Question: the clone army and Anakin's obvious affection for Padme

[Rhyltran]

It's how it's handled in the end, both organizations use their codes as chains when they see the need to abuse those chains, but otherwise, it's a method of if you don't get caught go to town. Honestly, it's very hard to show you aren't following the sith code, considering as long as you are pursuing your right to power you are pretty much sticking to said code. Hell, even Sidious shows he is ignoring the Rule of Two, something the Jedi firmly believe in still (as Sidious has had multiple apprentices at the same time) and as Rebels is showing, has been teaching more Sith teachings to people (hence the Inquisitor).

 

Makes that whole line of only Sith believe in absolutes seem rather silly when the Jedi are fairly absolute about everything while the Sith seem to leave things open for interpretation or throw out rules completely because they are stupid (aka the Rule of Two).

 

The rule of two isn't the Sith code. Palpatine also felt he outgrew the rule of two. Not to mention the inquisitors weren't fully trained in the ways of the Sith. They weren't considered Sith. They were trained in the ways of the dark side of the force, however. Also those masters weren't acting in accordance to the council. A master has control over what students they teach. They also have control over whether or not they want to keep their student. A council can't stop a master from no longer training their padawan. Likewise, Satele Shan is on the council when she has a child.

 

The Sith Code is more than just following your right to power. It's a lifestyle that is expected to be adhered to. If you become lazy and stop seeking conflicts/greater power. You will be seen as weak. Your rivals will then turn on you and kill you. The problem is you can say that you don't have to follow the Sith Code. That's fine but if you're in a position of power you'll die to those that do because they're not going to stop. They're going to keep striving to go foreward and the moment you lag behind you die. It's like a line that has to keep moving forward. You can't stop, you can't slow down, and you can't retire.

 

You're trapped in the "Keep moving forward state." A Sith also is expected to use their hatred/anger. You're not supposed to love or show compassion. These are considered a weakness in the Sith Empire. We see numerous Sith in game even talk about as such. Malgus killed his own wife because he knew his rivals would use his love against him. He killed her because he knew it'd make him hate himself. That hate would then make him stronger. Finding ways of feeding that hate and make it stronger become an obsession with Sith because it allows one to use the dark side of the force to it's greatest potential.

 

Sith aren't allowed to love anymore than a Jedi is. Jedi have more freedom to do so. At the very worst you're looking to be expelled. As a Sith you're looking at her possibly being taken from you, tortured, and killed. Followed by yourself.

[Wolfninjajedi]

Oh. Thanks. I was just making sure I didn't miss something that may have added a smidgen of sense to the juvenile script of that movie.

 

I asked because one thing that drives me nuts is when anyone has to make up stuff to explain something that should have been fixed or rewritten completely in a movie.

 

 

 

The entire prequel trilogy is full of plot holes. It is impossible to discuss anything that happened in them without 'bashing' them since Lucas pretty much took a dump on a legal pad and called it a script.

 

What's difficult to understand exactly?

[BrianDavion]

Ok, I'm sorry, but that former queen stuff in the prequels annoys me to no end. I know the OP didn't want prequel bashing, but daggonit, I have to say it.

 

Lucas wrote a messy, stupid horrible script....without any thinking or apparently oversight. Queens aren't elected. If he actually gave a crap about it he would have just called her Prime Minister/ President/ Big Head Honcho in the first movie...than her being a senator later would make sense. (and no, I don't give a hoot what any novelization or book may have said to make it look less stupid)

 

except titles tend to be.. fluid things. elective Monarchies do exist. one of the more famous oens being the Holy Roman Empire.

And many nations evolve over time. (the consituional development of england over time is a great example).

 

I can Imagine Naboo started out as a Monarchy but over more and more time became more and more Republican over time, until it became a Republic that simply had the trappings of a Monarchy.

[wilsonstone]

What's difficult to understand exactly?

 

Nothing really, if you look at the movie as something written by an eight year old. But if you ask what exactly is the deal with the Trade Federation on screen it sort of falls apart. That's fine, if you don't really expect a plot of any kind. I never said I had a difficult time understanding it, I said the script was an awful mess that made little to no sense on its own.

 

except titles tend to be.. fluid things. elective Monarchies do exist. one of the more famous oens being the Holy Roman Empire.

And many nations evolve over time. (the consituional development of england over time is a great example).

 

I can Imagine Naboo started out as a Monarchy but over more and more time became more and more Republican over time, until it became a Republic that simply had the trappings of a Monarchy.

 

Perhaps, but how many people think of that when you mention monarchy/ King/ Queen?

 

I'm betting not a lot of folks, so now we have to 'imagine' that its an elective monarchy because no one bothered to do any sort of troubleshooting/editing of the script or Lucas' writing. Again, that's fine....the movie has already been made, its part of canon now. As much as I wish it was a good movie(s) (as far as the PT) it wasn't.

 

But to the original question:

 

Isn't Anakin's affection for Padme a little too obvious for them not to know they were in a relationship? At the beginning of Episode II, Obi-Wan chastises Anakin for telling Padme they'll do everything in their power to find the person behind the attacks on her, so he can tell he has some affection for her. Yet the Council still sends them on a trip to Naboo, just the 2 of them? And wouldn't the Council wonder where Anakin spends most of his nights (we know he's always sleeping in Padme's Couruscant apartment)?

 

Honestly it seemed more like creepy stalkerish stuff than affection, but whatever. It gets worse though, as you mentioned....why send Anakin to Naboo with her? Especially since the entire assassination plotline sort of disappears right after that, to be replaced by the FORCED romance storyline. If you want to look at it a little deeper think about what Anakin says to Padme in the PT....

• He whines about Obi-Wan a lot
  
• He pretty much announces his fascist ideas on how the republic should be run
  
• He claims he wants to be the most powerful Jedi ever and stop people from dying (megalomania anyone?)
  
• He admits to slaughtering the sand people...men, women children...like animals
  

 

....so the idea that Padme is in love with the guy (which is really an informed attribute) doesn't make here look verysympathetic. At least Juliette Lewis' character in Kalifornia had the excuse of being mentally stunted for being in love with a psycho. None of the characters were characters, they were just vague outlines.

 

(I apologize for typos....I have a mother of a cold right now and my concentration is a bit off)

[Ghisallo]

It's not an "elected monarchy" it was a democratic republic. Hell when the US was first created John Adams (VP) presided over a month long debate over the title of the President. Titles such as "his Majesty the President", "his Highness the President", and "His High Mightiness" were all on the table. Heck in 1787 Alexander Hamilton argued that the US should have an elected monarch. It would have been even more "regal" than what Lucas wrote because the elected Monarch of the US would serve "on good behavior" (basically for life unless impeached.)

 

Simply because people are ignorant of the history they should know doesn't mean an author or screen writer has to reflect the ignorance in his writing.

 

As for the Padme forced romance trust me I have know ladies like that in my life. They see someone who they feel has a "good heart" who is in pain, confused etc. They say "he needs help." Its not just emotionally niave guys in high school and college, who usually read to much Byron and Keats, that fall hard into the "white knight" mode, chicks do it too and it usually ends badly.

 

That said what made me think it wrong was how creepy it was. She was old enough to be the leader of a planet when Anakin wasn't even out of purberty yet, then they are knocking boots? Ewwww... Just ewwwww.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Ghisallo

[Wolfninjajedi]

Nothing really, if you look at the movie as something written by an eight year old. But if you ask what exactly is the deal with the Trade Federation on screen it sort of falls apart. That's fine, if you don't really expect a plot of any kind. I never said I had a difficult time understanding it, I said the script was an awful mess that made little to no sense on its own.

 

What's the deal?....It's controlled by a Sith Lord, using it to achieve power. He has them going to Naboo making a crisis, thus making the current Chancellor look like an incompetent idiot and thus making his way to becoming the Chancellor.

[wilsonstone]

It's not an "elected monarchy" it was a democratic republic. Hell when the US was first created John Adams (VP) presided over a month long debate over the title of the President. Titles such as "his Majesty the President", "his Highness the President", and "His High Mightiness" were all on the table. Heck in 1787 Alexander Hamilton argued that the US should have an elected monarch. It would have been even more "regal" than what Lucas wrote because the elected Monarch of the US would serve "on good behavior" (basically for life unless impeached.)

 

Simply because people are ignorant of the history they should know doesn't mean an author or screen writer has to reflect the ignorance in his writing.

 

Yeah, I knew all that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Seriously, it doesn't, its a goalpost that isn't on the field. It doesn't make anyone ignorant to look at the prequels and think "Wait a minute....I thought she was queen? This doesn't make sense....unless I think of it like back when they were trying to think up the office of the US president!"

 

...and its a toss up whether or not the author should at least have some kind of sense and internal logic to his story. Lucas doesn't get a pass on lazy writing.

 

It can't actually be proven but I'd bet that none of that entered GL's head when he wrote the script. (He was probably too busy thinking how many stupid Jar Jar jokes he could fit in. ) Its actually a minor thing in the entire prequel, but only because the entire thing was poorly scripted.

 

As for the Padme forced romance trust me I have know ladies like that in my life. They see someone who they feel has a "good heart" who is in pain, confused etc. They say "he needs help." Its not just emotionally niave guys in high school and college, who usually read to much Byron and Keats, that fall hard into the "white knight" mode, chicks do it too and it usually ends badly.

 

That said what made me think it wrong was how creepy it was. She was old enough to be the leader of a planet when Anakin wasn't even out of purberty yet, then they are knocking boots? Ewwww... Just ewwwww.

 

It was creepy, yeah. But all I'm saying is they had no chemistry together on screen, the entire romance felt forced and in my opinion Padme must have had low standards if she couldn't see how messed up Anakin was. Of course that is again because they were poorly written.....and I'm almost sure their entire conceptualization took about five minutes. YMMV of course.

[wilsonstone]

What's the deal?....It's controlled by a Sith Lord, using it to achieve power. He has them going to Naboo making a crisis, thus making the current Chancellor look like an incompetent idiot and thus making his way to becoming the Chancellor.

 

What does the Trade federation get out of it? Why are they listening to this guy, Sidious? Why don't they just say, "no negotiations" instead of letting the Jedi come aboard.

 

....or even AFTER they come aboard. Just say "Sorry, we don't want to talk. Go away". Thus avoiding a fight. What are the jedi going to do? Take their ship by force?

 

How is forcing Padme to sign something going to make an invasion legal?

 

As a matter of fact, who are these guys? Do they control ALL trade in the republic? IOf that's so one would think they have a lot of power right there. But no, lets not give them any real motivation. We just need to see that their evil for evil so we can throw in light saber fights.

 

Now I'm not saying the fights aren't cool to look at or that they don't belong in the movie. I'm just saying that the plot, such as it was, had no flesh to it, made little sense when you think about it and was badly made. YMMV, you might think it was great. Hell, I wish I thought it was great. I don't however. Heck, I like Star Trek too, but believe me I'll tell you unforgivingly about some of the downright stupid crap in that franchise.

Edited December 18, 2014 by wilsonstone

[Wolfninjajedi]

What does the Trade federation get out of it? Why are they listening to this guy, Sidious? Why don't they just say, "no negotiations" instead of letting the Jedi come aboard.

 

....or even AFTER they come aboard. Just say "Sorry, we don't want to talk. Go away". Thus avoiding a fight. What are the jedi going to do? Take their ship by force?

 

How is forcing Padme to sign something going to make an invasion legal?

 

As a matter of fact, who are these guys? Do they control ALL trade in the republic? IOf that's so one would think they have a lot of power right there. But no, lets not give them any real motivation. We just need to see that their evil for evil so we can throw in light saber fights.

 

Now I'm not saying the fights aren't cool to look at or that they don't belong in the movie. I'm just saying that the plot, such as it was, had no flesh to it, made little sense when you think about it and was badly made. YMMV, you might think it was great. Hell, I wish I thought it was great. I don't however. Heck, I like Star Trek too, but believe me I'll tell you unforgivingly about some of the downright stupid crap in that franchise.

 

Yes why would they listen to a Sith Lord....I wonder...so as to not be killed? They were manipulated, he clearly had power over them.

 

No they don't control all the trade of the Republic.

 

But I don't got time to go through this, must be off. So will just agree to disagree.

[wilsonstone]

Yes why would they listen to a Sith Lord....I wonder...so as to not be killed? They were manipulated, he clearly had power over them.

 

No they don't control all the trade of the Republic.

Again, none of that was stated on screen. Yes, we knew it was Palpatime in the hologram, but we have absolutely no idea why they would listen to him or what is in it for the TF. They don't have a motivation, and you know, even villains need a plausible reason to do villainy. These guys had a huge army and a fleet of ships....he might be a sith but he's ONE guy. They were that scared of him? Really? Than why not ASK the Jedi for help as there's a bunch of them?

 

Of course, maybe Naboo is a really special planet. After all the jedis get to the capitol by taking a sun through the planet's CORE (which is apparently made of water with fish and everything in it) . Because obviously geology and stuff doesn't exist. That wasn't a cheap shot that's an example of bad writing.

 

But see, now I'm doing it. Making up reasons for stuff that should have been explained in the movie, not in the books or whatever. Again, it was ill thought out and that's why the Prequels were terrible movies. If they weren't 'star wars' stores probably wouldn't even carry them.

 

I'm not saying any of this to be contrary, I'm saying it because, well, its true. It was a horrible trilogy story wise with bad writing, characterization, EVERYTHING. They didn't even attempt to use logic in any scene. Almost every scene hurts your brain if you think about it.

 

 

[but I don't got time to go through this, must be off. So will just agree to disagree.

 

I guess that's all we can do. I don't mean to come off all cranky. I have a terrible cold right now so I might be more gruff than usual.

[Ghisallo]

Yeah, I knew all that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Seriously, it doesn't, its a goalpost that isn't on the field. It doesn't make anyone ignorant to look at the prequels and think "Wait a minute....I thought she was queen? This doesn't make sense....unless I think of it like back when they were trying to think up the office of the US president!"

 

...and its a toss up whether or not the author should at least have some kind of sense and internal logic to his story. Lucas doesn't get a pass on lazy writing.

 

It can't actually be proven but I'd bet that none of that entered GL's head when he wrote the script. (He was probably too busy thinking how many stupid Jar Jar jokes he could fit in. ) Its actually a minor thing in the entire prequel, but only because the entire thing was poorly scripted.

 

 

 

It was creepy, yeah. But all I'm saying is they had no chemistry together on screen, the entire romance felt forced and in my opinion Padme must have had low standards if she couldn't see how messed up Anakin was. Of course that is again because they were poorly written.....and I'm almost sure their entire conceptualization took about five minutes. YMMV of course.

 

In terms of the queen thing, you were the one who said something to the effect of "how many people would think of that.". Well that comment, imo, puts the goal post on the field. I didn't bat an eye because I understand the history IRL.

 

As for lack of chemistry, I don't think that was the story, I think it is because A) George Lucas did horrible casting for Anakin, B) Thank god George selected A-list actors for most of the other roles. George has always had " issues" in terms of directing human beings vs set design and special effects.

 

A meh actor + poor directing would kill the sense of chemistry of even the greatest script.

[wilsonstone]

But US history comparisons have nothing to do with it. seriously how many people do you think seriously made that comparison in their minds watching this movie? We'll never know, of course, but I'm willing to say not a lot. Understanding history or knowing historical facts doesn't automatically mean that the Queen/Senator thing makes sense or that anyone who thought it was goofy is an idiot for not drawing a historical comparison.

 

In its own INTERNAL universe it might make sense....but probably not much. I don't know, and its not really fair to assume that everyone watching the movie has read whatever book that might explain it. Most people are going to wonder how a Queen has term limits. Now, in the long run it doesn't even matter....but that's because the movie had more problems than that flub.

 

It's a shame too. The PT could have been a classic like the OT....if any one cared when they were writing it.

[Varium]

What does the Trade federation get out of it? Why are they listening to this guy, Sidious? .

 

Some things are left for imagination, average moviegoer is not going to care how the Sidious is able to pull it off, the people who want to know will find the information. Actually moviegoer would realize Sidious has something to force them to listen to him.

[Ghisallo]

But US history comparisons have nothing to do with it. seriously how many people do you think seriously made that comparison in their minds watching this movie? We'll never know, of course, but I'm willing to say not a lot. Understanding history or knowing historical facts doesn't automatically mean that the Queen/Senator thing makes sense or that anyone who thought it was goofy is an idiot for not drawing a historical comparison.

 

In its own INTERNAL universe it might make sense....but probably not much. I don't know, and its not really fair to assume that everyone watching the movie has read whatever book that might explain it. Most people are going to wonder how a Queen has term limits. Now, in the long run it doesn't even matter....but that's because the movie had more problems than that flub.

 

It's a shame too. The PT could have been a classic like the OT....if any one cared when they were writing it.

 

Well maybe I am showing my age but when the original movies came out people were talking about the clear symbolism as it related to WWII. Lots of fantasy and Sci-fi movies do this. Hell the entire history of the Sci-fi genre is in large part about using either history or current events. "The invasion of the body snatchers" a commentary on the red scare. Star Trek, social commentary, sometimes quite overt, on racism. The Lord of the Rings books? Heavily influence by WWI and the eugenics theories popular at the time.

 

Simply because you don't like it, or think other people may have been jarred by it or didn't get it, has nothing to do with the fact what you say has no place in this kind of movie. This kinda thing has ALWAYS been in this kind of movie if it wants to rise above the level of Sci-Fi of say Doom staring Dwayne Johnson.

 

There are far more jarring things in I-III imo. You go from the IV-VI with the idea that the Jedi and the Force is more of a Zen/Bhuddist Monk kinda thing. Talent + training + discipline to "oh before all that you best have what amounts to a critical degree of viral infection?" comes first to mind. Next the idea that there is a standing order with a catalogue number that didn't make a Jedi go "okay order 65....67....where is order 66?" Or even the fact that Jedi who never had actual military experience are suddenly put in charge of entire divisions?

 

Now none of these are suspension of disbelief breaking imo, but you really seem to be hung up on the least of the issues and arguably something that is not an issue at all. In the end what killed the classic nature of it was Anakin and Jar Jar. Anakin was simply horribly casted. I mean he didn't sound like a raging Sith when he is half burned to a cinder there at the end, saying "I hate you" with the force that only totally surrendering to the dark side can bring. He sounded like an 8 year old pissy that Mommy or Daddy wouldn't give him a puppy.

 

I mean look at the issues with what we see in the original movies...and get more detail in this game. Leia is a "Princess" of a world where the leader is elected by the filling body? Han Solo is a DRUG Smuggler, but the Rebellion embraces him and gives him a medal when they have known him for how long? Luke piloted speeders...hops right into their version of an F-16? The Empire knows where the Rebel base is in Movie 1 but doesn't plot a course that avoids the planet blocking their field of fire giving the Rebels more than enough time to evacuate if need be. The second movie... They have to drop the planetary shield to bombard the rebel base BUT they can't shoot the ships while still in the atmosphere? Clearly their weapons aren't "in space" only. Vader himself is on Bespin but the little Falcon can escape... He brings a FLEET where ever he goes.

 

And through ALL the movies. You open with "those blaster marks are too precise for sand people. Only Stormtroopers..." BUT even Vader's fist, the most elite of all Storm Trooper units, can't hit the broad side of a freaking tank.

[wilsonstone]

Simply because you don't like it, or think other people may have been jarred by it or didn't get it, has nothing to do with the fact what you say has no place in this kind of movie. This kinda thing has ALWAYS been in this kind of movie if it wants to rise above the level of Sci-Fi of say Doom staring Dwayne Johnson

.

 

I don't want to derail the original topic any more than has been done so I'll make this quick...besides, I'm so full of cold medicine right now I'm probably going to pass out soon.

 

You might be reading into what I say too much. I didn't say anything about what belongs in the movie or not. Hell, I don't give a burp about the symbolism. I don't have to read Lord of the Rings to understand clearly who is who in the movies and what is going on. For reasons we can go on about all week, I think the prequels were bad movies. Not for just one thing like the "Queen" thing, but for many reasons. I'm not going to derail this thread by going into them now.

 

It doesn't matter WHAT I think should be in the movie in the first place. Its already been made. I had no say in it being written. ...and it was written badly, with little thought to making sense, any effort really in making as plot. Its just a bunch of scenes strung together in order to show CGI laser/ light saber fights. YMMV, and that's fine too. Obviously a lot of people like the films for whatever reasons....its not my job to make them not like that nor would I try. People like the Transformers movies and they really sucked. (the first one was ok, I guess.....)

 

But I won't excuse the things I saw as flaws just because of symbolism in another movie, or a comparison to history. I might be one of the few that is glad Disney brought the rights. At least they'll probably put some effort into it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Ghisallo]

.

 

I don't want to derail the original topic any more than has been done so I'll make this quick...besides, I'm so full of cold medicine right now I'm probably going to pass out soon.

 

You might be reading into what I say too much. I didn't say anything about what belongs in the movie or not. Hell, I don't give a burp about the symbolism. I don't have to read Lord of the Rings to understand clearly who is who in the movies and what is going on. For reasons we can go on about all week, I think the prequels were bad movies. Not for just one thing like the "Queen" thing, but for many reasons. I'm not going to derail this thread by going into them now.

 

It doesn't matter WHAT I think should be in the movie in the first place. Its already been made. I had no say in it being written. ...and it was written badly, with little thought to making sense, any effort really in making as plot. Its just a bunch of scenes strung together in order to show CGI laser/ light saber fights. YMMV, and that's fine too. Obviously a lot of people like the films for whatever reasons....its not my job to make them not like that nor would I try. People like the Transformers movies and they really sucked. (the first one was ok, I guess.....)

 

But I won't excuse the things I saw as flaws just because of symbolism in another movie, or a comparison to history. I might be one of the few that is glad Disney brought the rights. At least they'll probably put some effort into it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I guess my main point is that to me, if a flaw that one is minor. There are flaws in all the movies that are clear "***?" From the point of view of simple logic. I noted some of them above. That said, with the exception of the elected queen bit I honestly think most of them are down to the actor tapped to play Anakin.

 

If you can say anything about the Anakin issue, from a writing point of view, all I see is a lack of originality. Possible great hero, falls in love with the person he is sworn to protect, falls from grace, children destined to redeem him...this is old hat going back to epic poems of the ancient Greeks and likely older. The problem was the hack they chose to portray the flawed hero. Put that dialogue in the hands of a competent actor let alone a good/great one? It would have worked. If the reason given for Hayden taking the role is true (he had the best on screen chemistry with Natalie Portman...OMG how bad were the remaining choices!?!?.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Ghisallo

[Rhyltran]

I guess my main point is that to me, if a flaw that one is minor. There are flaws in all the movies that are clear "***?" From the point of view of simple logic. I noted some of them above. That said, with the exception of the elected queen bit I honestly think most of them are down to the actor tapped to play Anakin.

 

If you can say anything about the Anakin issue, from a writing point of view, all I see is a lack of originality. Possible great hero, falls in love with the person he is sworn to protect, falls from grace, children destined to redeem him...this is old hat going back to epic poems of the ancient Greeks and likely older. The problem was the hack they chose to portray the flawed hero. Put that dialogue in the hands of a competent actor let alone a good/great one? It would have worked. If the reason given for Hayden taking the role is true (he had the best on screen chemistry with Natalie Portman...OMG how bad were the remaining choices!?!?.

 

No. His dialogue was bad. Have you seen Hayden in some other movies? He's not that bad. I'm not saying he's a great actor but he did 10 times better. Look at his lines. How could you NOT say those lines coming across as a whiney emo? Say them outloud. In fact, when he originally said them Lucas told him.. "YOU'RE NOT BEING WHINEY ENOUGH." Lucas told him to be MORE WHINEY. That was an order given to him on the set. Bad lines is a big thing with Lucas. To be honest? I like the prequels. I'm one of the few people I know who do but you can't deny the bad lines.

 

In fact, during the original trilogy the lines were even cheesier in the script! Harrison Ford told Lucas "You can write these lines but you can't expect me to say them." He told him NO about certain lines and improvised his own. Good dialogue is not Lucas' strong suit. The reason the original trilogy did as well as it did was because he had people who were willing to say "Yeah right we're not doing this. This is what we're going to do." and he listened.

[Ghisallo]

I have seen him in those (Jumper, the Virgin suicides and Takers.). Those roles had the emotional range of....ummm.... Very little. He is one of those actors who "looks good but has to play to type." An example of a similar actor is Jason Statham. I love more than a couple of his movies...they are just damn good pop corn fun. However he has to play the same kinda character. When u look up lists of "one dimensional actors" he usually makes the list along with Ashton Kutcher, Adam Sandler, Jason Statham etc. BTW I actually liked Jumper and the Virgin Suicides. You can be a decent actor BUT horrible for a particular role, so maybe calling him a hack was harsh...I would call him a "men" actor though because of his narrow range. I would call Statham, Diesel, The Rock and others the same. It doesn't change that I love seeing their movies (Dwayne Johnson as a gay body guard wearing a powder blue suit and red boots in "Be cool"? Absolutely priceless lol.)

 

Add to this Lucas' well earned reputation as being just a BAD director of human beings and you have a recepie for a disaster. This is not to say that the script was going to be Sci-fi's version of Citizen Kane, but it wasn't horrible either. Case in point..Star Wars Episode III Anakin Skywalker V.S. Obi W…:

 

Best dialogue McGregor ever got? Nope but he makes it work. Hayden...zomg. It was so bad I had trouble watching it.

[jovianus]

If you can say anything about the Anakin issue, from a writing point of view, all I see is a lack of originality. Possible great hero, falls in love with the person he is sworn to protect, falls from grace, children destined to redeem him...this is old hat going back to epic poems of the ancient Greeks and likely older. The problem was the hack they chose to portray the flawed hero. Put that dialogue in the hands of a competent actor let alone a good/great one? It would have worked. If the reason given for Hayden taking the role is true (he had the best on screen chemistry with Natalie Portman...OMG how bad were the remaining choices!?!?.

 

The movie would have been better if they had actually stuck to those epic poems, but they didn't. The bad dialogue and lack of chemistry is an issue, but the greater one is that the whole 'tragic love story' was repeatedly overshadowed by Anakin's endless whining about the Jedi not giving him enough respect and chasing after Palpatine like a lost puppy because he pats him on the head and tells him what a good boy he is.

 

Anakin is desperate to save Padme....as long as saving her doesn't actually in any way threaten his personal glory and role as a Jedi. He won't go to the Jedi, the best healers in the galaxy, to seek help for her because he might be cast out, but (as the Emperor's right hand man), he'll happily burn the Order to the ground with some half assed blubbering about 'This is totally for Padme!'.

[wilsonstone]

No. His dialogue was bad. Have you seen Hayden in some other movies? He's not that bad. I'm not saying he's a great actor but he did 10 times better. Look at his lines. How could you NOT say those lines coming across as a whiney emo? Say them outloud. In fact, when he originally said them Lucas told him.. "YOU'RE NOT BEING WHINEY ENOUGH." Lucas told him to be MORE WHINEY. That was an order given to him on the set. Bad lines is a big thing with Lucas. To be honest? I like the prequels. I'm one of the few people I know who do but you can't deny the bad lines.

 

I'd be lying to say I don't occasionally pop in the DVD to watch them just for the "turn brain off watch SFX" of it. You're right, too. The dialogue and Hayden's delivery were...well, bad. I did not see the prequels until they were all together in a dvd box set (I was overseas when the Phantom Menace came out, and otherwise deployed or too busy when the next to were in theaters.) But the truth is the very first time I watched them I thought "Good Lord, Anakin is a whiny little (rhymes with witch)! This is the 'hero'? He's not even a tragic hero because he is so utterly unlikable!".

 

In fact, during the original trilogy the lines were even cheesier in the script! Harrison Ford told Lucas "You can write these lines but you can't expect me to say them." He told him NO about certain lines and improvised his own. Good dialogue is not Lucas' strong suit. The reason the original trilogy did as well as it did was because he had people who were willing to say "Yeah right we're not doing this. This is what we're going to do." and he listened.

 

I got that impression just from watching both of the trilogies. In a way it reminds me of Star Trek the Next Generation and Gene Roddenberry. The first couple of seasons were god awful when Gene had control. When they kicked him upstairs they got better. No one can deny that that he had a great idea for a show and its popular, but that doesn't mean everything he thinks he wants in it are great ideas. I guess no one was willing to say to Lucas "Hey, look, this story is a mess. We need to sit down and fix it.". Instead we got a whiny emo jedi and Jar Jar.

[Ghisallo]

The movie would have been better if they had actually stuck to those epic poems, but they didn't. The bad dialogue and lack of chemistry is an issue, but the greater one is that the whole 'tragic love story' was repeatedly overshadowed by Anakin's endless whining about the Jedi not giving him enough respect and chasing after Palpatine like a lost puppy because he pats him on the head and tells him what a good boy he is.

 

Anakin is desperate to save Padme....as long as saving her doesn't actually in any way threaten his personal glory and role as a Jedi. He won't go to the Jedi, the best healers in the galaxy, to seek help for her because he might be cast out, but (as the Emperor's right hand man), he'll happily burn the Order to the ground with some half assed blubbering about 'This is totally for Padme!'.

 

My main point, and the video link was to demonstrate...good actors can make all the difference. Lucas definitely sucks at directing. He runs cool to lukewarm with his dialogue BUT the right actors can make it work. If Lucas could accept his weaknesses and stick to recruting skilled actors and insist on having the questionable one as the gosh darn lead...its almost like he insists after year of being panned that he needs that one actor to say "see I can direct!!!!!". No George you can't, please go back into the editing room and leave directing to the professionals.

[jovianus]

My main point, and the video link was to demonstrate...good actors can make all the difference. Lucas definitely sucks at directing. He runs cool to lukewarm with his dialogue BUT the right actors can make it work. If Lucas could accept his weaknesses and stick to recruting skilled actors and insist on having the questionable one as the gosh darn lead...its almost like he insists after year of being panned that he needs that one actor to say "see I can direct!!!!!". No George you can't, please go back into the editing room and leave directing to the professionals.

 

A good actor might have made the romance with Padme more convincing, but said good actor would still have to deal with the writing that repeatedly sidelined the romance in favor of Anakin continually wailing about how the stupid Jedi don't realize how totally awesome and amazing he is.

 

Good actors can save bad dialogue, good story can save bad actors, the Prequels had neither.

[DougTbx]

Bad writing and a poor plot ruined the prequels for me for the most part. For me the Clone Army was the biggest plot hole in the story, there were a whole host of questions that should have been asked right off the bat and were ignored. Okay so this dead Jedi ordered the army, who did he pay for it? The Council wasn't involved and I doubt the Order even had the resources then to finance the building of an army, or arming of one, let alone building a fleet to move them about. Who contracted and paid for all the gear, who designed and built the ships, transports and combat craft? The Republic had disbanded the Army of the Republic over 1,000 years before, so there was no standing military with any standardized equipment outside of local defense forces apparently till certain factions like the Trade Federation starting covert arms build ups.

[Sorelus]

Lucas wrote a messy, stupid horrible script....without any thinking or apparently oversight. Queens aren't elected. If he actually gave a crap about it he would have just called her Prime Minister/ President/ Big Head Honcho in the first movie...than her being a senator later would make sense. (and no, I don't give a hoot what any novelization or book may have said to make it look less stupid)

 

Exept that monarchs regularly WERE elected in states such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Please educate yourself before making uneducated claims.

[wilsonstone]

Exept that monarchs regularly WERE elected in states such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Please educate yourself before making uneducated claims.

 

Wow, that's interesting and totally irrelevant. You can compare queen elected Padme to actual human history all you want, the reason she was "elected" was poorly thought out writing. That's not even a stretch considering how bad the entire trilogy was. Its kind of funny that people bring that up as if it excuses Lucas for writing something so ridiculous. (ridiculous because he could have easily fixed it if he had put any effort into a script....or a plot. Or characters. You know, instead of cardboard cut out people and cartoony merchandising ideas.

 

And again.....Joe Average Movie goer isn't going to think "Yeah, just like the Holy Roman Empire!" they're going to think "Huh? But I thought she was queen? Huh?". My friend's 8 year old thought it was stupid.

Edited December 21, 2014 by wilsonstone