Enough Lucas Bashing Already!

[Jaavik]

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

 

Yup, and he is an incredibly stubborn man. For someone who RAILED against colorizing movies because of their "historical signifigance", I can't fathom why he also refuses to release an original cut of the Original Trilogy, for "HISTORIC" purposes if nothing else. I don't think people would be nearly as upset about his tweaks and changes if they had access to the films they loved as a child.

[Maaruin]

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

 

And you wrote lots of answers

 

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.

 

You probably noticed I didn't point out everything like that. Of course there are errors in both trilogies. But I think in the PT we have a lot more of them. Probably because the PT scripts weren't that much reviewed before production as the old scripts. Or the "rushed script" is just a very common ruse among fans.

 

Just for fun some possible explanations...

 

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.

 

Can't explain that...

 

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

 

Lazy and slipshod troopers on an outer rim planet...

 

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?

 

Well, if the Death Star needs time to recharge. Say around a day. Then it's easier to travel around.

 

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.

 

Can't really explain that. But I know an RL example of plans with fatal flaws who were only discovered after the building had collapsed. (happened in my hometown)

 

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?

 

I count that as a real error. There is no explanation for this, except the fact that originally the Ewoks should be Wookies.

 

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

 

I always thought hes hand was damaged by the blaster. So he could block a lightsaber for a few seconds before it gets through.

 

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

[/color]

 

Yeah, but as I said, I think there are more of them in the PT and they could have corrected some of these if they had looked more closely.

 

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)

 

Yeah. I know. It's not an error, but an unfortunate decision. Placing TPM later would have made a more constant character who would have been easier to identify with.

 

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.

 

As I said, it is no error. Should be is what I think would have been better to connect TPM with the rest of the prequels. And I think your point is valid too since it would have been easier for most of the viewer to feel with Anakin. To like him, so to speak.

 

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.

 

Okay, so we kind of agree on this.

 

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.

 

cartoony = mysterious man in black cloak = obviously evil

 

Also: Why didn't the Neimodians just show the holorecords when they were put on trail? I think (opinion of course) if Sidious mostly spoke through Darth Maul and we only saw him in one or two scenes with his apprentice, it would have created a different feeling of manipulation and menace.

 

 

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.

 

Yeah. You know, Darth Maul was a side character like Boba Fett, but got a fighting scene like a main character. That's what I mean with "action movie", awesome action scene just because of the action.

 

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.

 

Luke was 22 when Yoda said he was too old. Anakin was 9 when Yoda/Mace said too old. Anakin as a 16 year old junior pilot could have been tha same, but would have made a more consistant character.

 

I understand what you liked about Qui-Gon. Can't comment on that, because I was spoilered for the OT and Episode I before I watched them...

 

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.

 

I know. But why send the same Bounty Hunter to kill Padme. There are lots of them, and hiring another one wouldn't have led Obi-Wan to the clone army.

 

 

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.

 

I could follow everything too. Still I imagine dropping the assassination plot for more Palpatine and Dooku manipulation would have made it better.

 

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.

 

Of course it's personal taste. I like Star Wars because of my personal taste. And I can only argue why (in my opinion) the prequels, in this case Anakins character, weren't as good as I wished they would be. And if many fans agree on that, you could say: Lucas, you could have done better. But thanks, anyways.

 

You also point out two other things I didn't like about the prequels:

 

-Jedi aren't allowed to form attachments (I see lots of Jedi bashing in these forums because of that. It shouldn't be like that, there should be no doubt that the Jedi are the good characters. In the OT Yoda and Obi-Wan never forbade Luke to form attachments, they just warned him that it could be used against him.)

 

-the Chosen One (Anakin as "Space Jesus", Prophecy and all that. Why can't he be a normal Jedi who is seduced by the dark side.)

 

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.

 

Of course, haters gonna hate. Still I think that it wouldn't have been hard to make the PT better and create less haters. Why do so many say the novalisation is much better than the movies? Probably because someone else, also experienced in story telling, looked over the script and adjusted some things.

If the information I heared is correct, it would have been good for the PT if Lucas took more time for scriptwriting and let some experienced writers review 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”.

 

Yeah, it's true that's difficult. But it's also one of these points where a "set TPM later" and "let someone adjust Lucas ideas" (in script and direction) would have helped.

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's right. In fact every Lucas-bashing is based upon personal taste. If Lucas wanted to make movies that fit his own personal taste, he can (and did?). But if he wanted to make movies to fit the fans personal taste, he could have done better.

 

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).

 

That's true.

Of course this is again a "what if", but I think it would have been possible to make Anakin a well done character like Obi-Wan. (I have to read the novelisations one day and see if the character developement is really that much better there.)

 

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.

 

Yeah. Maybe I'm just a fan of subtle, small steps towards the dark side...

If you think it was well done, I can't argue with that.

 

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.

 

The people suffering could just be in the background. Drastically reduced air traffic and destroyed or bedraggled buildings on Coruscant. Maybe a short reference in Palpatine's speech. The war seems to be too far away for the people on coruscant to throw themselfs at Palpatine.

 

The Jedi blamed might result from my personal taste again: Han Solo and the imperial officers in ANH didn't believe in the Force. For them the Jedi were an old religion and they were happy they were gone. How did this start? How did palpatine manage to create these anti-Jedi movements? I would have loved to see it.

 

(Have you played Kotor II? Do you remember Atton and his views about the Jedi? Something like this could be a believable start for later anti-Jedi opinions.)

 

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.

 

Yeah, again my point: The Prequels are too much action movies. Lando was a plot device, he lured Han into Vaders trap and later brought Leia and Chewie out. Grievous main purpose was the fight against Obi-Wan.

 

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.

 

I know. And if you assume that and watch the AOTC and ROTS with Obi-Wan as protagonist in your mind, it is not bad.

I (together with many other OT fans) would have loved to see more of the "and he was a very good friend" (Obi-Wan, ANH). At the moment, most of it happens between AOTC and ROTS, offscreen.

 

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.

 

Compare the droids in the OT (say the final battle in ESB or ROTJ) with the droids on Grievous ship. I think in the OT it fit in better, somehow. It wasn't too much.

Or maybe I have to rewatch...

 

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.

 

Bluescreen seems less real sometimes. Lord of the Rings had as much special effects as the Prequels, but the sets were real. And (in my opinion, of course) look more real than the sets in the Prequels. It also helps the actors.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

The OT uses less action scenes and creates suspense mainly through the story. The garbage compactor scene. The Falcon without hyperdrive. Luke goes to redeem his father. The action scenes only support them.

 

In the PT the action scenes are the main elements. Maul against the Jedi. Obi-Wan against Jango Fett. The Arena. Obi-Wan against Grievous. Anakin against Obi-Wan.

 

Maybe "space adventures" was the wrong word. They are space adventures because all three OT movies are basically a travel to different planets. The PT would probably be more of a space thriller, if they were story driven instead of action driven.

 

Now there are a lot of action movies out there, but few story movies which use action as a story telling device. I love good storys with action as story telling device. Again Lord of the Rings is a very good example which was made not long ago. Did you get my point?

 

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".

 

Yeah. But now compare one of these films with Star Trek: Nemesis (forget the number). Or with the last Star Trek movie. More and more they seem to focus on action instead of story. This is a trend I observe in movies in general. Far worse than the Star Wars Prequels was that in Narnia III: Voyage on the Dawn Treader they sacrificed the Coolest. Plan. And. Bluff. In. Narnia. Ever. for a very cheap action scene.

 

Edit: Do you know the "red letter media reviews"? Funny made reviews of the star wars prequels (and other movies), but very destructive. I got some points from them, but have a more balanced view, I think. Still they are worth to watch.

 

ROTS

Edited June 3, 2012 by Maaruin

[SNCommand]

Do you know the "red letter media reviews"? Funny made reviews of the star wars prequels (and other movies), but very destructive. I got some points from them, but have a more balanced view, I think. Still they are worth to watch.

It's nice to see someone that get influence from those videos but debate using their own words. Hate people that just dump them on my lap when I disagree with them and then they post "Nuff said"

 

What a bastard move in a argument

[Suromir]

Maybe, but it is Lucas we are talking about, also a young Han Solo got cut from Episode 3 so I am pretty sure this means it is the Falcon.

 

no, it was confirmed to be THE Millenium Falcon (sp)...no I'm not digging it up. But it was confirmed. no neither Han nor Chewy were in it. At the time it belonged to a company or somesuch..I forget...

 

but again..it WAS the Falcon

[SlaveToTheWheel]

George Lucas made cinema as we know it today possible.

 

If you don't like the changes he made to Star Wars, then you don't like Star Wars anymore. Too bad for you, because it's wonderful. All of it.

People tend to forget that Tolkein went back to The Hobbit and changed things to facilitate The Lord of the Rings - much to the chagrin of long time fans. This is no different at all.

 

George Lucas deserves the undying respect of anyone who loves film - many of your favourite (and in typical anti-prequel kiddy fashion, usually vapid) Summer Blockbusters would not have even been possible without his work.

All of you who slag him off, owe him.

 

To attack George Lucas personally is a failing for you, not him.

It saddens me greatly that he has been forced out of the business by armchair critics and people who really never loved the movies - they loved the toys, and the movies were just their toys come to life.

 

All who still bash him need to stop now, because you got exactly what you wanted. He's gone - or more specifically - going. But, because he is gone, you will never, ever see the original, 'unadulterated' versions you so desperately want on DVD. It will never happen. He, and Lucasfilm, have pretty much washed their hands of it - all because of you. Kathleen Kennedy can't make it happen, and won't, again, because you rubbed his nose in it so hard, he doesn't want any more to do with it.

 

Congratulations - you killed your favourite franchise because you couldn't be polite and respectful. Thankyou Internet freaks.

Edited June 4, 2012 by SlaveToTheWheel

[Jaavik]

And you wrote lots of answers

 

Agreed, it IS fun, after all...

You probably noticed I didn't point out everything like that. Of course there are errors in both trilogies. But I think in the PT we have a lot more of them. Probably because the PT scripts weren't that much reviewed before production as the old scripts. Or the "rushed script" is just a very common ruse among fans.

 

Completely possible. But I'm personally not aware of anyone who worked on the film claiming the script was rushed. Just the fans.

 

Lazy and slipshod troopers on an outer rim planet...

 

Which was my justification for the Nemoidians not leaving the Jedi in the gassed room. Just a bad call...

 

Well, if the Death Star needs time to recharge. Say around a day. Then it's easier to travel around.

 

You see in the "heads up display" that the rebels are watching, that Yavin IV was directly behind the other planet. I'm not sure if Yavin IV was supposed to be a moon or not, but I would assume destroying one would destroy the other.

 

Can't really explain that. But I know an RL example of plans with fatal flaws who were only discovered after the building had collapsed. (happened in my hometown)

 

Agreed. Like I said, I'm just making examples of things that CAN be nit-picked. When I watch a movie, If i can find a logical way to explain something that happened in my head, I don't over-analyze it and just enjoy the movie.

 

I count that as a real error. There is no explanation for this, except the fact that originally the Ewoks should be Wookies.

Actually there are plenty of historical incidents where natives (or any kind of "uncivilized tribe") were outgunned and still managed to win the battle. It's a very popular theme in movies (Dances With Wolves, Avatar, etc). I have a favorite quote from "Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves" where Robin explains that The Crusades taught him that that one man fighting for his home is worth more than ten hired soldiers. I agree with that.

 

Also Wookies are technologically superior to Ewoks.

 

I always thought hes hand was damaged by the blaster. So he could block a lightsaber for a few seconds before it gets through.

Actually you can see that there is no damage done to the hand. It was completely a force move. Once again, I'm "nit-picking" as an example. I never had a problem with the scene. And if you watch the "Hope" trailer for THIS game, you see a scene where Master Shatele Shan essentially blocks a stabbing move with a lightsaber with her hand. I think it would definitely depend on how powerful and how focused a Jedi/Sith would be at the time.

[Jaavik]

Yeah, but as I said, I think there are more of them in the PT and they could have corrected some of these if they had looked more closely.

 

Like I was trying to explain with the previous examples. I didn't find these things to be "logical flaws" as there is some way to explain what happened. It's a matter of "suspension of disbelief". A certain level of Logic has to be sacrificed when using it to analyze a universe with this level of technology and force-abilities.

 

Yeah. I know. It's not an error, but an unfortunate decision. Placing TPM later would have made a more constant character who would have been easier to identify with.

 

I think you make a very interesting point. It may have made Anakin more relatable to have him more consistent throughout 3 films, but it would definitely be challenging to create a believable character of someone who starts as a good person (but not TOO good), gets LURED to the dark side (not inherently evil) and then be struggling with the horrors he's perpetrated enough to eventually be turned back at the end. I personally think that was why Lucas decided to stretch his story out over such a long period with the intention of seeing Anakin throughout several periods of his life to show the events that directed the person he became. The short period would be easier to establish him as just an evil person. But like I said, you idea could work just as well.

 

cartoony = mysterious man in black cloak = obviously evil

 

I wouldn't say he was all THAT mysterious. (Mysterious to the Nemoidians, maybe), but WE knew who he was. I would think the purpose of the cloak was to hide his identity, since he was also a well-known senator.

 

Also: Why didn't the Neimodians just show the holorecords when they were put on trail? I think (opinion of course) if Sidious mostly spoke through Darth Maul and we only saw him in one or two scenes with his apprentice, it would have created a different feeling of manipulation and menace.

 

Why doesn't someone involved in The Mafia, turn in their own boss and colleagues? Because sometimes, they realize that the alternative can be worse. Since Darth Sidious (unknown, essentially, to the Nemoidians) was calling the shots with the Trade Federation, you have to assume he has SOME kind of leverage against them and they are OBVIOUSLY afraid of him. It's possible that he was the one who put Nute Gunray into power or whatever.

 

Sidious DIDN'T speak through Darth Maul. When Darth Maul is first introduced, the Nemoidians were surprised by his existence. The line went something like, "Now there are TWO of them, we never should have made this bargain!"

 

Yeah. You know, Darth Maul was a side character like Boba Fett, but got a fighting scene like a main character. That's what I mean with "action movie", awesome action scene just because of the action.

But wouldn't you agree that since Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are completely unaware of the Sith's involvement, that it was a necessary scene to have them meet? This was where the Jedi suddenly realized that the Sith were back. It was necessary for the story. Lucas fills his movies with unnecessary action scenes. Think of the Speeder Bike scene in ROTJ, or the Walker scene in TESB. The scenes are MOSTLY there for the action, but there is SOME element that they serve in the overall story, no matter how small (Speeder Bikes to seperate Leia from the group and meet the Ewoks, Walkers to necessitate the fleeing of Hoth and set up the Rebels as being on the defensive)

 

Luke was 22 when Yoda said he was too old. Anakin was 9 when Yoda/Mace said too old. Anakin as a 16 year old junior pilot could have been the same, but would have made a more consistant character.

 

but it was never explained why Yoda believed he was "too old" in TESB. I always wondered why, since Luke didn't appear to be training all that long with Ben OR Yoda, but after fighting Vader, he began to refer to himself as a "Jedi Knight". Luke was obviously given special consideration because of the circumstances and who he was. Which was also driven home when Ben says he is their last hope and Yoda claims there is "another". Showing Anakin as a child initially gives us the chance to meet Schmi, who is Anakin's first dangerous attachment that the Jedi are worried about. WE get to like Schmi because of how kind, loving and caring she is. WE feel the loss as Anakin does when she dies.

 

As I stated earlier, there is something to be said for your idea of consistency in the character. I know why Lucas made the choices he did and I can see how your idea may have worked as well. We all love the universe so much that we want to make the stories how we want them. I, personally, had no real problem with the story OR the script. My problem was with the direction. If Lucas had handed it off to someone else, I definitely believe it would have been better, even with the existing story. Better performances are brought out by the director.

 

I know. But why send the same Bounty Hunter to kill Padme. There are lots of them, and hiring another one wouldn't have led Obi-Wan to the clone army.

I'm sure that if Jango Fett was the choice they used as a template for the Clone Army, he must have a reputation of excellence. Possibly one of the best Bounty Hunters out there. The Sith probably viewed removing Padme as such a high priority, they wanted to send "the best". Jango was the one who sent Zam Wessell, who had some obvious skills as well. If Jedi weren't involved and directly in the next room, the plan would have succeeded flawlessly.

 

Remember that the dart was unidentifiable by the standard methods. We assume that Jedi have the very best in forensic technology, and they weren't able to identify the dart. Obi Wan followed a hunch by seeking out his friend (Dex) whom he thought may know something about it. This, along with the fact that the existence of the planet was deleted from the archives show that under normal investigation measures, the crime would have remained unsolved.

 

Planning this particular assassination wouldn't have been able to foresee how it was solved.

 

I could follow everything too. Still I imagine dropping the assassination plot for more Palpatine and Dooku manipulation would have made it better.

 

Was the "assassination plot" simply to kill Padme? Or would it maybe have been a manipulation by Sidious/Palpatine to reunite Anakin with Padme? Remember that Palpatine was the one to suggest Kenobi to be the one to provide protection for her (knowing Anakin would be with him). It's already been established that Palpatine and Anakin had developed a close relationship and Palpatine was influential to him. I personally saw it as a machination to put another "piece on the board' for Palpatine so he could further manipulate Anakin.

 

Of course it's personal taste. I like Star Wars because of my personal taste. And I can only argue why (in my opinion) the prequels, in this case Anakins character, weren't as good as I wished they would be. And if many fans agree on that, you could say: Lucas, you could have done better. But thanks, anyways.

 

Agreed. No argument here.

 

-Jedi aren't allowed to form attachments (I see lots of Jedi bashing in these forums because of that. It shouldn't be like that, there should be no doubt that the Jedi are the good characters. In the OT Yoda and Obi-Wan never forbade Luke to form attachments, they just warned him that it could be used against him.)

Because Luke wasn't "raised" as a Jedi. He was hidden for his own protection. Luke, at the height of his power in the OT was no where NEAR the level he should have been at his age (As the PT shows). Luke's attachments couldn't be avoided. Yoda still tried to warn him against them when Luke wanted to leave training to rescuehis friends. They didn't believe he was ready to face Vader and the threat of losing them could be used against Luke (which it WAS in ROTJ when Palpatine threatened to destroy them unless Luke joined him).

 

Jedi are taken from their parents at birth to be trained (when the Jedi were in power). Yoda wasn't in a position to forbid Luke from making attachments as he was already in his twenties. When Ben took Luke from Tattoine, Luke had already lost the attachments he had when Owen and Beru were killed, but Luke was never trained to let go of attachments in general. They didn't have the time to train that out of him, which they knew was a problem.

 

the Chosen One (Anakin as "Space Jesus", Prophecy and all that. Why can't he be a normal Jedi who is seduced by the dark side.)

 

people have different views on this as they try to compare Anakin's birth to "immaculate conception". Which means that he was born without a father (or the father being "God"). Qui-Gon theorized that he was conceived by the midichlorians, which would technically make him more of a "mutant" than a "Space Jesus".

 

I don't deny that Lucas may have been attempting an homage to Christianity, but I'm not certain if it's ever been stated outright by him.

 

I also know that the idea of "midichlorians" was unpopular with a lot of fans as they thought of the force as something more magical than biological, but here's my viewpoint on the matter. By OT standards, someone who doesn't already have a "connection to the force" cannot be taught to have it. They can only train those who already have the "connection". Han could never become a force-user, no matter how much training he had. The midichlorians is a biological explanation for that "connection", but it doesn't negate any "magical quality" it only adds an additional step that the "magical quality" comes from this microscopic organism, and training the individual to manipulate this symiotic relationship is what allows for the abilities. The more "midichlorians" that are active in your system, the more power you are capable of.

[Jaavik]

Of course, haters gonna hate. Still I think that it wouldn't have been hard to make the PT better and create less haters. Why do so many say the novalisation is much better than the movies? Probably because someone else, also experienced in story telling, looked over the script and adjusted some things.

 

I assume you meant "easy".

 

I can't think of ANY movie, where a book version wasn't better. Most people can't read a book in two hours, so you will always get more character development, plot, subn-plots, etc. (ask most any Harry Potter fan), and in many cases, certain things are mostly left to your imagination, and you will never be disappointed by your own imagination.

 

If the information I heared is correct, it would have been good for the PT if Lucas took more time for scriptwriting and let some experienced writers review it.

 

This could absolutely be true. And unless Lucas has ever explained why he decided to do it this way, we can only speculate. When that DOES happen, fans of the directors will blame the writers and fans of the writers will blame the directors. My speculation would be that George views this property as his own, and if it was going to fail or succeed, he wanted it to be because of his choices and not someone else's. But this is only Y speculation, based on a paper I wrote about him. He's a fiercely independent film-maker and will fight furiously when someone else tries to take control of his properties (even the fans). It's not always a good thing for the finished product and his stubbornness is probably his biggest fault (i.e. Prequels or Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).

 

Yeah, it's true that's difficult. But it's also one of these points where a "set TPM later" and "let someone adjust Lucas ideas" (in script and direction) would have helped.

 

I agree. It all could have been better. But is it worth of the venomous HATE you see so many spewing on here (not you)? Or is it just a case that the OT set such a high bar, that the PT had a much longer way to fall?

 

Yeah, that's right. In fact every Lucas-bashing is based upon personal taste. If Lucas wanted to make movies that fit his own personal taste, he can (and did?). But if he wanted to make movies to fit the fans personal taste, he could have done better.

 

I think this point nails it right here. It's the difference between an "independent artist" and a "commercial artist". I believe that Lucas does these stories for himself first and foremost, and if other people like it, all the better. I think the films are for him and he does the marketing for the fans. People, who become so invested in his work get the attitude of, "How dare you do this to something I love! I wanted it to be this..." and Lucas's attitude is "it was NEVER yours. This is mine to do with as I please. I created it, I paid for it, I control it.". And whether we like it or not, it's absolutely true.

 

Yeah. Maybe I'm just a fan of subtle, small steps towards the dark side...

If you think it was well done, I can't argue with that.

 

Nothing wrong with that. There are many films where subtlety is what makes it great. I just don't think it's ever been the case with Lucas.

 

The people suffering could just be in the background. Drastically reduced air traffic and destroyed or bedraggled buildings on Coruscant. Maybe a short reference in Palpatine's speech. The war seems to be too far away for the people on coruscant to throw themselfs at Palpatine.

I can see that. That would be pretty cool.

 

The Jedi blamed might result from my personal taste again: Han Solo and the imperial officers in ANH didn't believe in the Force. For them the Jedi were an old religion and they were happy they were gone. How did this start? How did palpatine manage to create these anti-Jedi movements? I would have loved to see it.

 

There is a quote that says, "History is written by the victors". This is true. We can never be completely certain about anything in the past. It wasn't clearly explained in the films, but I read a comic book series about "The Clone Wars" that was really well done. It put some things into perspective for me. This "Galaxy Far Far Away" is absolutely HUGE, with the Senate being a perfect example with each seat being a different world. The amount of Jedi, by comparison is miniscule and most people in the galaxy go their entire lives without ever seeing or meeting a Jedi. many don't believe they can do what people say they can do, etc. This works well with Solo's complete disbelief in the force, as he has travelled extensively, both as a smuggler and an imperial officer.

 

(Have you played Kotor II? Do you remember Atton and his views about the Jedi? Something like this could be a believable start for later anti-Jedi opinions.)

 

Actually, I never got all the way through KOTOR II, I got to a point where I may have moved along faster than I levelled and wasn't powerful enough to go forward, got frustrated and quit. What happened?

 

Yeah, again my point: The Prequels are too much action movies. Lando was a plot device, he lured Han into Vaders trap and later brought Leia and Chewie out. Grievous main purpose was the fight against Obi-Wan.

 

he was also the primary commander of the Seperatists since Dooku was killed, which made him the primary target to end the war. He was also in charge of protecting and moving the Separatist leadership. Dooku was killed before Palpatine got his emergency powers. Keeping the Seperatists as a threat was needed to accomplish this. To me, this was the purpose of the character.

 

I know. And if you assume that and watch the AOTC and ROTS with Obi-Wan as protagonist in your mind, it is not bad.

I (together with many other OT fans) would have loved to see more of the "and he was a very good friend" (Obi-Wan, ANH). At the moment, most of it happens between AOTC and ROTS, offscreen.

 

agreed.

 

Compare the droids in the OT (say the final battle in ESB or ROTJ) with the droids on Grievous ship. I think in the OT it fit in better, somehow. It wasn't too much.

Or maybe I have to rewatch...

 

I absolutely agree with you here. The battle droids were way too comedic for my tastes. I'm not sure what Lucas' reason for that was. It got even worse at the beginning of the CGI Clone Wars series, but they tempered it a LOT as the show went along (probably due to complaints). Luckily, Lucas isn't directing the TV series. I did like the droids who were Grievous' personal guard in ROTS, I thought they were pretty bad-***.

Bluescreen seems less real sometimes. Lord of the Rings had as much special effects as the Prequels, but the sets were real. And (in my opinion, of course) look more real than the sets in the Prequels. It also helps the actors.

 

I agree, but I also think this comes from the adult perspective that I didn't have when I fell in love with the OT. A lot of the SFX from the OT were crap. We had a Jedi master that was a muppet. They were still using stop-action animation for the Walkers in TESB. And there was this weird black floating spot on the side of the Emperor's face in ROTJ that I kept seeing.

 

I agree that in many cases, the CGI isn't yet where it should be, but as far as what he did with it, he was still very ahead of his time.

 

The OT uses less action scenes and creates suspense mainly through the story. The garbage compactor scene. The Falcon without hyperdrive. Luke goes to redeem his father. The action scenes only support them.

In the PT the action scenes are the main elements. Maul against the Jedi. Obi-Wan against Jango Fett. The Arena. Obi-Wan against Grievous. Anakin against Obi-Wan.

 

 

I get what your saying. I think Lucas went BIGGER with a lot of the action scenes in comparison to the OT. I guess I just don't COMPLETELY agree as I personally saw the story elements that these action scenes pushed forward (some of which I explained earlier). We can agree that Lucas pushed the story along with LESS action in the OT, but I'm not sure where that would be an argument for toning down the action because it wasn't comparable to the amount of story it was being used for. I guess that's MY personal taste.

 

Maybe "space adventures" was the wrong word. They are space adventures because all three OT movies are basically a travel to different planets. The PT would probably be more of a space thriller, if they were story driven instead of action driven.

 

Now there are a lot of action movies out there, but few story movies which use action as a story telling device. I love good storys with action as story telling device. Again Lord of the Rings is a very good example which was made not long ago. Did you get my point?

 

Absolutely.

 

Yeah. But now compare one of these films with Star Trek: Nemesis (forget the number). Or with the last Star Trek movie. More and more they seem to focus on action instead of story. This is a trend I observe in movies in general. Far worse than the Star Wars Prequels was that in Narnia III: Voyage on the Dawn Treader they sacrificed the Coolest. Plan. And. Bluff. In. Narnia. Ever. for a very cheap action scene.

 

Maybe Lucas has also noticed this trend and was trying to make the film comparable? There is a 30 year gap in time from ANH, it is a different time. Lucas is a different person. We are different people.

 

I loved the Narnia movies but never read the books. What happened?

 

I'll look at those reviews.

[Maaruin]

Agreed, it IS fun, after all...

 

I think I'll split my post this time too

 

 

Completely possible. But I'm personally not aware of anyone who worked on the film claiming the script was rushed. Just the fans.

 

I think on the documentary of ROTS there is a part were Lucas says: "You guys are already building the set, I should start to write the script." Of course it was a joke, but there might be some truth to it.

 

Which was my justification for the Nemoidians not leaving the Jedi in the gassed room. Just a bad call...

 

Yeah, I can see that. Still, I think it's more believable if you are tired after already controlling half of Mos Eisly.

 

You see in the "heads up display" that the rebels are watching, that Yavin IV was directly behind the other planet. I'm not sure if Yavin IV was supposed to be a moon or not, but I would assume destroying one would destroy the other.

 

Yavin IV is a moon, but it should be far away enough to not be effected on the short term.

A second explanation occured to me: Yavin (the planet) is faaaar bigger than Alderaan. Maybe the Death Star hasn't enough power for gas giants.

 

Agreed. Like I said, I'm just making examples of things that CAN be nit-picked. When I watch a movie, If i can find a logical way to explain something that happened in my head, I don't over-analyze it and just enjoy the movie.

 

That's true, but I for once analyse movies like Transformers far less than Star Wars, since I expect Star Wars to be more logical.

 

Actually there are plenty of historical incidents where natives (or any kind of "uncivilized tribe") were outgunned and still managed to win the battle. It's a very popular theme in movies (Dances With Wolves, Avatar, etc). I have a favorite quote from "Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves" where Robin explains that The Crusades taught him that that one man fighting for his home is worth more than ten hired soldiers. I agree with that.

 

Also Wookies are technologically superior to Ewoks.

 

That's true. But imagine how awesome the last battle in ROTJ would have been with Wookies...

 

 

Actually you can see that there is no damage done to the hand. It was completely a force move. Once again, I'm "nit-picking" as an example. I never had a problem with the scene. And if you watch the "Hope" trailer for THIS game, you see a scene where Master Shatele Shan essentially blocks a stabbing move with a lightsaber with her hand. I think it would definitely depend on how powerful and how focused a Jedi/Sith would be at the time.

 

Bah. It was his cybernetic hand, so it depends on how much energy the blast/blade has

[Captain_Zone]

George Lucas made cinema as we know it today possible.

 

If you don't like the changes he made to Star Wars, then you don't like Star Wars anymore. Too bad for you, because it's wonderful. All of it.

People tend to forget that Tolkein went back to The Hobbit and changed things to facilitate The Lord of the Rings - much to the chagrin of long time fans. This is no different at all.

 

George Lucas deserves the undying respect of anyone who loves film - many of your favourite (and in typical anti-prequel kiddy fashion, usually vapid) Summer Blockbusters would not have even been possible without his work.

All of you who slag him off, owe him.

 

To attack George Lucas personally is a failing for you, not him.

It saddens me greatly that he has been forced out of the business by armchair critics and people who really never loved the movies - they loved the toys, and the movies were just their toys come to life.

 

All who still bash him need to stop now, because you got exactly what you wanted. He's gone - or more specifically - going. But, because he is gone, you will never, ever see the original, 'unadulterated' versions you so desperately want on DVD. It will never happen. He, and Lucasfilm, have pretty much washed their hands of it - all because of you. Kathleen Kennedy can't make it happen, and won't, again, because you rubbed his nose in it so hard, he doesn't want any more to do with it.

 

Congratulations - you killed your favourite franchise because you couldn't be polite and respectful. Thankyou Internet freaks.

 

So.... let me get this straight: You don't blame George Lucas AT ALL for his handling of the prequels, the fallout from the prequels, and any inability to take constructive criticism on his part? Are you blindly defending him in spite of how badly done the Prequels were and how he retconned himself with the latest release of the OT?

 

I'm just trying to get some clarification here.

 

Do you defend his hypocrisy at the 1988 Congressional Hearings where he argued against the very things he did to the OT with the subsequent re-releases?

 

Do you defend him refusing to give the Library of Congress original cuts of the Original Trilogy for their records? The old cuts he gave them are archive only, and he refuses to give them original cuts for viewing. When asked, he gave them the latest releases only.

 

Your post seems like another "LEAVE GEORGE ALONE!!!" post, tbh.

[Maaruin]

Like I was trying to explain with the previous examples. I didn't find these things to be "logical flaws" as there is some way to explain what happened. It's a matter of "suspension of disbelief". A certain level of Logic has to be sacrificed when using it to analyze a universe with this level of technology and force-abilities.

 

That's true, but sometimes the "suspension of disbelief" has a border. A friend of mine said it was reached in Anakin's - Obi-Wan's fight in ROTS, where they would have burned. When I watched it in cinema, my "suspension of disbelief" was big enough, (I was 17, I think), today, it is smaller.

 

I think you make a very interesting point. It may have made Anakin more relatable to have him more consistent throughout 3 films, but it would definitely be challenging to create a believable character of someone who starts as a good person (but not TOO good), gets LURED to the dark side (not inherently evil) and then be struggling with the horrors he's perpetrated enough to eventually be turned back at the end. I personally think that was why Lucas decided to stretch his story out over such a long period with the intention of seeing Anakin throughout several periods of his life to show the events that directed the person he became. The short period would be easier to establish him as just an evil person. But like I said, you idea could work just as well.

 

I can see how this could have been a reason for Lucas. So I think we agree on that one.

 

I wouldn't say he was all THAT mysterious. (Mysterious to the Nemoidians, maybe), but WE knew who he was. I would think the purpose of the cloak was to hide his identity, since he was also a well-known senator.

 

There would have been better ways to cover his identity. Some that don't write "I am evil" on your head in that way.

 

Why doesn't someone involved in The Mafia, turn in their own boss and colleagues? Because sometimes, they realize that the alternative can be worse. Since Darth Sidious (unknown, essentially, to the Nemoidians) was calling the shots with the Trade Federation, you have to assume he has SOME kind of leverage against them and they are OBVIOUSLY afraid of him. It's possible that he was the one who put Nute Gunray into power or whatever.

 

Wow. I don't know why that didn't occurred to me. It seems so obvious now.

 

Sidious DIDN'T speak through Darth Maul. When Darth Maul is first introduced, the Nemoidians were surprised by his existence. The line went something like, "Now there are TWO of them, we never should have made this bargain!"

 

I know. What I want to say is that it could have been made like this. Let Maul appear on the holo instead of Palpatine. Only in the Coruscant scene you see that he has a master. Then he travels to Tatooine and later to Naboo.

 

But wouldn't you agree that since Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are completely unaware of the Sith's involvement, that it was a necessary scene to have them meet? This was where the Jedi suddenly realized that the Sith were back. It was necessary for the story. Lucas fills his movies with unnecessary action scenes. Think of the Speeder Bike scene in ROTJ, or the Walker scene in TESB. The scenes are MOSTLY there for the action, but there is SOME element that they serve in the overall story, no matter how small (Speeder Bikes to seperate Leia from the group and meet the Ewoks, Walkers to necessitate the fleeing of Hoth and set up the Rebels as being on the defensive)

 

It could have been done. If he was made a more important character, it would make the battle more meaningful. I enjoy action (or how the door opens and they see Maul), but more meaningful action is even better. (Battle of Hoth for example.)

 

but it was never explained why Yoda believed he was "too old" in TESB. I always wondered why, since Luke didn't appear to be training all that long with Ben OR Yoda, but after fighting Vader, he began to refer to himself as a "Jedi Knight". Luke was obviously given special consideration because of the circumstances and who he was. Which was also driven home when Ben says he is their last hope and Yoda claims there is "another". Showing Anakin as a child initially gives us the chance to meet Schmi, who is Anakin's first dangerous attachment that the Jedi are worried about. WE get to like Schmi because of how kind, loving and caring she is. WE feel the loss as Anakin does when she dies.

 

As I stated earlier, there is something to be said for your idea of consistency in the character. I know why Lucas made the choices he did and I can see how your idea may have worked as well. We all love the universe so much that we want to make the stories how we want them. I, personally, had no real problem with the story OR the script. My problem was with the direction. If Lucas had handed it off to someone else, I definitely believe it would have been better, even with the existing story. Better performances are brought out by the director.

 

Okay. And I don't see that much lack of performance. Probably we watch it with different eyes (I'm not very good in distinguishing bad ans good acting).

 

I'm sure that if Jango Fett was the choice they used as a template for the Clone Army, he must have a reputation of excellence. Possibly one of the best Bounty Hunters out there. The Sith probably viewed removing Padme as such a high priority, they wanted to send "the best". Jango was the one who sent Zam Wessell, who had some obvious skills as well. If Jedi weren't involved and directly in the next room, the plan would have succeeded flawlessly.

 

Remember that the dart was unidentifiable by the standard methods. We assume that Jedi have the very best in forensic technology, and they weren't able to identify the dart. Obi Wan followed a hunch by seeking out his friend (Dex) whom he thought may know something about it. This, along with the fact that the existence of the planet was deleted from the archives show that under normal investigation measures, the crime would have remained unsolved.

 

Planning this particular assassination wouldn't have been able to foresee how it was solved.

 

Still too risking. If they would have questioned Zam in the bar or catched Jango somehow. Your point below could be the answer though:

 

Was the "assassination plot" simply to kill Padme? Or would it maybe have been a manipulation by Sidious/Palpatine to reunite Anakin with Padme? Remember that Palpatine was the one to suggest Kenobi to be the one to provide protection for her (knowing Anakin would be with him). It's already been established that Palpatine and Anakin had developed a close relationship and Palpatine was influential to him. I personally saw it as a machination to put another "piece on the board' for Palpatine so he could further manipulate Anakin.

 

And he also wanted the Republic to get an army. Palpatine must be a master in foresight, though, but thats not impossible.

 

Because Luke wasn't "raised" as a Jedi. He was hidden for his own protection. Luke, at the height of his power in the OT was no where NEAR the level he should have been at his age (As the PT shows). Luke's attachments couldn't be avoided. Yoda still tried to warn him against them when Luke wanted to leave training to rescuehis friends. They didn't believe he was ready to face Vader and the threat of losing them could be used against Luke (which it WAS in ROTJ when Palpatine threatened to destroy them unless Luke joined him).

 

Jedi are taken from their parents at birth to be trained (when the Jedi were in power). Yoda wasn't in a position to forbid Luke from making attachments as he was already in his twenties. When Ben took Luke from Tattoine, Luke had already lost the attachments he had when Owen and Beru were killed, but Luke was never trained to let go of attachments in general. They didn't have the time to train that out of him, which they knew was a problem.

 

I understand the points perfectly. What I want to say is: The "no attachments" rule should never been introduced. Jedi should have been trained from, idk maybe like real knights, with seven years.

 

Of course Jedi should learn to "let go", but the whole "no attachments" and "no emotion" crap (sorry) is neither true (Obi-Wan is attached to Anakin in ROTS and he shows normal human emotions) nor was it good for Jedi popularity among fans. Look at how many call the Jedi "emotionless drones", and some even prefer the Sith because "Sith can have girlfriends".

 

people have different views on this as they try to compare Anakin's birth to "immaculate conception". Which means that he was born without a father (or the father being "God"). Qui-Gon theorized that he was conceived by the midichlorians, which would technically make him more of a "mutant" than a "Space Jesus".

 

I don't deny that Lucas may have been attempting an homage to Christianity, but I'm not certain if it's ever been stated outright by him.

 

I also know that the idea of "midichlorians" was unpopular with a lot of fans as they thought of the force as something more magical than biological, but here's my viewpoint on the matter. By OT standards, someone who doesn't already have a "connection to the force" cannot be taught to have it. They can only train those who already have the "connection". Han could never become a force-user, no matter how much training he had. The midichlorians is a biological explanation for that "connection", but it doesn't negate any "magical quality" it only adds an additional step that the "magical quality" comes from this microscopic organism, and training the individual to manipulate this symiotic relationship is what allows for the abilities. The more "midichlorians" that are active in your system, the more power you are capable of.

 

Well, "Space Jesus" wasn't about Anakin's birth, but about him being "the Chosen One". (I should have been more specific.) Couldn't Anakin just be a normal Jedi who finally was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force.

[Maaruin]

I assume you meant "easy".

 

No, I really meant "it wouldn't have been hard". If Lucas had decided to make the PT for the fans taste instead of his taste, he would have created less haters.

 

I can't think of ANY movie, where a book version wasn't better. Most people can't read a book in two hours, so you will always get more character development, plot, subn-plots, etc. (ask most any Harry Potter fan), and in many cases, certain things are mostly left to your imagination, and you will never be disappointed by your own imagination.

 

That'S the chase for book to film adaptions. In this case it's the other way round.

 

This could absolutely be true. And unless Lucas has ever explained why he decided to do it this way, we can only speculate. When that DOES happen, fans of the directors will blame the writers and fans of the writers will blame the directors. My speculation would be that George views this property as his own, and if it was going to fail or succeed, he wanted it to be because of his choices and not someone else's. But this is only Y speculation, based on a paper I wrote about him. He's a fiercely independent film-maker and will fight furiously when someone else tries to take control of his properties (even the fans). It's not always a good thing for the finished product and his stubbornness is probably his biggest fault (i.e. Prequels or Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).

 

I agree with you about this.

 

I agree. It all could have been better. But is it worth of the venomous HATE you see so many spewing on here (not you)? Or is it just a case that the OT set such a high bar, that the PT had a much longer way to fall?

 

No, it doesn't justify the venomous hate. But those are the loudest fans. (Look at the General Discussions to see the same thing for this game.)

 

I think the OT, the EU and the large fandom set a high bar. But Lucas didn't try to reach it, since he wanted to tell the story he wanted instead.

 

I think this point nails it right here. It's the difference between an "independent artist" and a "commercial artist". I believe that Lucas does these stories for himself first and foremost, and if other people like it, all the better. I think the films are for him and he does the marketing for the fans. People, who become so invested in his work get the attitude of, "How dare you do this to something I love! I wanted it to be this..." and Lucas's attitude is "it was NEVER yours. This is mine to do with as I please. I created it, I paid for it, I control it.". And whether we like it or not, it's absolutely true.

 

That's it. I don't like it, but it's true.

With such a large EU and Fandom I would have prefered Lucas to watch out more for what they want. To see the PT as his contribution to the Universe he once created. But we can't force him.

 

Nothing wrong with that. There are many films where subtlety is what makes it great. I just don't think it's ever been the case with Lucas.

 

I think it through the first half of ROTS.

 

I can see that. That would be pretty cool.

 

Hopefully we will see some if this in TCW.

 

There is a quote that says, "History is written by the victors". This is true. We can never be completely certain about anything in the past. It wasn't clearly explained in the films, but I read a comic book series about "The Clone Wars" that was really well done. It put some things into perspective for me. This "Galaxy Far Far Away" is absolutely HUGE, with the Senate being a perfect example with each seat being a different world. The amount of Jedi, by comparison is miniscule and most people in the galaxy go their entire lives without ever seeing or meeting a Jedi. many don't believe they can do what people say they can do, etc. This works well with Solo's complete disbelief in the force, as he has travelled extensively, both as a smuggler and an imperial officer.

 

Yeah. But if Admiral "your sad devotion to that ancient religion"-Motti was 19 years old at the end of the clone wars, it means this disbelief in the Force also existed among highly educated Coreworlders in a time were the Jedi were still present.

 

(If I would write the prequels, I would put a lot more emphesis on how anti-Jedi movements rise and and how Palpatine uses them. I would probably have gotten as much hate for my prequels as Lucas if I did that, though.)

 

Actually, I never got all the way through KOTOR II, I got to a point where I may have moved along faster than I levelled and wasn't powerful enough to go forward, got frustrated and quit. What happened?

 

There is one quote: "Jedi and Sith are all the same: People talking about religion while the rest of us burns." Here is a video where he tells a little more:

 

 

Take this and add other characters who are sceptical about the Force like Tharan Cedrax (JC companion), and you get a nice, dangerous situation for the Jedi.

 

he was also the primary commander of the Seperatists since Dooku was killed, which made him the primary target to end the war. He was also in charge of protecting and moving the Separatist leadership. Dooku was killed before Palpatine got his emergency powers. Keeping the Seperatists as a threat was needed to accomplish this. To me, this was the purpose of the character.

 

But the war only ended after Anakin killed the other other leaders.

 

I absolutely agree with you here. The battle droids were way too comedic for my tastes. I'm not sure what Lucas' reason for that was. It got even worse at the beginning of the CGI Clone Wars series, but they tempered it a LOT as the show went along (probably due to complaints). Luckily, Lucas isn't directing the TV series. I did like the droids who were Grievous' personal guard in ROTS, I thought they were pretty bad-***.

 

They were, indeed.

 

I agree, but I also think this comes from the adult perspective that I didn't have when I fell in love with the OT. A lot of the SFX from the OT were crap. We had a Jedi master that was a muppet. They were still using stop-action animation for the Walkers in TESB. And there was this weird black floating spot on the side of the Emperor's face in ROTJ that I kept seeing.

 

I agree that in many cases, the CGI isn't yet where it should be, but as far as what he did with it, he was still very ahead of his time.

 

Which Yoda do you think is better? I can't say I would prefer the CGI over the muppet, both seemed real enough to me.

Where it makes a difference for me it is the background.

 

I get what your saying. I think Lucas went BIGGER with a lot of the action scenes in comparison to the OT. I guess I just don't COMPLETELY agree as I personally saw the story elements that these action scenes pushed forward (some of which I explained earlier). We can agree that Lucas pushed the story along with LESS action in the OT, but I'm not sure where that would be an argument for toning down the action because it wasn't comparable to the amount of story it was being used for. I guess that's MY personal taste.

 

Is it just my impression or did the lightsaber duel in AOTC before Yoda arrives lack the fast, coreographed stile most other fights have? I almost think it is similar to the OT fights, and it completely fulfills his purpose.

 

Maybe Lucas has also noticed this trend and was trying to make the film comparable? There is a 30 year gap in time from ANH, it is a different time. Lucas is a different person. We are different people.

 

He did. Some say he wanted to creat a movie that works for allmost all audiences. I don't like this trend and I really admire filmmakers who make story driven movies like LOTR that would still work with toned down action.

 

I loved the Narnia movies but never read the books. What happened?

 

In the movie, Kaspian, Edmund, Lucy, Eustace and Riepichiep are captured by slave traders. Kaspian meets Lord Bern in prison. When they try to sell them, Captain Drinian and the crew try to free them and an action scene follows.

 

In the book the Island is actually a part of Narnia, making its governor responsible for enforcing Narnianian law (which forbids slavetrade). But he doesn't care.

 

After they are captured, the slave traders sell Kaspian to Lord Bern who lives as a rich man on the Island. Kaspian tells him that he is the king. Bern believes him, but tells him that the governor wouldn't listen to him if he wasn't forced. So they develope a plan:

 

The ship sets signals to the (non existing) other ships of the fleet, making it look like a large fleet has arrived. The next day Kaspian and all his men disembark in their best clothing and announce that the king has come. The procession growns larger and larger while they approach the governors house.

 

The following dialogue with the (bureaucratic) governor is hilarious. Intimidated by the bluff he tries to justify the slave trade and in the end Kaspian just nods and fires him. Then he makes Lord Bern the new duke (instead of governor). They go to the slave market and declare all slaves free.

 

As I said, they cut an elaborated bluff for a fighting scene that isn't even memorable.

 

I'll look at those reviews.

 

Enjoy.

 

It's nice to see someone that get influence from those videos but debate using their own words. Hate people that just dump them on my lap when I disagree with them and then they post "Nuff said"

 

What a bastard move in a argument

 

I learned it the hard why, when the links I gave failed to convince my opponents in past discussions.

 

(Well, I still don't convince others always, but it's far easier to agree on some points and agree to disagree on others if you discuss on your own.)

Edited June 5, 2012 by Maaruin

[Jaavik]

I think I'll split my post this time too

 

I think we have been drowning this thread..hehe

Yeah, I can see that. Still, I think it's more believable if you are tired after already controlling half of Mos Eisly.

 

I looked at it as the Trade Federation isn't a military. They were some kind of "corporation". I may be wrong, but the simple fact they had the word "Trade" in their title had me thinking they weren't military. Therefore, they wouldn't have made trained tactical decisions.Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan seeing that they had "an invasion army" seemed to be a surprise to them, that's how I came to that conclusion. Maybe they SELL those droids as security tech?

 

Yavin IV is a moon, but it should be far away enough to not be effected on the short term. A second explanation occured to me: Yavin (the planet) is faaaar bigger than Alderaan. Maybe the Death Star hasn't enough power for gas giants.

 

Was Yavin a gas giant? If so, then they may not have been able to blow it up. That would make sense. But idf you were to blow up a planet, the moons would be obliterated by the shockwave, even if only by meteorites. At least, that's how I would see it.

Bah. It was his cybernetic hand, so it depends on how much energy the blast/blade has

 

Even if you are talking about the hand itself being cybernetic, the glove on that hand would be damaged. Think about the damage to Luke's cybernetic hand when he got shot in ROTJ.

 

I think there was some kind of EU explanation that the fact his arms are cybernetic was why you never see Vader shoot lightning out of his hands because of what it would do to the electronics.

 

[Jaavik]

There would have been better ways to cover his identity. Some that don't write "I am evil" on your head in that way.

 

I don't know. I guess if someone goes into the movie not knowing about the OT, hiding Palpatine's identity as Darth Sidious might work, but I think for the most of us, Palpatine being the ultimate bad guy would be obvious.

 

I know. What I want to say is that it could have been made like this. Let Maul appear on the holo instead of Palpatine. Only in the Coruscant scene you see that he has a master. Then he travels to Tatooine and later to Naboo.

 

So hide Palpatine from from the Nemoidians rather than the audience? I think I'm lost with what you are saying.

 

Okay. And I don't see that much lack of performance. Probably we watch it with different eyes (I'm not very good in distinguishing bad ans good acting).

 

To me, bad dialogue is bad dialogue. There's a great story from Harrison Ford when there was an AFI Honors presentation for George Lucas where Harrison says to George during the filming of ANH, "George, you can write this stuff, but you can't SAY it...". The most cringe-worthy scenes to ME, were the scenes between Anakin and Padme trying to "fight their feelings" on Naboo and declaring their love for each other before they enter the arena on Geonosis. You just feel it in your gut when you hear them say it. As an actor, if you can't get the audience to feel what the character is feeling, then either YOU aren't a romantic, or the actors aren't projecting the feeling.

 

And so many people bith about Jar Jar in the Prequels, and I have to say HANDS DOWN, the most irritating scene in ALL of the prequels was C-3P0 using 70's slang while R2 was draggimng his head across the ground and he says, "Oh, this is SUCH a drag...". That was the WORST scene in the entire saga to me.

 

Still too risking. If they would have questioned Zam in the bar or catched Jango somehow.

 

Once again, if you have an important mission to accomplish, you send the person with the greatest chance of accomplishing the job. If Jango is the best in the galaxy and the job is an important job, to send anyone else would be an illogical choice. Why would you deliberately send a 2nd or 3rd string assassin if you have access to the best?

 

And he also wanted the Republic to get an army. Palpatine must be a master in foresight, though, but thats not impossible.

 

That's exactly what I got out of the movies, that Palpatine was a genius and master tactician, accompanied by his access to the force to see future events, makes him the perfect person to accomplish a power grab on this scale. As Sidious is so fond of saying, "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen it..."

 

I understand the points perfectly. What I want to say is: The "no attachments" rule should never been introduced. Jedi should have been trained from, idk maybe like real knights, with seven years.

 

Remember that these aren't just regular Knights. They are trained with abilities that would allow them to kill someone with a thought, sway their choices, and kill most any other man one on one with their fighting skills alone. There is a much higher level of responsibility with training them. Attachments puts a risk into the equation that someone would willingly use these abilities (in a dark manner) to save those they love (family, lovers, etc.)

Of course Jedi should learn to "let go", but the whole "no attachments" and "no emotion" crap (sorry) is neither true (Obi-Wan is attached to Anakin in ROTS and he shows normal human emotions) nor was it good for Jedi popularity among fans. Look at how many call the Jedi "emotionless drones", and some even prefer the Sith because "Sith can have girlfriends".

 

They aren't emotionless, they are simply trained to NOT be emotional when making decisions. Think of how many awful decisions are made because someone was "upset at the time" (otherwise known as "temporary insanity")? It is the same as becoming a monk or any such other religion where you are trained to renounce "personal possessions". Why do they do that? Even consider military training, if you aren't properly trained, you can put the mission in jeopardy if you are more concerned about the life of your best friend who just got shot. You follow that training to accomplish the mission first.

 

Jedi are bonded to each other, and they are "compassionate" as Anakin explains to Padme. But it's a matter of accomplishing the mission first. And if you train someone to have access to all these incredible abilities, you have to take extraordinary precautions. "With great power, comes great responsibility", that sort of thing. Now whether or not personal attachments SHOULD be permitted or not is another debate entirely. For the sake of the story, it's the case.

 

In EU, I believe when Luke restarts the Jedi Order (after ROTJ) he permits personal relationships, as he gets married to the character of "Mara Jade" himself.

 

 

Well, "Space Jesus" wasn't about Anakin's birth, but about him being "the Chosen One". (I should have been more specific.) Couldn't Anakin just be a normal Jedi who finally was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force.

 

He absolutely could, but why? We're into semantics here. there are infinite possibilites as to how the story could have gone and wwhat we would have personally liked to see. Part of understanding films is understanding the person behind them. We know that if we see a Tim Burton film, the movie is going to have a sort of "gothic feel' to it. If Terry Gilliam is going to make a movie, we can expect "surreal elements", if Quntin Tarantino is going to make a movie, it's going to have bizarre conversations and a 70's movie feel to it. George makes movies primarily to mirror the old action serial cliffhangers and films he grew up with. Akira Kurosawa (The Seven Samurai and Yojimbo) was one of his greatest influences. This is why Jedi are so similar to Samurai. George was mirroring classical storytelling such as King Arthur to tell the story of a "chosen one". It's George's style of storytelling.

 

Also, something else to consider is the possibility that Anakin WASN'T the "chosen one". Mace Windu, Obi-Wan and Yoda all have a conversation where Mace talks about how he doesn't trust Anakin, and Obi-Wan asks him, "Isn't he the chosen one who is supposed to bring "balance back to the force"? Yoda even admits that there is a possibility that the prophecy may have been "misread".

 

Aside from the story of Anakin EVENTUALLY returning to the light and destroying Darth Sidious making him the "chosen one", here are the two OTHER possibilities that I saw from this conversation:

 

1. Anakin IS the chosen, but the prophecy was misunderstood and he brought "balance" by his actions in the sense that after all is done, there are 2 Jedi (Obi-Wan and Yoda) and 2 Sith (Sidious and Vader) left in the galaxy. This creates an alternate form of "balance".
   
2. Luke is actually the chosen one as he is the one responsible for turning Anakin back to the light and destroying The Emperor.
   

 

Just something to think about.

[lordofdamornin]

I'm not going to join the *quote the other guy's freaking book-length post* party, so this is just in reference to the very last part of your last post, Jaavik.

 

The Chosen One, who will bring balance - I had thought this was pretty clear, and it really amazes me how many people muck this up.

 

Balance - Lots, and lots of Jedi. 2 Sith. By the end of Episode 3, there are:

 

2 Jedi

2 Sith

 

When Luke starts on his path to becoming a Jedi, Obi-Wan is killed.

 

2 Jedi

2 Sith

 

When Luke is becoming a Jedi, Yoda dies.

 

1 Jedi

2 Sith

 

Vader kills the Emperor.

 

1 Jedi

1 SIth

 

Vader returns to the Light, then dies

 

1 Jedi

 

Of course the prophecy was misread - they incorrectly assumed what was meant by Balance, but he did indeed fulfill the prophecy.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- moving on to something else not related to you, Jaavik.---------------------------------------------------

 

Those *red letter?* videos:

 

Guess what? I can make a video of me talking, slow it down so it adds to the *stupid* tone that I am going for, and edit a bunch of *random people's* (also known as my friends who agreed to help) words to emphasize the satirical slant that I am putting on my commentary. Sure can...easily. I truly feel sad for anyone whose thinking and/or opinions were moved in any way by those videos, or any others like them.

 

Videos like that use a special flavor of Kool-aid called *Sensationalism.*

 

Politicians use it, and entertainers like Jerry Springer and Doctor Phil use it, too. Do you know why?

 

Because stupid people, and sheep, eagerly guzzle it down, and ask for more.

 

Riôt

Edited June 5, 2012 by lordofdamornin

[Jaavik]

No, I really meant "it wouldn't have been hard". If Lucas had decided to make the PT for the fans taste instead of his taste, he would have created less haters.

 

True, but there are many artists out there that make the art for themselves rather than what they think "might be popular". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

That'S the chase for book to film adaptions. In this case it's the other way round.

 

I'm simply referring to the amount of information and development you can achieve in a book, compared to a 2 hour movie.In some cases, film might be better (for example, showing a building, rather than spending 3 pages describing it), but in many cases, you can get more "internal dialogue" and descriptions of a character's thought processes that aren't easy to represent on film.

 

No, it doesn't justify the venomous hate. But those are the loudest fans. (Look at the General Discussions to see the same thing for this game.)

 

Absolutely. I'm in many of those conflicts myself in the other forum. But the general gist of this thread was about the "Lucas-bashing" that goes on. And the "loudest fans" are the ones who get heard over the rest of us. Lucas has made a declaration that he won't be doing any more Star Wars films because of so many of the "loud fans" telling him what a horrible person he is. I don't blame him. Although I absolutely LOVE Star wars and will soak it up wherever I can get it.

 

You can be disappointed in a movie. You can even hate the movie, but if it gets to the point where you feel that you need to say the most horrible stuff (not YOU) about someone to express your disappointment, maybe you need to step back and re-evaluate yourself.

 

I think the OT, the EU and the large fandom set a high bar. But Lucas didn't try to reach it, since he wanted to tell the story he wanted instead.

 

I think this is part of the problem. We, as fans, feel entitled in some way. As if George "owes us something" for making him a success. It's a weird way of looking at things. We didn't "make him a success" as some kind of favor to him. He got what he wanted and we got what we wanted. In both cases we got MORE than we wanted. It's not OUR place to "set the bar" for George to reach and demand he jump it. This is HIS original idea and he owns the franchise. His only responsibility is to make himself happy. If he is happy with the film and we aren't, that's too bad for us. It's BETTER for him if we like it, but do we expect him to make something PURELY for us? That seems selfish.

 

Once again, I'm not saying I agree with all of his choices. I'm pretty disappointed in quite a few things, most especially that he isn't releasing an unaltered theatrical version of The Original Trilogy. What seems the MOST disappointing to ME on this, is that it doesn't seem like something George would actually do. This is the guy who made a stand on "colorizing" black and white films because of the "historic quality" of the original prints, but he doesn't view his own film in the same way. That inconsistency makes me disappinted in George Lucas as a PERSON, more than anything.

 

Not that I'm saying he's "bad person", he is VERY active in charities and a supporter of improving education in this country. I think he is a great person, I'm just disappointed in his viewpoint of the historic quality of his own film, especially since he knows so many of his fans want it. it doesn't keep him from making any tweaks he wants to make. But it would be a "kindness" to his fans to release them if nothing else.

 

That's it. I don't like it, but it's true.

With such a large EU and Fandom I would have prefered Lucas to watch out more for what they want. To see the PT as his contribution to the Universe he once created. But we can't force him.

 

To me it's like slapping someone's hand when they pass you the broccoli because you HATE brocolli and didn't want it, and then are upset that you aren't allowed to continue the meal. It the over-reaction of the fans to a film they weren't happy with, so they are deliberately trying to HURT the creator. It shows a serious lack of character.

 

I think it through the first half of ROTS.

 

I don't know. I don't really think of "subtle" when I see characters like "Salacious Crumb" laughing constantly for comedic value, the triple gainer flip that Luke pulls off to act like he's jumping in and jumping back out, or the flailing and screaming of Boba Fett when he slams into the sail barge and falls into the pit. And remember that the film may have seemed "subtle" by comparison due to the technical limitations that George had then as opposed to now. As once he was able to, he went back and made the Sarlacc look more like a living thing. If he had the CGI capabilites then, would he have made it a much grander action scene?

 

Sure there's an argument that the lack of technical capabilities may have made the OT better by it's restraint, but who's to say that the bigger and flashier action scenes wasn't ALWAYS his style and he was simply limited at the time? I often wonder what the Original Trilogy would have been like if he was less retrained. Did we like the OT by luck?

 

Hopefully we will see some if this in TCW.

 

I am absolutely LOVING this series and it just seems to keep getting better the longer it goes. In some cases, it is making me like the PT more. One of my favorite episodes was the trap the Gungans laid out to take general greivous down and Grievous fight against Captain Tarples (The military Gungan from Episode I). I won't spoil it for anyone else, but I think they did a good job on it.

 

Also how they are developing characters that we only get a glimpse of in the films. Jedi council members and Commander Cody. It helps patch some of the development holes from the films.

 

Yeah. But if Admiral "your sad devotion to that ancient religion"-Motti was 19 years old at the end of the clone wars, it means this disbelief in the Force also existed among highly educated Coreworlders in a time were the Jedi were still present.

 

I'm not personally a religious person, so if you are, please understand that I'm not trying to be insulting. I know many people who are absolutely CONVINCED that they have had conversations with God. To me, it's unbelievable. I've never had that experience and I've never seen an instance where any proof of a God has ever been documented (Even though people say they have witnessed it). Therefore, i am NOT a believer although I know that approximately 90-95% believe in some kind of supernatural force. I consider myself to be fairly well educated, I just happen to belief in what I can prove or can see to be proven.

 

If Motti doesn't have regular access to seeing a Sith in action, he may believe that the people who are telling him these things are "superstitious". If he believed in the force, I don't think he would have been mouthing off to Vader like he did. he BECAME a believer shortly after.

 

(If I would write the prequels, I would put a lot more emphesis on how anti-Jedi movements rise and and how Palpatine uses them. I would probably have gotten as much hate for my prequels as Lucas if I did that, though.)

Haters gonna hate...

 

But the war only ended after Anakin killed the other other leaders.

 

I've never been clear on that particular group that Dooku was working with. When they are introduced in AOTC, they appear to be "corporate interests" (Banking Clan, Techno-Union, Trade Federation) that are funding Dooku's Separatist Movement. I don't think they are the "leaders" of their worlds, just the secret organization ("Illuminati",if you will) that are pulling the strings for their own (and each others) benefits. I don't think the Republic is aware of this group being the "power behind the power", as they are never mentioned in the Republic's war plans. I could be wrong. But the only one they DO mention is Grievous, because they are aware that he leads the Droid Armies.

 

Sidious has Grievous moving the "Illuminati" around to "protect them" (until he no longer NEEDS them). Once Darth Sidious has his plan in motion, has his army, has the extended powers in the Senate and had the Jedi off balance and spread out throughout the galaxy, each with a platoon of Clone Troopers loyal to his orders, does he no longer "need" The Separatists that HE himself put together. So sending Darth Vader to "take care of them", makes Anakin feel like Sidoius is a brilliant leader who "found them" to end the war, when the Jedi couldn't. remember that Sidious was also the one who told them where to find Grievous. Sidious was cleaning house on the opposition he organized to wage a war HE created, to get the powers he needed.

 

Which Yoda do you think is better? I can't say I would prefer the CGI over the muppet, both seemed real enough to me.

Where it makes a difference for me it is the background.

 

The "muppet" worked for the time period he was originally introduced because they couldn't really do him any other way (except maybe a little person in makeup) but I think having him so small was a fun contrast to his BIG power and wisdom. Personally, I like the CGI better because of being able to see Yoda in action and how expressive his face could be. Even Lucas was hesitant to make a CGI Yoda in Episode I, because he didn't think it was being pulled off properly. So he was a muppet again (which looked awful for some reason) until Episode II. Then only recently, Lucas went back and put a CGI Yoda in Episode I (and we're all tense now, wondering if he's going to attempt to put CGI Yoda in the OT... I pray not)

 

CGi is in a strange limbo in film right now, Most people aren't sure if they like it or not. It's probably a generational thing. CGI allows you to create characters that you could never have done by a real person. But there is also something to be said for the "physical quality" of having something in the scene rather than having people act like something is there that isn't. It's hard for a lot of actors to act when they have nothing physical to react to.

 

Is it just my impression or did the lightsaber duel in AOTC before Yoda arrives lack the fast, coreographed stile most other fights have? I almost think it is similar to the OT fights, and it completely fulfills his purpose.

 

I don't know, I'd have to watch it again. I didn't get an initial impression of that. When Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan fought Maul together, they were a tighter fighting unit. When Anakin and Obi-Wan were fighting Dooku, Anakin wasn't really working WITH Obi-Wan. (Which is why Obi-Wan emphasizes to Anakin that they will take him "together" in ROTS). Dooku and Maul also have visibly different fighting styles and weapons, so i can imagine it would look different. Then again, they may have intentionally toned it down to create a greater difference when Yoda shows up and starts flying around the room on Dooku. Heheh

 

In the movie, Kaspian, Edmund, Lucy, Eustace and Riepichiep are captured by slave traders. Kaspian meets Lord Bern in prison. When they try to sell them, Captain Drinian and the crew try to free them and an action scene follows.

 

In the book the Island is actually a part of Narnia, making its governor responsible for enforcing Narnianian law (which forbids slavetrade). But he doesn't care.

 

After they are captured, the slave traders sell Kaspian to Lord Bern who lives as a rich man on the Island. Kaspian tells him that he is the king. Bern believes him, but tells him that the governor wouldn't listen to him if he wasn't forced. So they develope a plan:

 

The ship sets signals to the (non existing) other ships of the fleet, making it look like a large fleet has arrived. The next day Kaspian and all his men disembark in their best clothing and announce that the king has come. The procession growns larger and larger while they approach the governors house.

 

The following dialogue with the (bureaucratic) governor is hilarious. Intimidated by the bluff he tries to justify the slave trade and in the end Kaspian just nods and fires him. Then he makes Lord Bern the new duke (instead of governor). They go to the slave market and declare all slaves free.

 

As I said, they cut an elaborated bluff for a fighting scene that isn't even memorable.

 

Yeah I've heard about directors who do that sort of thing like they feel the original story wasn't "actiony" enough so they changed it. My biggest ongoing complaint like this was "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". They introduced Deadpool as a character (one who has a PHENOMENAL fanbase - including ME) who is known as "The Merc with a Mouth" and not only changed his look at the end, but gave him powers he didn't have and literally "sewed his mouth shut". The "Merc with a Mouth" didn't have a mouth. There was absolutely NO reason for it unless Ryan Reynolds had quit the film before they made those scenes (which wasn't the case) and they were trying to explain why he didn't say any lines. And the full length swords in his forearms? How would he bend his elbows? It was absolutely unnecessary and lazy.

 

Nobody should be directing a film based on a book if they aren't even SLIGHTLY familiar with the material. It's a disaster every time.

[Jaavik]

I'm not going to join the *quote the other guy's freaking book-length post* party, so this is just in reference to the very last part of your last post, Jaavik.

 

I know it's been pretty excessive. It's more or less for OUR conversation purposes rather than anyone else so we can remember what we were talking about rather than go back through our previous posts. I know if you aren't interested in what we are talking about. It's easy to skim past it.

 

The Chosen One, who will bring balance - I had thought this was pretty clear, and it really amazes me how many people muck this up.

 

Balance - Lots, and lots of Jedi. 2 Sith. By the end of Episode 3, there are:

 

2 Jedi

2 Sith

 

When Luke starts on his path to becoming a Jedi, Obi-Wan is killed.

 

2 Jedi

2 Sith

 

When Luke is becoming a Jedi, Yoda dies.

 

1 Jedi

2 Sith

 

Vader kills the Emperor.

 

1 Jedi

1 SIth

 

Vader returns to the Light, then dies

 

1 Jedi

 

Of course the prophecy was misread - they incorrectly assumed what was meant by Balance, but he did indeed fulfill the prophecy.

 

As far as "mucking it up" unless you have a specific quote or interview clarifying this theory as the correct one, then we're just speculating.

 

My only argument against this particular theory (which I DO like) is that Mace and Yoda make reference in AOTC and ROTS that their ability to use the force had been diminished and they didn't know why. Since they bothered to mention this fact, I think that may have been what they were referring to about the force being "out of balance" simply because it isn't "working properly".

 

But who knows, unless someone has ever asked Lucas to clarify it or if he likes it to be deliberately ambiguous.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Jaavik

[eldisper]

I love everything Lucas has put out with the exception of episode 1;and that is just because of two things,

1 mitrachlorins, 2 jar jar binks - though my wife loves him. I just wanted to point out - that all but fox rejected star wars and that all the movies out now would not be possible if lucas did not start all the offshoots that grew from starwars.

George Lucas made surround sound possible,3 d movies, pixel, and many other off shoots, that if not created would not have resulted in the movies and games we enjoy today. And how many people has his movies influenced people to go into a certain career , example muscians, astroaughts, tech jobs,sound and lighting, etc. It is hard to imagine the world without star wars. I am proud not to be a lucas basher. Yes the newer movies look better then the old ones my order of preference is episode 3 followed by episode six . It shows the whole redemption of anakin , from a good man to and evil man - yes sith are evil- and then back again to good. A great clap for george lucus and company.

[lordofdamornin]

I know it's been pretty excessive. It's more or less for OUR conversation purposes rather than anyone else so we can remember what we were talking about rather than go back through our previous posts. I know if you aren't interested in what we are talking about. It's easy to skim past it.

 

 

 

As far as "mucking it up" unless you have a specific quote or interview clarifying this theory as the correct one, then we're just speculating.

 

My only argument against this particular theory (which I DO like) is that Mace and Yoda make reference in AOTC and ROTS that their ability to use the force had been diminished and they didn't know why. Since they bothered to mention this fact, I think that may have been what they were referring to about the force being "out of balance" simply because it isn't "working properly".

 

But who knows, unless someone has ever asked Lucas to clarify it or if he likes it to be deliberately ambiguous.

 

I know the reason for the mass-quoting.

 

You also didn't need to capitalize *our,* because I am capable of reading for inflection. Perhaps most can't do that? I don't know, I just speak and write assuming that people are capable of understanding my points of inflection, unless they show otherwise.

 

The points you refer to about balance conversations - they (Mace and Yoda) are referring to their diminishing ability to see the future with the Force for guidance purposes - not their ability to actually wield it. Also, they do know why, but they don't know the source. I had thought this was pretty clear, too, both from the conversations, and from Mace vs. Sidious, Yoda vs. Sidious, and Anakin vs. Obi-wan. They don't seem to be lacking in power, in any way, shape, or form.

 

The theme of Bringing (or Restoring) Balance has been used in other stories, probably many more than I am aware of. The mechanics may differ, but the end result (in my experience) has been universally the same - it is, in effect, like hitting a reset switch.

 

Riôt

[DrowNoble]

Is anyone else tired of all the Lucas bashing? I'm tired of people automatically equating the entire prequel trilogy with bad movies. Including Episode III, the second best movie in the entire franchise. There's an article on Cracked.com that takes it to a whole new level of stupid. Actually going out of it's way to state that Lucas doesn't deserve much credit for the original trilogy. HIS OWN CREATION!

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_19576_6-pop-culture-visionaries-who-get-too-much-credit.html?wa_user1=5&wa_user2=Movies+%26+TV&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended

 

The article might as well have said that Lucas doesn't deserve any credit because he didn't do the special affects, act out all of the scenes, or write the movie score himself. The bottom line is, Lucas wrote all of Star Wars. The entire story was his brainchild.

 

If you think Episode III was the 2nd best movie in the franchise, then I guess you haven't watched Episodes 4 - 6? I could go on about Hayden Christensen's wooden acting. How bad it was to learn that the (probably) best villain in film history came from a whiny emo kid with father issues? How the villains in the entire prequel trilogy were Evil Gecko Bankers.

 

Maybe how aspects of the prequels contradicted with the original trilogy? It was almost like the prequels were written by someone unfamiliar with the original films. Obi-wan was taught by Yoda (ep5) yet in ep1 we have Qui-Gon Jinn who, though being a master, couldn't sense a giant fish sneaking up on them in the sub. The fact that the Force is caused by bacteria, so maybe to stop a jedi you overdose him with penicillin?

 

That's why there is Lucas bashing. Star Wars was a great franchise, til Jar-Jar and the awful prequel films. Great FX a Great Movie do not make.

[jarjarloves]

I'm not going to join the *quote the other guy's freaking book-length post* party, so this is just in reference to the very last part of your last post, Jaavik.

 

The Chosen One, who will bring balance - I had thought this was pretty clear, and it really amazes me how many people muck this up.

 

Balance - Lots, and lots of Jedi. 2 Sith. By the end of Episode 3, there are:

 

2 Jedi

2 Sith

 

When Luke starts on his path to becoming a Jedi, Obi-Wan is killed.

 

2 Jedi

2 Sith

 

When Luke is becoming a Jedi, Yoda dies.

 

1 Jedi

2 Sith

 

Vader kills the Emperor.

 

1 Jedi

1 SIth

 

Vader returns to the Light, then dies

 

1 Jedi

 

Of course the prophecy was misread - they incorrectly assumed what was meant by Balance, but he did indeed fulfill the prophecy.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- moving on to something else not related to you, Jaavik.---------------------------------------------------

 

Those *red letter?* videos:

 

Guess what? I can make a video of me talking, slow it down so it adds to the *stupid* tone that I am going for, and edit a bunch of *random people's* (also known as my friends who agreed to help) words to emphasize the satirical slant that I am putting on my commentary. Sure can...easily. I truly feel sad for anyone whose thinking and/or opinions were moved in any way by those videos, or any others like them.

 

Videos like that use a special flavor of Kool-aid called *Sensationalism.*

 

Politicians use it, and entertainers like Jerry Springer and Doctor Phil use it, too. Do you know why?

 

Because stupid people, and sheep, eagerly guzzle it down, and ask for more.

 

Riôt

wasn't the prophcy that Anakin will bring balance to the force by destorying the sith. I suppose its a matter of what figuring out what balance means. We assume that it means an equal number of both sides but it could just as well mean that there is no sith as sith are a perversion of the force.

[Jaavik]

I know the reason for the mass-quoting.

 

You also didn't need to capitalize *our,* because I am capable of reading for inflection. Perhaps most can't do that? I don't know, I just speak and write assuming that people are capable of understanding my points of inflection, unless they show otherwise.

 

Didn't mean anything by it, just pointing out that most of the biggest posts were between me and the other guy (not saying you were intruding on the conversation) and (for me) it just makes it easier to keep track of the conversation flow.

 

The points you refer to about balance conversations - they (Mace and Yoda) are referring to their diminishing ability to see the future with the Force for guidance purposes - not their ability to actually wield it. Also, they do know why, but they don't know the source. I had thought this was pretty clear, too, both from the conversations, and from Mace vs. Sidious, Yoda vs. Sidious, and Anakin vs. Obi-wan. They don't seem to be lacking in power, in any way, shape, or form.

 

The exact quote I'm referring to:

 

Mace Windu: I think it is time we inform the senate that our ability to use the force has diminished.

 

It doesn't specifically mention anything about seeing the future for guidance purposes, although I will concede that it doesn't specify that they DON'T know why. It also doesn't specify when this problem began, so if it was happening before TPM, then they weren't aware (at that time) that the Sith had returned until they found Darth Maul. I know that Yoda, especially, has made several references to how it's difficult to see the future as the dark side was "clouding everything". So as far as I could tell, the ability to see the future was part of it, but they seem to imply that it was more than that.

 

Granted, it could have been made much clearer so we didn't have to speculate. I would definitely be interested to see if George has ever clarified this. Possibly in a commentary track of the scenes in question?

 

The theme of Bringing (or Restoring) Balance has been used in other stories, probably many more than I am aware of. The mechanics may differ, but the end result (in my experience) has been universally the same - it is, in effect, like hitting a reset switch.

 

My example that was similar to yours has the ultimate "balance" resulting at the end of ROTS with 2 Jedi, 2 Sith. Although this is still debatable, as it was explained in ROTS that there was a signal from the Jedi temple that was calling the remaining Jedi to return. Obi-Wan and Yoda go to the temple and change the signal, so that implies there ARE surviving Jedi that possibly went into hiding (Or at least Yoda and Obi-Wan are hopeful there are). There are EU stories of Vader hunting down the remaining Jedi in between Episodes III and IV (although no official mention in the films).

 

Your example goes a bit farther - to the end of ROTJ with Luke being the last remaining Jedi. Since your examples show Sith as part of the balance (2 Jedi, 2 Sith), the ultimate result would be considered an "imbalance" as there is 1 Jedi and no Sith at the end of ROTJ.

 

So this theory does have it's problems.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

wasn't the prophcy that Anakin will bring balance to the force by destorying the sith. I suppose its a matter of what figuring out what balance means.

 

That's actually an excellent point. I hadn't considered that part of the line.

 

In that case, we would be back to the possibility that Luke may have been "The Chosen One" since it was his involvement that instigated Vader turning back. Without Luke, Vader may have been lost forever.

 

What this ALSO makes me consider is whether or not Yoda and Obi-Wan considered the possibility that Anakin's offspring could have "The Chosen One" among them, Since they were to be hidden from Anakin, although I'm not certain why Kenobi wouldn't have gotten involved in getting Luke trained at an earlier age.

 

Another consideration is that Owen may have forbidden Luke getting involved with Kenobi. Owen seemed to know who he was and was very adamant about Luke staying away from him.

 

We assume that it means an equal number of both sides but it could just as well mean that there is no sith as sith are a perversion of the force.

 

Filthy Jedi Propaganda!!!

Edited June 5, 2012 by Jaavik

[Captain_Zone]

I'm not going to join the *quote the other guy's freaking book-length post* party, so this is just in reference to the very last part of your last post, Jaavik.

 

The Chosen One, who will bring balance - I had thought this was pretty clear, and it really amazes me how many people muck this up.

 

Balance - Lots, and lots of Jedi. 2 Sith. By the end of Episode 3, there are:

 

2 Jedi

2 Sith

 

When Luke starts on his path to becoming a Jedi, Obi-Wan is killed.

 

2 Jedi

2 Sith

 

When Luke is becoming a Jedi, Yoda dies.

 

1 Jedi

2 Sith

 

Vader kills the Emperor.

 

1 Jedi

1 SIth

 

Vader returns to the Light, then dies

 

1 Jedi

 

Of course the prophecy was misread - they incorrectly assumed what was meant by Balance, but he did indeed fulfill the prophecy.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- moving on to something else not related to you, Jaavik.---------------------------------------------------

 

Those *red letter?* videos:

 

Guess what? I can make a video of me talking, slow it down so it adds to the *stupid* tone that I am going for, and edit a bunch of *random people's* (also known as my friends who agreed to help) words to emphasize the satirical slant that I am putting on my commentary. Sure can...easily. I truly feel sad for anyone whose thinking and/or opinions were moved in any way by those videos, or any others like them.

 

Videos like that use a special flavor of Kool-aid called *Sensationalism.*

 

Politicians use it, and entertainers like Jerry Springer and Doctor Phil use it, too. Do you know why?

 

Because stupid people, and sheep, eagerly guzzle it down, and ask for more.

 

Riôt

 

Apparently, the prophecy was never interpreted correctly in the movies. There are numerous interpretations right now, but so far, unless George has clarified exactly what it was supposed to mean, none of them are correct. So, either it was to destroy the Rule of 2, or it was to destroy the Sith, or it was to make it 2 and 2 or whatever.

 

Not sure, but so far word from Lucas has been Jack and Squat, and Jack just left town. George has a love of keeping things deliberately vague.

 

I wonder if he knows that is the source of rabid fanboys all saying their interpretations are correct, or the hate mail he gets if or when he finally does clarify something.

 

I get the feeling sometimes that George just makes it up as he goes, and doesn't even think of the long-term. Other times, I think he does it intentionally just to troll the fans or pull off a practical joke on them.

[Jaavik]

Not sure, but so far word from Lucas has been Jack and Squat, and Jack just left town. George has a love of keeping things deliberately vague.

 

Hail to the king, baby!