People have brought up tons of legitimate criticism of the prequels and you just keep making excuses and apologies for something that you admit had some cringe-worthy dialogue instead of just admitting that these movies were disappointing and could have been done much better.

 

You have failed to substantially respond to any of the problems that have been pointed out with the convoluted storytelling, the piss poor writing, or the inexplicably and indefensibly bad plot choices that were made by Lucas when he created the prequels.

Edited May 27, 2012 by RDeanOU

[Jaavik]

You don't remember the Orange Pixel of Doom from Beta?

 

Oh yeah! I do remember that! It was hilarious how that took off in beta. A single orange pixel that grabbed the imagination of a generation..hehe

[Jaavik]

If you claim that you are emotionally affected by something that nobody I know (including some extremely sensitive people) is emotionally affected by then I don't see any explanation other than that you are either being disingenuous or you are exceedingly sensitive. If you have a third alternative I would be happy to give it a hearing. As it is, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are still being truthful. I don't think that being extremely sensitive is an insult. It isn't like I called you a twit or accused you of trolling. Now that would be insulting wouldn't it?

 

If you look back on the posts during this conversation, and even AFTER the post we're talking about, other people in this forum have even said that they found the scenes to be emotional. Here it is:

 

Well, I wrote right in this thread that there were two moments in ROTS that really made me sad.

 

Order 66

Obi-Wan: "You were my brother, Anakin."

 

I also said ROTS had more emotional impact on me then ANH. (But it fails in creating a fluent story line and suspense.)

 

If you are saying that only "exceedingly sensitive" people could find it "emotional", I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

By what standard are you classifying an "emotional impact"? Did I cry when Obi-Wan was screaming at Anakin? No. Did I feel sad for him? Yes. I know what it's like to lose a friend over a betrayal, so i can empathize with the scene. Did the scenes have the impact they SHOULD have? Probably not. But I also factor in the concept that these scenes take place in a Prequel and I knew how they were going to turn out. It's like having someone tell you the end of a film. It "ruins" it for you when you know how it's going to end. So you don't get as invested in "liking a character" if you know they are the "killer" at the end. That was my point...

 

Bringing up the "possibility" that I may be intentionally lying to make my point, whether or not you "justify it" by saying you'll give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm only "exceedingly sensitive", is you trying to be insulting but giving yourself "an out" as well, so you can play the victim. If it wasn't your intention to insinuate that I was lying, it never would have been brought up. Allow me to give an example:

 

If you think you are fooling anyone with this tactic, you are either not very bright, or you don't get involved in a lot of debates. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it's the latter.

 

See how easy that is? See how I managed to sneak in the assumption that you aren't an intelligent person, but I can easily say that the statement only implies that you don't get into a lot of debates. I'm "giving you the benefit of the doubt", right? Even though the part about "not getting into a lot of debates" isn't directly insulting, but, at the same time "can be". Subtlety can be a great weapon.

 

The truth is that I DON'T think you are unintelligent. I can tell that throughout this discussion that you can clearly communicate, but you can be overbearingly opinionated. And when your opinions are challenged, you get irritated and make an attempt at subtle insults.

 

Someone else had the line about Sidious being evil. Maybe you want to go look at SoonerJBD's posts and see if maybe you are confused about who said what.

 

You are absolutely right. I went back to take a look and I did apparently get the two of you mixed up and I apologize. That was MY screw-up.

 

I am beginning to conclude that you are just an apologist. People have brought up tons of legitimate criticism of the prequels and you just keep making excuses and apologies for something that you admit had some cringe-worthy dialogue instead of just admitting that these movies were disappointing and could have been done much better.

 

Apologist for what? I haven't defended the "execution" of the Prequels. I haven't defended George's failures in direction or anything like that. The only thing I have defended was the story elements that people have claimed weren't explained or presented, and I've defended the Prequels in the sense that I don't believe you can use the Original Trilogy as a measuring stick to compare the two. If the Prequel Trilogy was a SEQUEL trilogy, I would be more willing to accept a direct comparison. In both cases, the fate of the characters would be unknown and I would be far more likely to get "entangled" in their fate, and be upset if they died, or did something horrible, etc.

 

I have defended the story in general. I liked the story. I never said anyone was wrong for NOT liking the story. It's a matter of taste. It was a bold movie, in MY opinion, to make the prequel trilogy with a completely different type of story. I believe George KNEW he wasn't going to top the Original Trilogy , so he didn't even try to. He simply tried something different, and YES, for many fans, it was a disappointment.

 

You have failed to substantially respond to any of the problems that have been pointed out with the convoluted storytelling, the piss poor writing, or the inexplicably and indefensibly bad plot choices that were made by Lucas when he created the prequels.

 

These are all YOUR opinions. I share some of them and disagree with others.

 

As far as not "substantially responding", I can only assume that by "substantially", you mean that my responses didn't CHANGE your opinions, but to say that I haven't responded to them is "factually incorrect". I have clearly answered EVERY ONE of your supposed "plot holes" with clearly stated examples that they WERE explained and the explanations were easy to follow. I may not have made you LIKE the Prequels any better, but it wasn't my intent to. My assumption is that since you obviously didn't enjoy the PT, you probably didn't pay all that much attention to the actual story. I did.

 

I think the main problem here is that we're bouncing back and forth with debating facts and OPINIONS. If you think the acting in scenes were cringe-worthy and the dialogue was stilted and awkward and just downright AWFUL in scenes, then we agree. There's NOTHING for the two of us to debate. If you think the STORY of the Prequels were horribly written and didn't make any sense. All I can do is ask what DIDN'T make sense to you. If I'm aware of somewhere in the movies that this particular thing was explained (that you may have missed), I point it out.

 

Saying a scene was or wasn't EMOTIONAL is a matter of OPINION. Even if we both agree it wasn't emotional to US, I PERSONALLY wouldn't even attempt to make an "across the board" assessment that NOBODY finds it to be emotional. That's ridiculous. You presented this statement as if it were FACT, and when I "challenged your facts" on it, you decided to insinuate that I was either lying or "exceedingly sensitive" for daring to challenge what you said.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Jaavik

[grandmthethird]

Order 66 was sad, the scenes slowed the music went sad, the whole scene was done in such a way, it was sposed to be sad. not as sad as bambi's mom being shot, but still a very sad scene

[Maaruin]

I think the main problem here is that we're bouncing back and forth with debating facts and OPINIONS. If you think the acting in scenes were cringe-worthy and the dialogue was stilted and awkward and just downright AWFUL in scenes, then we agree. There's NOTHING for the two of us to debate. If you think the STORY of the Prequels were horribly written and didn't make any sense. All I can do is ask what DIDN'T make sense to you. If I'm aware of somewhere in the movies that this particular thing was explained (that you may have missed), I point it out.

 

May I just jump in here? As you see from my post you have quoted, I'm would say "they weren't that bad, but could have been better". I also said I think the story in the OT was told better.

 

On the one hand there are many things in the Prequels that are hard to explain.

 

Small things like: When the Trade Federation tries to kill the Jedi, why don't they pump in gas and wait for several hours before they check it? And why didn't the Jedi try to cut through the door? Why do they guard the queen with so few droids? The know the Jedi can handle them. Why not some Droidikas?

 

Of course, there are also some things like this in the OT, but it seems far less. What I can think about is:

 

-Stormtroopers shoot too bad

(-exaust pod)

-ewoks are overpowered

 

A lot of these small mistakes could have been avoided easily. (Let the Jedi cut through the door, while they try to gas them, and the Neimodians start to panic and call in more droids.)

 

But these small errors are not that important. So here are the major flaws:

 

Episode I:

 

It just has so little connection to the rest of the Prequels. Less than ANH. So lets say both movies have the purpose of introducing the characters for later.

 

ANH does a very good job in bringing Han and Luke to the Rebels and introducing Leia and Vader. Han and Luke are clearly the protagonists.

 

TPH technically introduces Anakin, Obi-Wan, Padme and Darth Sidious/Palpatine. But:

 

-the TPH Anakin is a child and very different to Anakin in AOTC.

-Obi-Wan is not as much the Protagonist as he should be. Qui-Gon seems to be the Protagonist and he gets killed. So Obi-Wans role from this movie to the next changes so much.

-Padme: You don't see that much about her. Mainly her public face, Queen Amidala. But she doesn't feel like a real character.

-Darth Sidious/Palpatine: Am I supposed to know that these are the same? Darth Sidious as the secret leader of the Trade Federation seems a little cartoony. Palpatine could have used a little more screentime. But all in all that was not bad.

 

But what about Darth Maul? From his role during the last fight you could assume that he was the main antagonist. But he wasn't very developed as a character.

 

How could it have been better: Place it closer to the rest. Make Obi-Wan the Protagonist, instead of Qui-Gon. Let him find Anakin as a young man, a pilot probably, so you don't have to go to Tatooine. Let Darth Maul take Sidious role in the Trade Federation. Only place some references to his master.

 

 

Episode II:

 

There were 3-4 different stories:

 

-the assasination plot

-the seperatist who want to leave the republic

-the clone army

-Anakin-Padme lovestory

 

of course they were somehow connected, but the connections seemed to loose sometimes. Why was the Bounty Hunter who was used to create the clone army the same one who was hired to assasinate Padme?

 

All of these stories seem underdeveloped. A more focused one would have been better. The most importent was the seperatists and the war/clone army, I think.

 

Anakin's and Obi-Wan's friendship wasn't depicted well in this movie. Anakin should have been a good Jedi at this time. Shouldn't complain that much. His fall should only start at that time.

The Jedi ban on relationships was a very bad idea. The whole "forbidden romance" thing didn't add much tension and it made the Jedi very distant.

 

The only character who seemed well done was Obi-Wan in this. (Okay, my opinion. Do you understand why, or should I elaborate more?)

 

My idea: Padme is sent to negotiate with the Seperatists and Obi-Wan and Anakin are sent to protect her. You could include nearly everything important in that plot. Or, if you want them seperate, let Obi-Wan make the war preperations. Just don't take Padme and Anakin out of the important things.

Anakin could make a dark decision somewhere. One that was more subtle than killing all the sand people.

 

 

Episode III:

 

You don't see the effects of the war. Let us see how the people suffer on coruscant and are open for palpatine's propaganda. Let us see how they start to blame the Jedi.

 

General Grievous was a waste, I think. Yeah, he was good for action, but he wasn't really needed.

 

The movie does a decent job (I think) in showing Anakin's and Obi-Wans friendship. It should have been like that in the other two movies.

 

The movie fails to set the tone. Some scenes are close to funny/slapstic, others are very dark. Better create a more constant tone.

 

As I said I would rate ROTS together with ANH. I think they should have put less effort in the special effects, and more effort in the characters, dialogues, emotions. If you compare the duel between Vader and Luke in ROTJ and the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in ROTS, you see the difference. The surroundings are more a distractions than a support for the tension and emotions during the duel.

 

 

In general: I think the Prequels are action movies, while the Originals are space advantures. Action movies are nice, but there are lots of them. Star Wars should focus on the story, because the story makes it unique. (Together with lightsabers )

[Jaqaliah]

He didn't just come up with the initial creative spark. He wrote the whole story, and made numerous changes along the way, that's what writers do.

 

There are only two crimes, Fraud and Force. All stories revolve around varying degrees of these interwoven forces being engaged by the victor and the victim. In the same way, Lucas was enthralled by the idea of the "Hero with a Thousand Faces." His entire story centers around the universal epic with the powers of magic and miracle replaced by the Force, and the Knights of Camelot or the Court of Charlemagne appearing in futuristic armor carrying futuristic swords. The creative spark which Lucas evinced was in bringing Science Fantasy on the screen to the level of Opera.

 

The Star Wars scenario is however nothing more or less than another epic tale of arch-types just like the Wagnar's Ring Cycle (Nibelungenlied), La Chanson de Roland, or Le Morte d'Arthur. Like other traditional human tales it involves a moral mythology, descents into madness through violation of that moral, redemption, and various taboos - such as the incest taboo between Luke and Leia. The creative spark from Lucas is in finding a way to retell the same ancient and universal stories of humanity with a variety of new seasonings. Still, a good roast beef is just that no matter how seasoned and no matter what else is on the plate to accompany it.

 

Lucas certainly deserves credit, like Tolkien, for bringing to a new generation the grand human epic. But he explored nothing which had not already been proposed in real science fiction, explained nothing new about humanity that we had not already told in other stories, and proved being over the top in flash-bang can be more important in getting the attention of a modern audience than wisdom. After all, very little tragedy ever occurs in the Star Wars series. (Aristotle: Tragedy is not when the unethical triumphs over the ethical but when two ethics are in conflict.) What little tragedy we do see is the condemnation of the human relationship as being a lack of self-discipline. It takes a certain kind of cynic to espouse that love is the source of all evil, rather than the innately irrationality of individuals rationalizing for selfish reasons rather than raising through better reason more objective ones.

[Setsugetsuka]

TPH technically introduces Anakin, Obi-Wan, Padme and Darth Sidious/Palpatine. But:

 

-the TPH Anakin is a child and very different to Anakin in AOTC.

-Obi-Wan is not as much the Protagonist as he should be. Qui-Gon seems to be the Protagonist and he gets killed. So Obi-Wans role from this movie to the next changes so much.

-Padme: You don't see that much about her. Mainly her public face, Queen Amidala. But she doesn't feel like a real character.

-Darth Sidious/Palpatine: Am I supposed to know that these are the same? Darth Sidious as the secret leader of the Trade Federation seems a little cartoony. Palpatine could have used a little more screentime. But all in all that was not bad.

 

But what about Darth Maul? From his role during the last fight you could assume that he was the main antagonist. But he wasn't very developed as a character.

 

How could it have been better: Place it closer to the rest. Make Obi-Wan the Protagonist, instead of Qui-Gon. Let him find Anakin as a young man, a pilot probably, so you don't have to go to Tatooine. Let Darth Maul take Sidious role in the Trade Federation. Only place some references to his master.

 

Anakin was shown as young to show his childish dreams and ambitions. ("I'm gonna see 'em all!" - Talking about visiting every planet in the Galaxy), it also serves to show that he has emotional connections with his mother which set up the scene in AOTC where she dies.

Obi-Wan wasn't featured over Qui-Gon because in essense, Qui-Gon was meant to train Anakin, but because he died, Obi-Wan had to take his place. If you watch the movie, you'll notice on several cases Obi clashes with Qui-Gon, and only trains Anakin at the end due to his master's dying wish, so it's to essentially show that Qui-Gon would've trained Anakin a lot better than Obi-Wan did.

I disagree about Padme, her role pretty much begins at Tatooine, and you get to see her talking with Anakin, amidst other scenes all the way till the end. She's a character.

Darth Sidious isn't the leader of the Trade Federation, he's just essentially using the leader's fear to manipulate him. Also, typically most people who watch Ep.1 have seen Ep.6, which has a few clear shots of Sidious, you can kind of see the resemblance to Palpatine, but I suppose that overall you're not meant to know completely, but you're meant to think, "Is that him, no, it can't be him, it is him, maybe, I don't know.."

Also, Darth Maul wasn't meant to have depth, he was a tool of Sidious, TCW ruined this by bringing him back and making him less then a voiceless assassin who does his master's bidding.

 

Episode II:

 

There were 3-4 different stories:

 

-the assasination plot

-the seperatist who want to leave the republic

-the clone army

-Anakin-Padme lovestory

 

of course they were somehow connected, but the connections seemed to loose sometimes. Why was the Bounty Hunter who was used to create the clone army the same one who was hired to assasinate Padme?

 

All of these stories seem underdeveloped. A more focused one would have been better. The most importent was the seperatists and the war/clone army, I think.

 

Anakin's and Obi-Wan's friendship wasn't depicted well in this movie. Anakin should have been a good Jedi at this time. Shouldn't complain that much. His fall should only start at that time.

The Jedi ban on relationships was a very bad idea. The whole "forbidden romance" thing didn't add much tension and it made the Jedi very distant.

 

The only character who seemed well done was Obi-Wan in this. (Okay, my opinion. Do you understand why, or should I elaborate more?)

 

My idea: Padme is sent to negotiate with the Seperatists and Obi-Wan and Anakin are sent to protect her. You could include nearly everything important in that plot. Or, if you want them seperate, let Obi-Wan make the war preperations. Just don't take Padme and Anakin out of the important things.

Anakin could make a dark decision somewhere. One that was more subtle than killing all the sand people.

Well let's see, the assassionation plot causes Anakin and Padme to go to Naboo in hiding, causing the love plot, Obi-Wan tracks the Assassin which dabs into the Seperatist Plot which brings about the Clone Army. It's not that hard to follow, I'm just going to go with the thought that you are mentally impaired to comprehend such simplicity.

 

The Clone Army wasn't ordered by the Republic, but by the Sith, if you've seen Ep.III, the reason becomes blatantly clear. I think that Dooku ordered the Clone Army under Sifo-Dyas' name? Considering that Sifo-Dyas was dead when Lama Su said the Clone Army was requested, it seems plausible.

 

There wasn't many scenes in which Obi-Wan and Anakin shared a friendship, at the start you can see that they bond, but that Anakin needs a friend, whereas Obi-Wan is simply fulfilling his master's wishes. At least, that's how I see it, it's not until Ep. III that you see they are actual friends, yet Obi still seems to stifle Anakin a lot. The scene on the Gunship in Ep.II where Anakin wants to go back for Padme and Obi says no, at the start where they chase Zam you can see they clash a lot, and really haven't worked out how to go around this and bond. To make this seem logical, I guess one could say that during the 3 year Clone Wars, Anakin and Obi-Wan became friends whilst they fought many battles together. If there's anything you gain whilst being a soldier in a war, it's the bond you have with your comrades.

 

Anakin was never subtle, he never had that control over his feelings that allowed him to be subtle, I think that's a big point in the PT, that Anakin was incapable of bringing his emotions into check. This leads him to some illogical decisions and actions based on his emotions.

 

Hm, if someone killed my mother, I wouldn't be subtle in how I handle my feelings after that, I understand and would do the exact same thing Anakin did. No kidding.

 

Episode III:

 

You don't see the effects of the war. Let us see how the people suffer on coruscant and are open for palpatine's propaganda. Let us see how they start to blame the Jedi.

 

General Grievous was a waste, I think. Yeah, he was good for action, but he wasn't really needed.

 

The movie does a decent job (I think) in showing Anakin's and Obi-Wans friendship. It should have been like that in the other two movies.

 

The movie fails to set the tone. Some scenes are close to funny/slapstic, others are very dark. Better create a more constant tone.

 

As I said I would rate ROTS together with ANH. I think they should have put less effort in the special effects, and more effort in the characters, dialogues, emotions. If you compare the duel between Vader and Luke in ROTJ and the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in ROTS, you see the difference. The surroundings are more a distractions than a support for the tension and emotions during the duel.

Personally, I think they did ROTS perfectly. You're not going to see people suffering on Coruscant, the war isn't there. The point of the movie wasn't to show that people didn't trust and blamed the Jedi, it was to show that Anakin was being manipulated into becoming Vader, as was the point of the PT. Star Wars is the story of Anakin/Vader.

Grevious I won't say was a complete waste, he was a character, but he just didn't seem like the kind of character you'd want as a General. I guess he must've had good battle tactics or something.

I personally believe that Anakin and Obi-Wan only became good friends in the Clone Wars, and before that their relationship was really strained with the whole student/teacher ideal. (I haven't watched the animated TCW) From what I've heard about wars in general, it's that a lot of what goes on really makes you close with the people you fight with, so it makes sense that during the Clone Wars they bonded a lot better than when Anakin was a padawan under Obi-Wans tutelage in Ep. II.

Just because it doesn't set the tone for you, doesn't mean it didn't set the tone in general, matter of opinion.

I had to watch the fight scene between Luke and Vader for my recent english assignment, and in all honesty, I'd take Ep.III battle over that anyday. It was good, but eh.

The showiness in the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan I chalk down to them being at the same level. Can you imagine pushing someone who was the same strength as you pushing back? It wouldn't work, so it makes sense that they're implementing other things that tip the battle in their favour, this is ultimately shown when Obi-Wan "takes the high ground".

In the Ep VI battle, you can clearly see that Luke doesn't want to fight, he spends most of the time either blocking, talking or trying to get away from Vader, until the end where he gets angry. Essentially, it's barely a sword fight due to Luke not wanting to fight for the most part. Vader also is a cyborg, walking around in a big suit with robotic limbs, I doubt he'd be capable of performing like he did during the Clone Wars.

 

Now, my turn.

 

Episode IV:

Luke got his father's lightsaber in the hut, then wham, other than him training with it, nothing. Then all of a sudden at Hoth, he takes down a Wampa, uses it at Dagobah and duels with Vadar.

Why does it take so long to introduce Luke? I preferred Lucas' original idea of putting scenes featuring Luke and Biggs inbetween the shots on the Blockade Runner.

When Vadar is chocking the man, he is supposed to die by Vadar's hand, so why does he protect himself when he's thrown against the wall?

Why does Leia try to take on all those Stormtroopers on the Blockade Runner? Obviously she isn't stupid to think that 1 vs 6 was going to work. Maybe she is stupid, maybe she's the Jar Jar Binks of the OT, all she needs to do is step in **** and she's got the part, she already can bond with other stupid things. (Return of the Jedi, Ewoks, yeah..)

Also, why the hell doesn't underwear exist in the OT? Give the damn woman a bra.

How did Leia perfectly plan that she would give a message to Artoo to take to Obi-Wan who would come and save her and then destroy the Death Star? How did she know he was on Tatooine, how did she think Artoo would even get off the ship, and land on that specific planet that she think's he is on? What if he's dead, what if he doesn't want to help, what if he can't. He ends up dying anyway.

What kind of fugitive still uses the same last name, really, Ben Kenobi. Come on.

People complain about Anakin being whiny, it will never be as bad as "I was gonna go to Toshi Station and pick up some power converters", or some such, ugh. That whiny voice, ugh.

How do the Sand People not notice Artoo?

Why does the guy's arm bleed when it's severed by the lightsaber? For the weapon to even be remotely scientifically plausible, it would have to be really hot, as far as I know.

Why does after that happen, everyone just goes back to drinking? Really? Storm Troopers then appear, and the Bartender does point to Luke and Obi-Wan, yet in the 5 seconds it takes them to walk to the table, Luke and Kenobi are gone, never to be seen again.. It must be those helmets, can't see out of those damn helmets right?

How does the Storm Troopers aim get so incredibly horrible? I swear, I was so happy when Leia got shot in Ep VI, it was the first time that the Storm Troopers actually weren't just a bunch of clumsy ******* in white spacesuits, but an actual army of soldiers.

Why is there no railing on the ledge for the Death Star Gunners platform? Really, was their budget that bad?

How useful is a helmet you can't see out of? The one Luke puts on when he's training is the one to which I'm referring. It's illogical.

Everytime we see the Falcon, I swear the proportions are out of whack. The cockpit could no way fit with the rest of the ship at that size, people wouldn't fit.

You'd think, that a group of fully trained soldiers, wouldn't hit their head on a door.

Again, the Death Star's budget must have blown, they missed more railing at the Tractor Beam Core thing.

Ew, Leia kisses her brother. Ew. Lol.

They never explained it until later, but when I first watched A New Hope, I wondered what the hell happened to Obi-Wan when he got slashed. Did he disappear? Is that what happens when you get killed by a Light Saber? If he disappears, why does his robe stay behind, and his lightsaber? Does the Force have a rule against swords and robes? It doesn't make sense because in ESB, he's wearing the robe again.

It might just be me, but the targeting computer interface for the Falcon's guns don't really make sense to me: http://www.5.disparue.org/movies/sw/4/images/starwars4_3915.jpg

Out of all these people, who have piloted with the Rebellion for years, why is Luke the only one who thinks the shot is possible. Some kid from a backwater planet has more balls than fully fledged pilots? Bah.

Biggs outta no where, who is this guy? I wish they kept the earlier scenes in, or put them in for a video release. Heck, I would have loved if they were included in the Blu-Ray release. Biggs seems incredibly random without them.

On that note, why does Luke want to join the Rebellion before they kill his uncle and aunt? What did he do to them? As far as I know, the Empire doesn't bother with them out on Tatooine, but hey, neither did the Republic before that. It's in the Outer Rim, no one cares about them. I'm not entirely sure if I'm correct, but I think Biggs was originally with the Empire, but then he came back and told Luke he was going to join the Rebellion? This is a bit more logical than Luke, cause at least Biggs has seen the evil underbelly of the Empire, and then Luke would want to follow his good and close friend. Seems to make more sense, in my opinion. If they did it this way, Bigg's death would have meant a lot more than a scream and a solemn look from Luke.

Why didn't Chewie get a medal? :c

 

But even though all of this stuff, I still believe ROTS is the best of the PT, and ANH is the best of the OT.

Can't argue with that, if you don't think that A New Hope is the best Star Wars movie, then I implore you watch this again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRzDbnLHEQY

[Captain_Zone]

Oh yeah! I do remember that! It was hilarious how that took off in beta. A single orange pixel that grabbed the imagination of a generation..hehe

 

First time I noticed the little dude, it cost me a fight with a gold star boss on Hutta. I kept trying to brush the speck of dust off my monitor. Then I found out it was a graphics bug. Fell outta my chair.

 

And since I'm tired after a long day at work.... *unleashes the Orange Pixel Of Doom to bash George.*

[Maaruin]

Anakin was shown as young to show his childish dreams and ambitions. ("I'm gonna see 'em all!" - Talking about visiting every planet in the Galaxy), it also serves to show that he has emotional connections with his mother which set up the scene in AOTC where she dies.

 

Still he is a completely different character in AOTC. Dreams and ambitions could have been shown in a more mature state too. Yes, the thing with his mother in AOTC is set up here. But I think there could have been other ways to show that Anakin fears loss.

Showing him as, idk around 17 years maybe, already a pilot, would have created a more consistant character. He could have been played be the same actor in all three movies.

 

Obi-Wan wasn't featured over Qui-Gon because in essense, Qui-Gon was meant to train Anakin, but because he died, Obi-Wan had to take his place. If you watch the movie, you'll notice on several cases Obi clashes with Qui-Gon, and only trains Anakin at the end due to his master's dying wish, so it's to essentially show that Qui-Gon would've trained Anakin a lot better than Obi-Wan did.

 

Yeah, but why did they have to do that? Couldn't Obi-Wan find Anakin, as he said in ANH?

Obi-Wan training Anakin only because he gave his word and being shown as probably a bad teacher. Was that necessary for something?

 

I disagree about Padme, her role pretty much begins at Tatooine, and you get to see her talking with Anakin, amidst other scenes all the way till the end. She's a character.

 

Yeah, a little. On Tatooine she is a character, but before and after she is mainly carrying out her function as queen. Exept that she wants to free her planet at all costs. She doesn't feel as "real" as she feels in the other two movies.

 

Darth Sidious isn't the leader of the Trade Federation, he's just essentially using the leader's fear to manipulate him. Also, typically most people who watch Ep.1 have seen Ep.6, which has a few clear shots of Sidious, you can kind of see the resemblance to Palpatine, but I suppose that overall you're not meant to know completely, but you're meant to think, "Is that him, no, it can't be him, it is him, maybe, I don't know.."

 

And Sidious wasn't done that bad. In my opinion he seems to be the only one who is really set up for the next two movies. Anakin, Obi-Wan and Padme are introduced in the first scenes of AOTC. TPM foreshadows a few things, but doesn't give a real introduction.

The Protagonist is killed off. (Not necessarily a bad thing, but for the beginning of a trilogy it doesn't fit well.)

 

Also, Darth Maul wasn't meant to have depth, he was a tool of Sidious, TCW ruined this by bringing him back and making him less then a voiceless assassin who does his master's bidding.

 

I know. But during the last fight he has a lot a screentime for a tool. And in the advertisment he seems like the main bad guy. They could have made it more clear that he was a tool.

 

Well let's see, the assassionation plot causes Anakin and Padme to go to Naboo in hiding, causing the love plot, Obi-Wan tracks the Assassin which dabs into the Seperatist Plot which brings about the Clone Army. It's not that hard to follow, I'm just going to go with the thought that you are mentally impaired to comprehend such simplicity.

 

Yeah, i can follow the story. But what is the main plot? There are several plots going on. I know, we had the same thing in TESB, but there we had two plots going on.

Here we have five (forget to mention Anakin searching for his mother).

 

The Clone Army wasn't ordered by the Republic, but by the Sith, if you've seen Ep.III, the reason becomes blatantly clear. I think that Dooku ordered the Clone Army under Sifo-Dyas' name? Considering that Sifo-Dyas was dead when Lama Su said the Clone Army was requested, it seems plausible.

 

But he ordered it for the Republic. Still, the connection between the assasination plot and the clone army is Jango Fett, which seems a very random connection to me. Alternative idea: Let the seperatists complain that the republic is preparing for war. Obi-Wan investigates and indeed finds the clone army.

 

There wasn't many scenes in which Obi-Wan and Anakin shared a friendship, at the start you can see that they bond, but that Anakin needs a friend, whereas Obi-Wan is simply fulfilling his master's wishes. At least, that's how I see it, it's not until Ep. III that you see they are actual friends, yet Obi still seems to stifle Anakin a lot. The scene on the Gunship in Ep.II where Anakin wants to go back for Padme and Obi says no, at the start where they chase Zam you can see they clash a lot, and really haven't worked out how to go around this and bond. To make this seem logical, I guess one could say that during the 3 year Clone Wars, Anakin and Obi-Wan became friends whilst they fought many battles together. If there's anything you gain whilst being a soldier in a war, it's the bond you have with your comrades.

 

That's my explanation too. It falls together with Obi-Wan being forced into the teacher role against his will and far to early. But this means we only have the first half of ROTS to see the "And he was a very good friend." It would have fit better if they were good friends until anakin started to walk down the dark path.

 

Anakin was never subtle, he never had that control over his feelings that allowed him to be subtle, I think that's a big point in the PT, that Anakin was incapable of bringing his emotions into check. This leads him to some illogical decisions and actions based on his emotions.

 

Hm, if someone killed my mother, I wouldn't be subtle in how I handle my feelings after that, I understand and would do the exact same thing Anakin did. No kidding.

 

Are we supposed to like Anakin during AOTC? Yes, we are, I think. Do we like him? I, at least, didn't.

That's why I would have prefered him being a good man and the dark side being subtle in taking him.

 

Personally, I think they did ROTS perfectly. You're not going to see people suffering on Coruscant, the war isn't there. The point of the movie wasn't to show that people didn't trust and blamed the Jedi, it was to show that Anakin was being manipulated into becoming Vader, as was the point of the PT. Star Wars is the story of Anakin/Vader.

 

Yes, it was. But the war seems like a minor inconvenience on Coruscant. The clone wars should have been more devastating for the republic, making it easier for palpatine to rise. Even if it was completely done by the visuals.

 

Btw. The OT was not only the story of Luke redeeming his father, it was also the Story of the rebellion bringing down the Empire. The PT was not only Anakins story, but also the story of the Republic turning into the Empire.

 

Grevious I won't say was a complete waste, he was a character, but he just didn't seem like the kind of character you'd want as a General. I guess he must've had good battle tactics or something.

 

What did Grievous what Dooku couldn't have done?

Grievous seems to be in the movie because he can swing around four lightsabers and that would make a nice duel. That seems to be his main purpose.

 

I personally believe that Anakin and Obi-Wan only became good friends in the Clone Wars, and before that their relationship was really strained with the whole student/teacher ideal. (I haven't watched the animated TCW) From what I've heard about wars in general, it's that a lot of what goes on really makes you close with the people you fight with, so it makes sense that during the Clone Wars they bonded a lot better than when Anakin was a padawan under Obi-Wans tutelage in Ep. II.

 

As I said, I see it the same. I wanted it different.

 

Just because it doesn't set the tone for you, doesn't mean it didn't set the tone in general, matter of opinion.

 

Yeah, of course. I am mainly talking about the rescue of palpatine. Some funny R2 seens together with the murder of Dooku. After that the tone is set well.

 

I had to watch the fight scene between Luke and Vader for my recent english assignment, and in all honesty, I'd take Ep.III battle over that anyday. It was good, but eh.

The showiness in the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan I chalk down to them being at the same level. Can you imagine pushing someone who was the same strength as you pushing back? It wouldn't work, so it makes sense that they're implementing other things that tip the battle in their favour, this is ultimately shown when Obi-Wan "takes the high ground".

In the Ep VI battle, you can clearly see that Luke doesn't want to fight, he spends most of the time either blocking, talking or trying to get away from Vader, until the end where he gets angry. Essentially, it's barely a sword fight due to Luke not wanting to fight for the most part. Vader also is a cyborg, walking around in a big suit with robotic limbs, I doubt he'd be capable of performing like he did during the Clone Wars.

 

I think all nearly lightsaberfights in the prequels are exaggerated. Too much jumping around and far too fast. I'd prefer them more like a real sword fight. If you focus on the emotions instead. As I stated, the PT are action movies and lost some elements because of this.

 

The things you point out about the OT are mainly minor errors. I could point out lots of them in the PT. But that's not the point, such things happen. My point is that the Prequels are made in a way which makes it difficult to create an emotional connection to the audience. ROTS does a better Job than the other two.

 

But even though all of this stuff, I still believe ROTS is the best of the PT, and ANH is the best of the OT.

Can't argue with that, if you don't think that A New Hope is the best Star Wars movie, then I implore you watch this again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRzDbnLHEQY

 

ROTS is the best of the PT, I agree.

I like ESB and ROTJ better because of the Luke-Vader story, the Battle of Hoth and the Space battle of Endor. But ANH does a marvellous job in introducing the universe, the factions and the characters.

[Jaavik]

Okay, I'm gonna do my best here, you put a LOT of questions in here..hehe

 

Small things like: When the Trade Federation tries to kill the Jedi, why don't they pump in gas and wait for several hours before they check it? And why didn't the Jedi try to cut through the door? Why do they guard the queen with so few droids? The know the Jedi can handle them. Why not some Droidikas?

 

Of course, there are also some things like this in the OT, but it seems far less. What I can think about is:

 

-Stormtroopers shoot too bad

(-exaust pod)

-ewoks are overpowered

 

I think you kinda answered your own question here with the examples you gave at the end, but from what I'm reading, these scenarios you are talking about aren't without logic, but it seems to have more to do with simply re-writing the scenes so they lack any kind of logical flaws. There really isn't an answer for these. Bad guys can make poor or panicky decisions. Not every action in a film has to be the action “I” would have done.

 

Most any film can be criticized in this way. If I were to go back to the Original Trilogy with the same critical eye, I would ask why Obi-Wan doesn't just "force persuade" the guy in the Cantina to settle down, rather than letting the conflict escalate, especially since they are trying to keep a low profile. Chopping off limbs in a public place seems counter-productive.

 

If the stormtroopers are looking for the Droids on Tattoine and they are of such importance, why would they only be searching "unlocked doors"?

 

If at the end of the film, the Death Star is trying to destroy the Rebels on Yavin IV once and for all, do they wait until they can travel AROUND a planet they can simply destroy?

 

Why can a Space Station, the size of a moon be taken down with a single shot into an unguarded exhaust port? You would think that would come up with the designers.

 

In Return of the Jedi, how is a platoon of heavily armed and armored Storm Troopers and Scout Walkers taken out by a single tribe of teddy bears with rocks and spears?

 

If Darth Vader can block laser blasts with his hand, why can't he block lightsabers?

 

If you are looking for logical flaws, chances are you will always find them. It’s similar to “Monday-Morning Quarterbacking”.

-the TPH Anakin is a child and very different to Anakin in AOTC.

 

Remember that there are large gaps in time in between each of the Prequels. There was somewhere like 8-10 years between TPM and AOTC and approximately 10 years between AOTC and ROTS (I may be incorrect on how long), so that gap in time can explain any differences in the way he is acting. Anakin is described as sweet and kind in TPM, and still seems that way in AOTC but is also arrogant, frustrated and led by his passions (like most any teenager)

--Obi-Wan is not as much the Protagonist as he should be. Qui-Gon seems to be the Protagonist and he gets killed. So Obi-Wans role from this movie to the next changes so much.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "should be" unless you went in expecting him to be the main character, which is understandable. Prequels come with a certain amount of expectations. Some of us began to imagine what many of these characters would be like as younger versions once we knew the Prequels were being made. I was expecting a much darker version of Anakin than what I saw. But the storyteller has no responsibility to develop anyone up to my expectations. I just follow the story. I think many of the people who were disappointed with Anakin's portrayal (other than the bad acting) because they were expecting a young, dark, "bad-***" type, rather than a frustrated, arrogant teenager. No right or wrong to this, just my personal observation.

 

--Padme: You don't see that much about her. Mainly her public face, Queen Amidala. But she doesn't feel like a real character.

 

I agree she could have been developed a little more, but remember that "Queen Amidala" and "Padme" were deliberately portrayed as different people. Story-wise, if you go in blind, it might have worked better, but with all the marketing and everything that Star Wars ALWAYS gets, most of us knew that Natalie Portman was playing "Queen Amidala", and we were just waiting to see how it was explained. I think her character was underdeveloped as well.

 

Little trivia tidbit, when you saw "Padme" (The ACTUAL Queen) standing next to Queen Amidala (the decoy), the Queen was being played by Kiera Knightley before most people really knew who she was.

--Darth Sidious/Palpatine: Am I supposed to know that these are the same? Darth Sidious as the secret leader of the Trade Federation seems a little cartoony. Palpatine could have used a little more screentime. But all in all that was not bad.

 

I can't speak for everyone. How much of a hardcore Star Wars fan do you consider yourself? Although it is never technically mentioned in the OT, Most of my friends (and also people who followed the EU) knew that "The Emperor" was named Palpatine. The "Darth Sidious" name wasn't used until the PT. But my brother isn't a huge Star wars fan, and he never made the connection after he saw it. But there is a "toungue-in-cheek" scene at the end of TPM where "Senator Palpatine" makes mention to Anakin that he will watch his career with "great interest". That scene got some "knowing giggles" in my theater as they knew that he was The Emperor and Anakin was Vader.

 

I'm not sure how Darth Sidious being the force behind the Trade Federation translates as "cartoony". He didn't OWN the Trade Federation, but you get the impression that he has them by the "short-n-curlies" in some way. Some kind of arrangement was made between them. You can tell that Nute Gunray didn't seem to know much about who he was dealing with as he had no idea that there were "two of them" when Darth Maul was introduced. I personally made the assumption that Sith aren't public knowledge as they have been in hiding for so long (a thousand years or so). It's a HUGE galaxy.

 

-But what about Darth Maul? From his role during the last fight you could assume that he was the main antagonist. But he wasn't very developed as a character.

 

The main Antagonist was definitely Darth Sidious. Maul was the center of attention as he was so cool to look at (Zabraks have never been seen before Episode I) and he was such a bad-*** with a double-bladed saber. I think it's intentional that some characters have an air of mystery about them. Look at how popular Boba Fett became after his extremely limited screen time in the OT. They didn't really develop his character any further than Maul.

 

How could it have been better: Place it closer to the rest. Make Obi-Wan the Protagonist, instead of Qui-Gon. Let him find Anakin as a young man, a pilot probably, so you don't have to go to Tatooine. Let Darth Maul take Sidious role in the Trade Federation. Only place some references to his master.

 

I see no problem with your ideas, but these are kind of "what if" scenarios. It was made plain in TESB that Jedi aren’t supposed to be trained after they reach a certain age. The reason behind this is that they don’t want their members developing attachments (Parents, siblings, etc). Finding him much older than he was would have been difficult to explain in his training. I couldn't really comment on whether your ideas would be better or worse without actually seeing how they are executed. I really liked the character of Qui-Gon Jinn. It's a new character, and the only main character (other than Maul) that you have NO idea what was going to happen to him. He was the "wild card" of the story that allowed you to take an interest in him and be surprised with his eventual fate. I wasn't expecting him to die in the first movie.

 

Like I’ve explained before, filming a Prequel has unique challenges in that it’s difficult to create tension or ambiguity around a character when you already know what happens to them. So you have to approach it differently.

 

Why was the Bounty Hunter who was used to create the clone army the same one who was hired to assasinate Padme?

 

Well, it isn't explained at first, but you eventually find out that Jango Fett was hired by "Tyrannus". "Darth Tyrannus" is Dooku's Sith name. So he was under his employ already.

 

All of these stories seem underdeveloped. A more focused one would have been better. The most importent was the seperatists and the war/clone army, I think.

 

Anakin's and Obi-Wan's friendship wasn't depicted well in this movie. Anakin should have been a good Jedi at this time. Shouldn't complain that much. His fall should only start at that time.

The Jedi ban on relationships was a very bad idea. The whole "forbidden romance" thing didn't add much tension and it made the Jedi very distant.

 

I can only really speak for myself. I personally didn't find them to be underdeveloped. I understood everything that happened. Whatever I didn't feel was explained, I waited to see if they would get covered in a later movie.

 

How Anakin "should have been", as far as complaining too much, etc is more or less, personal taste. The complaining fit with the issue that the Jedi Council had with training him. He was too old. He developed an attachment to his mother. His power was more than anyone else in the Jedi Order and it made him arrogant, aalong with the fact that he was expected to be “The Chosen One”. For these reasons, I can see whay a teenager would be frustrated and arrogant.

 

The ultimate goal for the storyteller is to create a character that is "essentially a good person" and show how he can fall into becoming such a twisted version of himself, but still have a way to "come back to the light". I could probably come up with dozens of OTHER ways for this to develop, some of which could be considered more desirable than what we had. It's Lucas' story to tell. It's his creation, so I'm just along for the ride. If I don’t like it, I don’t like it. If I agreed with you that io liked your ideas better than the ones that were in the movie, that doesn’t mean that someone else wouldn’t have HATED it.

 

The "forbidden love" aspect of the story was to be played off of Anakin's established problem with developing attachments. A Good person might do something really horrible to protect someone he loves. Although I agree the "love relationship" between Padme and Anakin wasn’t very convincing. I assume the challenge was to establish them as a couple by the second film, so it seemed rushed. Leia and Han had three movies to lay that out and it didn't cement until the end of the 3rd. Plus the relationship blossomed under a different director in TESB (a better one, in my opinion) and at the end of the third movie, they only officially became a couple, rather than “married with children”.

 

Ultimately we're discussing what you would have LIKED better. Which is fine, but it's nothing we can really debate about. It's your personal taste.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

The only character who seemed well done was Obi-Wan in this. (Okay, my opinion. Do you understand why, or should I elaborate more?)

 

Nope. Obi-Wan was my favorite character in the Prequels. I'm right there with you on that one. But remember that Obi-Wan BEGAN this series as the most developed character in the cast (aside from Yoda or the Droids).

 

My idea: Padme is sent to negotiate with the Seperatists and Obi-Wan and Anakin are sent to protect her. You could include nearly everything important in that plot. Or, if you want them seperate, let Obi-Wan make the war preperations. Just don't take Padme and Anakin out of the important things.

Anakin could make a dark decision somewhere. One that was more subtle than killing all the sand people.

 

Anakin killing all the Sand People in that tribe was one of my favorite parts and a VERY relevant scene. It's not supposed to be a "subtle" scene. It's Anakin letting his hate and rage take control. remember that Obi-Wan makes comment in ANH that the Force can CONTROL your actions and also obey your commands. This would be why The Jedi try to avoid the Dark Side as to what can happen in moments like these. Anakin didn't slaughter this tribe on a whim. As I've stated before, Yoda was concerned about Anakin's fear of losing his mother. This scene was the example of why Yoda was concerned. This shows what someone who has developed attachments would be willing to do to keep them (or punish those that take them away from him). This tribe kidnapped his mother, beaten and tortured for a month (and who knows what else).

 

So what would someone with "god-like" power do to these people in a blind rage? This was his mother, the person he loved most in the world, and she JUST died in his arms because of what THEY did to her. He snapped. And after the fact, he even showed remorse (to an extent) for what he did.

 

Episode III:

 

You don't see the effects of the war. Let us see how the people suffer on coruscant and are open for palpatine's propaganda. Let us see how they start to blame the Jedi.

 

Blame the Jedi for what? The average person in the war wouldn't blame the Jedi for anything. It wasn't THEIR war. It was a war by the Republic. Mace Windu makes a statement to Palpatine warning him about starting a war because the Jedi are "peacekeepers" and not soldiers. Palpatine's "propaganda" involving the Jedi wouldn't really start until after ROTS as the announcement that they "attempted to take control" happened near the end of the film. And you didn't see any scenes showing the "effects of war" on the people in any of the other movies. There have been wars through all of them. I wouldn't classify those scenes as necessary (although they would have been cool to see).

 

Time is always a factor when editing a film. If a scene is redundant or unnecessary, more than likely it will be cut from the finished film. Showing the people suffering in war isn't a necessary scene if they want to make room for other scenes. Most people would understand that War is a bad thing and people normally aren't happy about it.

 

General Grievous was a waste, I think. Yeah, he was good for action, but he wasn't really needed.

 

General Grievous was introduced as a character in the Tartakovsky Clone Wars series on Cartoon Network before Episode II was released. He was already established as a highly effective Jedi-Killer that collects the lightsabers of the Jedi he's killed.

 

Dooku had to be removed from the story to make way for Palpatine to attempt to bring Anakin in. Since Dooku was removed at the beginning of the film, the war would technically be over as the "leader" had been defeated. Grievous was the General of the Droid Armies and so he was the "known antagonist" for the Republic to still need to find. If the war was over at this point, Palpatine wouldn't have been granted the "emergency powers" to fight the war.

 

Not every character in a story is "absolutely needed". Sometimes they are just there. They don't always HAVE to be justified, sometimes they are merely a mechanism for moving the story forward. How "needed" was Lando Calrissian? That entire part of the movie could have been done without creating a "longtime friend of Solo's".

 

Having a bad-guy in a film (even an extra one) isn't really superfluous. It gave Obi-Wan a villain to fight, which creates an action-packed scene for an action movie. Sometimes that's all it needs to be.

 

The movie does a decent job (I think) in showing Anakin's and Obi-Wans friendship. It should have been like that in the other two movies.

 

Their relationship goes through several stages. In AOTC, it's a master/apprentice relationship. A proper form of this is represented as a father/son dynamic (You hear Anakin comment that Obi-Wan is the closest thing he has to a father). Most any good teacher will tell you that in order to teach, it's better to remain a figure of authority than a friend. In ROTS, Anakin is a full Knight and Obi-Wan's equal. They can develop more of a friendship at this point.

 

The movie fails to set the tone. Some scenes are close to funny/slapstic, others are very dark. Better create a more constant tone.

 

Like in the Original Trilogy? The tone moves back and forth from serious to funny CONSTANTLY in those. Although I do agree that the comedy elements (mostly in TPM - Jar Jar) were more prevalent. Most any successful action film always keeps a good balance of comedy to break up the tension occasionally. How many pratfalls did you see R2 and C-3P0 involved in? R2 spit out and flying through the air on Dagobah, 3-P0 being pushed off the skiff in ROTJ by R-2, 3-PO being carried around unfinished on Chewie's back, etc.

 

As I said I would rate ROTS together with ANH. I think they should have put less effort in the special effects, and more effort in the characters, dialogues, emotions. If you compare the duel between Vader and Luke in ROTJ and the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in ROTS, you see the difference. The surroundings are more a distractions than a support for the tension and emotions during the duel.

 

Although I agree that the dialogue, emotions and characters could have been improved on, I don't think you necessarily have to sacrifice one for the other. I didn't find the special effects to be distracting. In the previous films, George was limited by technology and had to either build sets or travel to locations. His technological capabilities now allowed him to film in front of a "green-screen" and put the characters anywhere he wanted to put them. There was no need to sacrifice budget on special effect to direct the films better, that was George's own failing. Here's another piece of trivia. George didn't build ONE piece of Clone Armor for the Prequels, they are entirely CGI.

 

 

In general: I think the Prequels are action movies, while the Originals are space advantures. Action movies are nice, but there are lots of them. Star Wars should focus on the story, because the story makes it unique. (Together with lightsabers )

 

What distinguishes an adventure film from an action movie? It sounds like you are saying that the PT had less involvement with "space" and I'm not sure what you mean.I don't dispute that the trilogies are very different in style from each other, but I personally don't think that makes it bad.

 

I'm also a huge Star Trek fan. my two favorite movies are Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star trek VI: the Undiscovered Country. By all standards, these films are COMPLETELY different from each other. One is focused on action and combat and the other is focused on mystery and political intrigue (much like the difference between the trilogies). But I don't claim that either of them are unworthy to be considered "Star Trek".

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

Damn... My posts are getting WAY too big. This is what happens when you are bored at work.

[Bluerodian]

People wouldn't bash Lucas half as much if he didn't make it so damn easy.

[Captain_Zone]

People wouldn't bash Lucas half as much if he didn't make it so damn easy.

 

You, sir, just won the thread.