PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars Episode I (Phantom Menace V.S. Episode II Clone Wars)



Jedi Destroyer666
03-20-2005, 08:35 PM
I've seen all the star wars movies and I think the best one of them all is episode I The Phantom Menace for the simple fact it had lots of action and was more entertaining than most of the other ones. Another thing is that I was fairly dissapointed with episode II Clone Wars because it was to mushy, but the battle between Yoda and Dooku was quite entertaining.:D

Darth Jax
03-21-2005, 02:25 PM
most of the people on the boards that saw the original trilogy as they were meant to be seen on the big screen (with the original release) would rank TPM as the worst of all the star wars movies released. this has been debated countless times, but generally breaks down more as OT vs PT.

Jedi Destroyer666
03-21-2005, 02:33 PM
Well this is just my opinion and I think TPM is one of the best. Episode II was ok it's just Anakin's character should have gone in a diffrent direction.

stillakid
03-21-2005, 02:36 PM
Well this is just my opinion and I think TPM is one of the best. Episode II was ok it's just Anakin's character should have gone in a diffrent direction.

Yeah, like home. :rolleyes:

CaptainSolo1138
03-24-2005, 11:52 AM
Yeah, like home. :rolleyes:
ZING!

I thought "Clones" was much better than "Menace" IMO. While I'm sure some would say both sucked, "Clones" is probably my 2nd fav SW movie.

Slicker
03-24-2005, 11:57 AM
Hi y'all my name is Some and I say Clones sucked.;) At least compared to TPM, IMO. It just didn't have the same feel of a SW movie.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-24-2005, 12:23 PM
Uh, what? Episode II is called Attack of the Clones. :confused: And what happened to the author of this thread?

Anyway . . . as long as we're on the topic (sort of), I love them both, but I like AOTC more.

Beast
03-24-2005, 01:11 PM
Uh, what? Episode II is called Attack of the Clones. :confused: And what happened to the author of this thread?

Anyway . . . as long as we're on the topic (sort of), I love them both, but I like AOTC more.
I myslef thing Episode I is the best Star Wars film also. I've stated why numerous times, but I love seeing the Republic and Jedi Order in it's prime. And the rather complex political storyline was fun to see play out. I still love the original three films, but TPM is the top of the heap for me. Though I think ole ROTS is going to be replacing it soon. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
03-25-2005, 12:28 AM
And the rather complex political storyline was fun to see play out.

The what? Did you say, "complex?" :confused: The most complex thing about that movie was getting the guy behind the counter to get genuine imitation butter flavor into the middle of the bag.

Rocketboy
03-25-2005, 01:43 AM
Hi y'all my name is Some and I say Clones sucked.;) At least compared to TPM, IMO. It just didn't have the same feel of a SW movie.I'm just the opposite. I thought AOTC had more of a Star Wars feel than TPM did. But this may be because we get more of a OT look starting to evolve in AOTC, with the clones and vehicles and such.
While I still love TPM, I'd say it's my least favorite of the saga.

Kidhuman
03-25-2005, 10:10 AM
The most complex thing about that movie was getting the guy behind the counter to get genuine imitation butter flavor into the middle of the bag.


LOL.... thats rich

CaptainSolo1138
03-25-2005, 10:15 AM
LOL.... thats rich
As in "rich and buttery" or "good joke" rich? :p

Kidhuman
03-25-2005, 10:58 AM
A little of both

CaptainSolo1138
03-25-2005, 11:14 AM
A little of both
Sounds tasty!

JediTricks
03-25-2005, 08:06 PM
I will defend TPM to a certain point by saying I think it is more Star Warsy than AOTC. I may not care for either film much, but AOTC seemed out of the flavor and trying too hard to pander to the big action crowd, TPM may have a lot of flaws in my eyes but it did seem like a big adventure, somehow more "larger than life".

The 'Xir
03-30-2005, 12:16 PM
Yeah It was funny for me! JT is one that'll probably remember how I had to defend TPM like crazy after it was first released, from the onslaught of hatred that poured over that film(and mainly Jar Jar), and I was acuused of being a devoute Lucas butt kisser by many here! Although I know it's not the greatest storytelling ever obviously, I do feel somewhat validated as I stand steadfast in that TPM does have that great SW feel to it, and IMO is one of the top films in the saga(Although, personally I kinda rate them all the same!)

It was funny though because, upon release of AotC, all of a sudden the roles became reversed and I was the one *****ing about what crappy direction and decision making Lucas had made with the second installment! Although, now my temperment has quieted as well about this film, I still just don't like the devices Lucas used to bring Anakin to the darkside! For example the death of his mother could have been alot more dramatic, and possibly more intertwined with main characters!
The only thing I think I can say good about Anakins treatment in AotC, now humor me... but it does have a real world feel to it! Meaning his over indulgent whiny like tantrums are actually things we all are guilty of at some point in our own lives! Like have you ever thought of something you've done, or watched your self doing something on tape and been completely embarrassed about the way you handle it? That's what it feels like watching AotC to me, so it does have some real world accuracy in my eyes! But, we as fans want to see dellusions and granduer, not tapes of our own childhood! And that's the other thing about what decisions Lucas and Anakin take, Anakins behavior isn't that much unlike our own growing up(except the whole Jedi and futuristic aspects of course ;) ), so what is so different about him that really pushes him over the edge? I don't know if Lucas has accentuated or driven this point home enough! :ermm: IMO. Hopefully RotS can provide such depth, but unfortunately IMO, I do think AotC has forever tainted the legacy of one of the greatest cinematic villans of all time! :neutral:

stillakid
03-31-2005, 09:22 AM
It was funny though because, upon release of AotC, all of a sudden the roles became reversed and I was the one *****ing about what crappy direction and decision making Lucas had made with the second installment! Although, now my temperment has quieted as well about this film, I still just don't like the devices Lucas used to bring Anakin to the darkside! For example the death of his mother could have been alot more dramatic, and possibly more intertwined with main characters!
The only thing I think I can say good about Anakins treatment in AotC, now humor me... but it does have a real world feel to it! Meaning his over indulgent whiny like tantrums are actually things we all are guilty of at some point in our own lives! Like have you ever thought of something you've done, or watched your self doing something on tape and been completely embarrassed about the way you handle it? That's what it feels like watching AotC to me, so it does have some real world accuracy in my eyes! But, we as fans want to see dellusions and granduer, not tapes of our own childhood! And that's the other thing about what decisions Lucas and Anakin take, Anakins behavior isn't that much unlike our own growing up(except the whole Jedi and futuristic aspects of course ;) ), so what is so different about him that really pushes him over the edge? I don't know if Lucas has accentuated or driven this point home enough! :ermm: IMO. Hopefully RotS can provide such depth, but unfortunately IMO, I do think AotC has forever tainted the legacy of one of the greatest cinematic villans of all time! :neutral:

Roger that. My MAIN problem with the Prequels thus far has been the question of motivation. WHY exactly is Palpatine doing all of this? WHY exactly does Anakin turn from Obi Wan's "good friend" into the iconic bad guy known 'round the world? Palpatine's question isn't being addressed at all. And Anakin's motivation is just so wrong from the get-go, it's laughable. I could give a rat's-arse if its "realistic", as in "that's how some people really act in real life." Big deal. Real people also chew gum and spit it out on the sidewalk but we don't see Anakin do that, do we? Alleged "realism" in comparison to earthly people isn't a valid reason to justify Anakin's supposed motivations for turning bad onscreen.

No. A better and more believable motivation for Anakin to turn would have been something on the political spectrum, wherein he sees "injustice" occurring and decides to take the side of Palpatine. Sort of like if one of the misguided youth of our world decided to believe all the crap that comes out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth. Because again, in terms of motivations, we don't even get a clear understanding about why the Republic is splitting. There is NEVER an explanation for it that is satisfactory. NONE of the bad guy's motivations are ever explained except for Anakin and his is because he thinks he's being held back. And even then, he admits ONSCREEN, that he knows he's being unreasonable. NONE of it makes any sense, from TPM through AOTC. ROTS will only continue down this path and I'm confident that it will do nothing to fill in this gaps of motivation that are so obviously missing in this "complex" story. :rolleyes:

2-1B
03-31-2005, 12:51 PM
I wouldn't say "NEVER" until you've seen the last ****ing movie, which may or may not delve more into character motivations. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

JediTricks
03-31-2005, 06:21 PM
I wouldn't say "NEVER" until you've seen the last ****ing movie, which may or may not delve more into character motivations. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Perhaps that is true, but Eps 1 and 2 are already in the can and in our minds, Lucas can't really change our feelings on this here because they're already experienced. It's like seeing ANH after ROTJ, you don't look at Vader's actions in the film and think "well, he's just doing these things to get in the Emp's good graces so he can kill him" or "he's torturing his daughter, that's how much of a bad guy he is!" (sorry, I'm running on low sleep and I know that last one doesn't make as much sense since Vader isn't supposed to know, but it's all I can come up with as a backup to the first point).

Lman316
03-31-2005, 10:44 PM
ROTS will only continue down this path and I'm confident that it will do nothing to fill in this gaps of motivation that are so obviously missing in this "complex" story. :rolleyes:

I've got to disagree on that, if only on this point of yours...


WHY exactly is Palpatine doing all of this? Palpatine's question isn't being addressed at all.

I believe Palpatine's motives are rooted in revenge against the Jedi for what they did to his people (or religion, or whatever you'd want to term it), the Sith.
If you're staying away from EU, no one really knows what the Jedi did to the Sith. You may assume that they had something to do with the extinction of that particular order, but it hasn't been outright addressed. It was an open-ended question. "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge." What revenge? For what? What did they do that was so horrible?
Seeing as how the actual title of the next film is Revenge of the Sith, I think it's pretty safe to say that not only will you witness the actual act of revenge, but learn the motivations behind it.

I've also got to question your motives a bit, Stillakid. How is it that almost no matter what thread you're in, you some how manage to turn into some kind of political slight? I'd love (maybe - I normally try to avoid confrontations :P) to take it into the Rancor Pit and find out exactly what crap is coming out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth. :D

This thread wasn't a bad idea. Lately, I've been comparing TPM and AOTC, too. I used to think that I liked AOTC better than TPM, but the more I get into it, the more I think TPM is a bit more solid. Despite what others feel.

Now, even though this thread was a good idea, I think an even better one would be to compare the PT to the OT. Because there are some things I just don't understand. The OT is held to some kind of gold standard for some reason. When, in fact, there are just as many plot holes, gaps and areas of hokey and/or horrible dialogue as in the prequels. In my opinion, anyway...
Maybe the bottom line (even though I've defended him on occassion) is that Lucas is just a bad story-teller.

End...

2-1B
04-01-2005, 05:01 AM
JT, all I meant is that you can't take JUST 1 and 2 then make a straight line of connection with Vader in the OT.

Stillakid doesn't like how they started with Anakin, fine I respect that, but just saying that we see no reason for him to Vaderize in AOTC is not a totally fair criticism in my book - now if (and when :D :D :D ) ROTS fails to satisfy stillakid and yourself, then have at it. I'll be eager to hear your opinions. :)

I dunno, it's like the old "good friend" argument - people were already slamming the prequels for a continuity break in that we don't see Obi and Ani as good friends and all I ask is that we watch the whole new trilogy and if after ROTS somebody still thinks George did a poor job of showing these 'good friends' then I will respect that opinion. :)

BTW, ditto on that low sleep thing. :crazed:

stillakid
04-01-2005, 10:55 AM
I wouldn't say "NEVER" until you've seen the last ****ing movie, which may or may not delve more into character motivations. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Um, I did say:


NONE of it makes any sense, from TPM through AOTC. ;)




I believe Palpatine's motives are rooted in revenge against the Jedi for what they did to his people (or religion, or whatever you'd want to term it), the Sith.
If you're staying away from EU, no one really knows what the Jedi did to the Sith. You may assume that they had something to do with the extinction of that particular order, but it hasn't been outright addressed. It was an open-ended question. "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge." What revenge? For what? What did they do that was so horrible?
Seeing as how the actual title of the next film is Revenge of the Sith, I think it's pretty safe to say that not only will you witness the actual act of revenge, but learn the motivations behind it.
Right. Agreed. Palpatine's motives are for this nebulous "revenge." This has all the "complexity" of a Pinky and the Brain episode where they are trying to take over the world. Okay. Why? What are they going to do with it when they get it? Granted, Star Wars isn't Nietzsche, but attributing the entire lynchpin of the story on the reason of "just because" isn't quite enough for me personally.

Caesar's right, we haven't seen the final 2 hours of the story yet and anything is possible, but JT is essentially correct in saying that the foundations for everyone's motivations are already out there. Palpatine is taking over "just because" and Anakin is turning into a bad guy because he doesn't get his way exactly when he wants to. Meh. :ermm:



JT, all I meant is that you can't take JUST 1 and 2 then make a straight line of connection with Vader in the OT.
No, but we can get a pretty good idea based on what we've already seen.


Stillakid doesn't like how they started with Anakin, fine I respect that, but just saying that we see no reason for him to Vaderize in AOTC is not a totally fair criticism in my book
I'm not arguing that the PT Anakin can't become a bad guy. What I'm saying is that the PT Anakin essentially CAN'T specifically become the Vader we know and love in the OT. While we don't really know what is driving the OT Vader, I think we would be hard pressed to say that OT Vader came from a background of bipolar tantrum throwing crybaby dejected youth which defines the PT Anakin. This is what has already been established and if ROTS introduced a whole new Anakin personae which more closely matched what we'd expect to see in a OT Vader, it would draw I and II into even more question.


I dunno, it's like the old "good friend" argument - people were already slamming the prequels for a continuity break in that we don't see Obi and Ani as good friends and all I ask is that we watch the whole new trilogy and if after ROTS somebody still thinks George did a poor job of showing these 'good friends' then I will respect that opinion.
It's not just that we didn't see them as "good friends" so far. If it was that simple and their relationship was dispassionate, then whatever. We could just wait around for ROTS to see them become good friends. But what AOTC established was the exact opposite of "good friends." It was a contentious relationship at best with Obi Wan forced into chastising an unruly boy and the boy lashing back in an immature fashion. Classic teacher/student relationship? Sure, why not. Good friends? Not in the least and worse, it paints a very specific alternate picture of their relationship.

2-1B
04-01-2005, 11:26 AM
AOTC was a certain phase in their relationship. No reason that they can't become more solid friends as time goes on and considering they are building on that relationship, I wouldn't say it's the exact opposite. Think of a rebellious cocky 19-20 year old kid in our own realm who brushes up against his father but 5 and 10 years later he is more mature and on a more friendship level with his old man.

I really wish you would stop using that term "bipolar", a member of my immediate family was diagnosed with it and I can say that Anakin's behavior in AOTC does not match up with what I have learned about Bipolar Disorder (types 1 and 2). :(

He's just a cocky and arrogant young man, he's not Bipolar. :(

As to the specific thread title, while I was a fan of TPM when it came out and still enjoy it to this day, I think AOTC was much much better. AOTC makes me appreciate TPM even more when I go back and watch the first episode with knowledge of certain events like Anakin losing his mom, Qui-Gon's name being dropped by Dooku, etc.

JediTricks
04-01-2005, 05:05 PM
JT, all I meant is that you can't take JUST 1 and 2 then make a straight line of connection with Vader in the OT.We were talking about more than Vader, we were talking about the Republic and Palpatine, none of which have any setup at this point. And as for Vader, keep in mind this *is* a thread about Eps 1 and 2.


Stillakid doesn't like how they started with Anakin, fine I respect that, but just saying that we see no reason for him to Vaderize in AOTC is not a totally fair criticism in my book - now if (and when :D :D :D ) ROTS fails to satisfy stillakid and yourself, then have at it. I'll be eager to hear your opinions. :) Actually, Stilla says there IS reason for him to Vaderize in AOTC (as well as TPM), just that it's woefully inapproprate, unsatisifying, and nonsensical, which I'd agree with. ROTS may "fix" this, but I am not expecting that to happen and can't see how it would.


I dunno, it's like the old "good friend" argument - people were already slamming the prequels for a continuity break in that we don't see Obi and Ani as good friends and all I ask is that we watch the whole new trilogy and if after ROTS somebody still thinks George did a poor job of showing these 'good friends' then I will respect that opinion. :) I was one of the people who made that argument about the "good friend" thing, guess when? Right after AOTC came out, it was a reference to AOTC, ROTS is absolutely incapable of changing that - ROTS can show a DIFFERENT relationship, but it cannot change the one we saw in AOTC. If they have to totally redefine the Ani/Ben relationship to make it work with the OT in ROTS, then AOTC has *still* failed in that department because ROTS had to make that change.



Right. Agreed. Palpatine's motives are for this nebulous "revenge." This has all the "complexity" of a Pinky and the Brain episode where they are trying to take over the world. Actually, we don't know if Palpatine's motivates are based on revenge, we only know that Darth Maul's were. However, as Palpatine is the movie "bad guy", we do get the distinct impression that his motivations do seem to be rather simple: "same thing we do every night Tyrannus, try to take over the UNIVERSE!" I have no problem with that, Star Wars doesn't have to be an accurate depiction of the nature of good and evil, it's just an homage to movie serials and the bad guy IS the bad guy - we don't need Palpatine being a vegetarian or saving puppies in his off time, we don't need him to explain why he thinks he's actually saving the Republic, he's a movie monster and all we need him to do is go "grrr!" and make lightning come out of his fingertips. Why is Palpatine taking over the galaxy? Because he's the EVIL EMPEROR, duuuh! That's it, that's all we need. We didn't need the OT to explain all the reasons why the rebel alliance was formed, there was evil taking over the galaxy and they were fighting back, the end, no need for tarrifs and trade disputes and blockades and senatorial misconduct.


but JT is essentially correct in saying that the foundations for everyone's motivations are already out there. Palpatine is taking over "just because" and Anakin is turning into a bad guy because he doesn't get his way exactly when he wants to. Meh. :ermm: There is room for explanation on both, but I don't think we need it for the former, and the latter is also about "death sucks, I miss my mommy, I'm mad" - if ROTS makes a shift on this which it very well might, then it is changing the game instead of building on the foundation and if that happens, I have to wonder why we got 2 movies building that foundation in the first place if it was just gonna be tossed aside when 1 would have done just as well.




AOTC was a certain phase in their relationship. No reason that they can't become more solid friends as time goes on and considering they are building on that relationship, I wouldn't say it's the exact opposite. Think of a rebellious cocky 19-20 year old kid in our own realm who brushes up against his father but 5 and 10 years later he is more mature and on a more friendship level with his old man. I disagree, Obi-Wan and Ani have an entire decade together from TPM to AOTC and the only relationship they have is an uncomfortable master/student one with a chiding Obi-Wan and an unruly Ani. If ROTS makes them "good friends" in the short span of 2 years, it calls into question why they couldn't have had a better relationship between the end of TPM and the end of AOTC.

It's not 5 to 10 years later, it's 2 to 3 years later and from what I understand they've spent much of that time continuing their uneasy AOTC relationship.


He's just a cocky and arrogant young man, he's not Bipolar. :( I am sorry to hear about your family member having the disease. However, in the movies we're discussing, Ani goes from cocky and arrogant to libidinous, to needy, to sullen, to whiny, to crying, to rageful, all without really segueing into them, instead just shifting rapidly without reason - like from going in 3rd to slamming it into reverse. According to WebMD, bipolar disorder in adolescence " is characterized by extreme mood swings between mania (elevated mood or irritability) and depression. These mood swings are beyond the normal ups and downs that most people experience—they greatly affect the lives of those who experience them," that seems to me like how Ani was acting parts of in AOTC.

stillakid
04-01-2005, 06:37 PM
We didn't need the OT to explain all the reasons why the rebel alliance was formed, there was evil taking over the galaxy and they were fighting back, the end, no need for tarrifs and trade disputes and blockades and senatorial misconduct.

I can easily accept an overly simplistic motivation in regard to Palpatine in the context that these are supposed to essentially be B-movie serials. No problem there with me.

The problem I have is that TPM and AOTC make a semi-serious attempt...some would call "complex"...to set up and play out this galactic turmoil, which, supposedly is orchestrated by Palpatine and his minions. The only thing is, it has absolutely no basis in comprehensibility. Yeah, so there is a faction being pushed by Dooku to split from the Republic, but on what grounds? That is NEVER addressed. I would have sincerely LOVED to have seen the "Machevellian" political story that we were promised by Lucas's own words from an interview sometime in the '80s. Instead we've been handed something resembling a frog in a blender. Sure, it's interesting to look at, but once you realize what's really going on, it ain't so pretty anymore.

So give me a bad guy in a black hat trying to take over the world just because, but if the story pretends to show some "complexity" in how that is achieved, at least drop it on this side of believable. Lucas's longstanding device to cover his shortcomings has been to keep the story moving so fast that the audience is dazzled so much that they won't notice the problems. In some respects, he has predicted some of his audience perfectly as they have fallen for this time and time again.

But he can't fool everyone forever. Star Wars has always been pretty to look at, but without an adequate story structure underneath, it's nothin' but window dressing and toys.

JediTricks
04-01-2005, 07:28 PM
The problem I have is that TPM and AOTC make a semi-serious attempt...some would call "complex"...to set up and play out this galactic turmoil, which, supposedly is orchestrated by Palpatine and his minions. The only thing is, it has absolutely no basis in comprehensibility. Yeah, so there is a faction being pushed by Dooku to split from the Republic, but on what grounds? That is NEVER addressed. I would have sincerely LOVED to have seen the "Machevellian" political story that we were promised by Lucas's own words from an interview sometime in the '80s. Instead we've been handed something resembling a frog in a blender. Sure, it's interesting to look at, but once you realize what's really going on, it ain't so pretty anymore.I see your point on this, I suppose that is where Caesar's "wait until ROTS to see if it'll get explained" POV comes in most strongly, though I think that if it comes up in ROTS it'll be doing disservice to the other prequels that had ignored building these aspects of the foundation.

I guess part of the problem is that in the OT, whenever Tarkin or Vader or the Emperor did something that involved scheming and evil, it was presented to us, the audience in a way as to not NEED to spell it out but give us enough hints to let us fill it in; meanwhile, the PT so far has avoided showing us that side of the coin for the most part, a difference I hadn't really thought about until just now - it's not just that the OT stories branched for the good guys, it also gave us regular looks at the bad guys and their operation where the PT doesn't.

rbaumhauer
04-02-2005, 05:07 PM
Yeah, what stillakid said - in the OT, we don't need a lot of background on the bad guys or good guys, so it all works just fine. The problem with the PT is that Lucas has answered all sorts of questions that nobody asked (midichlorians, Anakin's immaculate conception, "The Chosen One", the Prophecy, the "balance of the Force", "soon we will have our revenge"), and set up this supposedly "complex plot". In the face of all the unnecessary detail he's added to the PT, the questions he seemingly doesn't have much concern for are baffling.

The main issue I keep coming back to is that "Star Wars" and ESB seemed to be about believing in yourself in the face of huge obstacles and rising from humble beginnings, of making difficult choices in difficult circumstances and learning from your mistakes - good mythological storytelling. The end of ESB and the plot of ROTJ changed that to an extent, but the (I would argue) extraneous detail that Lucas has added to the Prequels just puts the whole thing over the top, and as Myth, robs the whole saga of its power to speak to Everyman.

It becomes a story of Superheroes, full of Signs and Portents, of characters fated to play roles in an elaborate sequence of events. Anakin, the Chosen One, he who will bring balance to the Force, isn't a character making real choices - he's being manipulated by a cypher into playing a part in his scheme, and fulfilling his own fate in the bargain. There's nothing to learn from it, but I'm sure it will look good up on the screen. The OT aimed higher than that, or did until Lucas got tired and started taking shortcuts in ROTJ.

Rick

Lman316
04-03-2005, 12:45 AM
It becomes a story of Superheroes, full of Signs and Portents, of characters fated to play roles in an elaborate sequence of events. Anakin, the Chosen One, he who will bring balance to the Force, isn't a character making real choices - he's being manipulated by a cypher into playing a part in his scheme, and fulfilling his own fate in the bargain.

While you make an interesting point (because when I first saw TPM, I had a little "Huh?" moment when there was first mention of the "chosen one"), this saga has always been about destiny. Case in point: "... forever will it dominate your destiny."
The story is rooted in it, it's the will of the Force.

End...

stillakid
04-03-2005, 11:07 AM
While you make an interesting point (because when I first saw TPM, I had a little "Huh?" moment when there was first mention of the "chosen one"), this saga has always been about destiny. Case in point: "... forever will it dominate your destiny."
The story is rooted in it, it's the will of the Force.

End...

Right, which is why any Post-quel will elaborate on Luke's continued fall from grace because he, like his father, used the Dark Side to achieve an end. It WILL continue to dominate his destiny. :D

rbaumhauer
04-03-2005, 01:35 PM
While you make an interesting point (because when I first saw TPM, I had a little "Huh?" moment when there was first mention of the "chosen one"), this saga has always been about destiny. Case in point: "... forever will it dominate your destiny."
The story is rooted in it, it's the will of the Force.

End...

I know that "destiny" is mentioned a number of times in the OT, but most of those statements turn out to be untrue - the (partial) Yoda quote above is conditional: "once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny". While Luke does (presumably) tap the Dark Side via anger in ROTJ, I don't think we're meant to believe that Luke is in danger at the end of the OT.

Vader also tells Luke that it is his destiny to join him and rule the galaxy - not exactly true, either, which makes my point: it really comes down to Luke making choices in the OT (ie, throwing away his saber after taking Vader out). The PT seems to be pinned too much to Fate, which has the additional (very regrettable) follow-on effect of effectively polluting the OT and changing the meaning of many things that happened.

Rick

stillakid
04-03-2005, 06:15 PM
Vader also tells Luke that it is his destiny to join him and rule the galaxy - not exactly true, either,


Ah, but you're not thinking 4th Dimensionally. ;) Luke in fact DOES join Vader and goes on to (presumably) rule the galaxy. Only it doesn't (hypothetically) occur "exactly" the way Vader thinks it might. The truth is that the two of them do "join" up together to defeat the Emperor and then Luke will go on to "rule the galaxy." The only real difference is that it isn't as "father and son." :D

rbaumhauer
04-03-2005, 08:06 PM
Ah, but you're not thinking 4th Dimensionally. ;) Luke in fact DOES join Vader and goes on to (presumably) rule the galaxy. Only it doesn't (hypothetically) occur "exactly" the way Vader thinks it might. The truth is that the two of them do "join" up together to defeat the Emperor and then Luke will go on to "rule the galaxy." The only real difference is that it isn't as "father and son." :D

Like I said, not exactly true :) . Let's not delve too far into "certain point of view" territory ;) .

Rick

Lman316
04-05-2005, 12:20 PM
I know that "destiny" is mentioned a number of times in the OT, but most of those statements turn out to be untrue - the (partial) Yoda quote above is conditional: "once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny". While Luke does (presumably) tap the Dark Side via anger in ROTJ, I don't think we're meant to believe that Luke is in danger at the end of the OT.

Vader also tells Luke that it is his destiny to join him and rule the galaxy - not exactly true, either, which makes my point: it really comes down to Luke making choices in the OT (ie, throwing away his saber after taking Vader out). The PT seems to be pinned too much to Fate, which has the additional (very regrettable) follow-on effect of effectively polluting the OT and changing the meaning of many things that happened.

Rick

I believe Yoda's statements are untrue because he was wrong, not because Luke and Vader made different choices to affect their paths. If we're to believe that the Force is controlling the universe - and is indeed what we know as destiny - then there was only ever going to be one outcome.
Think of it in reverse... their destinies were not made because of the choices they made, but rather, they made the choices because it was their destiny to choose them the way they did. The choices end up being irrelevant because that one specific outcome was going to happen, anyway.
I believe the PT just added to the established destiny theme, whether the additions were contrived or not.

I've been thinking about the comments that the episodes in the PT tell a complex story. I know Stillakid might have a conniption (:p) but I believe the complexity statement is correct... at least to a certain degree.
To be more accurate, I say there are complex elements in the two new movies. And with minimal changes, both could have been excellent.
For example... you have a man so hell-bent on gaining power that he insidiously puts his own planet (millions of people) in harm's way. He gambles that it'll create sympathy for his own election and it pays off.
Then, grabbing for even more power after he's elected, he throws the known universe in turmoil by secretly orchestrating a separatist movement (regardless if the motives of said movement seem unclear) that he can step up to and try to stop.
Those are good elements... but other things around them weren't executed properly.

I watched TPM last night and there's something I just figured out. I haven't any clue as to whether this has already been mentioned on here, but I wanted to throw into the very, very old debate.
This is probably going to be one of those "where the heck have you been?" kind of things, but did anyone else realize that there were 20,000+ midichlorians were living in each of Anakin's cells? When I first saw that movie, I thought there were over 20,000 in his entire body.
I know it doesn't do anything to help the case for the inclusion of the midi's (I know they were basically a contrived plot device to show how powerful Anakin was supposed to be), but I thought it was interesting.

End...

stillakid
04-05-2005, 01:00 PM
I believe Yoda's statements are untrue because he was wrong, not because Luke and Vader made different choices to affect their paths. If we're to believe that the Force is controlling the universe - and is indeed what we know as destiny - then there was only ever going to be one outcome.
Think of it in reverse... their destinies were not made because of the choices they made, but rather, they made the choices because it was their destiny to choose them the way they did. The choices end up being irrelevant because that one specific outcome was going to happen, anyway.
I believe the PT just added to the established destiny theme, whether the additions were contrived or not.

Now were nudging into the existential. Clearly, the lens on which individuals view the world has a lot to do with the way things are ultimately perceived. Your statements above not only suggest the 2 (are there more?) ways in which to view the story, but in making a choice, we are also forced into deciding which specific statements to believe or discard. For instance, do we believe Yoda's statement that "once you start down the darkpath..." or do we toss it out because it doesn't fit into our own notion of how ideas like "fate" and "free will" play out in our own lives? By accepting or rejecting Yoda's statement, we then have to make that same choice about everyone else's statement without contradicting ourselves.

See, this is exactly why I suggest that a Post-quel would have to show Luke repeating the sins of the father. If we take everyone at their word, that is the only outcome. Per Yoda's warning, Luke dips into the Dark Side in order to take out Vader. Per Vader's statement, Luke and Vader join up (albeit briefly) to depose the Emperor so that they can rule the galaxy. There is absolutely NO reason to reject what anyone says UNLESS you truly wanted to believe that the story was definitively wrapped up at the end of ROTJ. Technically, it does, but intuitively, we know that it does continue because the Republic needs to be rebuilt.

But once you start playing the game of interpreting statements, keeping some, discarding others, and rationalizing just about everything in order to squish what's there into what you want it to be, all bets are off. Suddenly, we're all watching different movies even though the same words and pictures are flickering onscreen in front of us. I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily bad to interpret some things...oft times we have no choice...but particularly with the Star Wars films, they are soooo straightforward and the "themes" and "messages" are so obvious that interpreting them too much becomes detrimental. I just find it amusing to hear that the films are complex from some of the same people who made excuses for them by saying that they are "kid's films." I don't get it? Which is it? Did George make simplistic kiddie fare (which excuses the poo jokes) or is this a more complex adult film? Looney Tunes got away with being both because, well, it was well written and pulled it off. I'm still not convinced that there is much more to the Star Wars Prequels (so far) than flashy images and goofy dialogue.


I watched TPM last night and there's something I just figured out. I haven't any clue as to whether this has already been mentioned on here, but I wanted to throw into the very, very old debate.
This is probably going to be one of those "where the heck have you been?" kind of things, but did anyone else realize that there were 20,000+ midichlorians were living in each of Anakin's cells? When I first saw that movie, I thought there were over 20,000 in his entire body.
I know it doesn't do anything to help the case for the inclusion of the midi's (I know they were basically a contrived plot device to show how powerful Anakin was supposed to be), but I thought it was interesting.

End...
Yeah, we'd have to run a search to find those discussions, but Midi's introduced a boatload of problems and questions into the story. GL's quickie excuse to show the kiddies that Ani was more special than any of the other slave kids wasn't thought out well at all. I'm under the impression that some kind of further elaboration regarding Midi's is on the way in ROTS, but unless it is mind-bendingly amazing, I'll most likely leave the theater believing that GL just made something else up to put a band-aid on the whole problem.

Lman316
04-05-2005, 03:35 PM
But once you start playing the game of interpreting statements, keeping some, discarding others, and rationalizing just about everything in order to squish what's there into what you want it to be, all bets are off.

I'm not discarding anything. In fact, I like the points that you and rbaumhauer have made. All I'm doing is offering a different opinion. I never once said that "I'm the only one who's correct here, so nyah!" or anything of the like, if that's what you were implying.

And you're right, things are straightforward. Using Yoda's statement as an example again, if walking the dark path forever and always dominated your destiny, how is that Vader was able to rise up against the Emperor? How did he redeem himself? So, because of that, I just think (think) that Yoda was wrong. It might not always dominate your destiny. Maybe, at some point, you can overcome it and jump the fence, if you're strong enough. Which it seems Anakin was.

With that said, I do like your idea, Stilla, about a sequel trilogy. The image of Luke falling into the Dark Side and Leia sacrificing herself (that is one of yours, correct?) to stop him is a powerful one. Even though I still think that you don't always have to walk the dark path, it's possible that Luke just isn't as strong as Anakin was.

Didn't Ceasar make some of these points before (or at least points like them)? He can probably explain this better than I could.

On the midi's, I doubt there'll be any further explanation of them. Though JT came up with a decent idea way back when that wouldn't be so bad. I think it had to do with Qui-Gon having an unrealistic interpretation of them and that the midichlorians were really something else. Maybe he'll post it in here.

End...

stillakid
04-05-2005, 04:04 PM
I'm not discarding anything. In fact, I like the points that you and rbaumhauer have made. All I'm doing is offering a different opinion. I never once said that "I'm the only one who's correct here, so nyah!" or anything of the like, if that's what you were implying.
Oh no. I wasn't implying anything. Just talking to "everybody." :D


how is that Vader was able to rise up against the Emperor? How did he redeem himself? So, because of that, I just think (think) that Yoda was wrong. It might not always dominate your destiny. Maybe, at some point, you can overcome it and jump the fence, if you're strong enough. Which it seems Anakin was.
Ah, good question. But Yoda certainly wasn't wrong. What he said was that "once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." That simply means that once you take that bite of the proverbial apple and see how easy it is to take shortcuts or how cheating just a lil' bit can help you (the ends justifies the means), you'll find it difficult to stop doing that in the future. So Luke finally gives in and uses his anger to knock Vader down. He did that in response to Vader's threat to seduce Leia to the Darkside. So Luke hauls off and ultimately removes the threat. Does that mean that he is instantly and TOTALLY evil in everything that he does? No, not in the least. As someone said once, even Hitler was nice to his own dog. It's just that Luke has now had a taste of what can be achieved if he lets a little bit of aggression out. Because of this, his future will be unwittingly full of incidents like that, at first small, then increasingly more aggregious, all the while, Luke is justifying his actions because the result is apparently beneficial as he sees it. It's alot like our current US Administration who claim that while the initial reasons for invading Iraq weren't entirely accurate, they were justified in going there because of the end result (democracy). That's the slippery slope of justifying one's actions.

So was Anakin truly "redeemed?" Heck yeah! Yoda said that the darkpath would dominate your destiny, but it wouldn't forever rule it. Had Anakin lived, he would have still had to be on guard against himself, much like an alcoholic might. Luke too, finds redemption at the end of my hypothetical story, but it takes a horrific act on his part to awaken him to just how far he has fallen. Redemption is there for whomever wants it. But recognition that one NEEDS it is the hardest part of the process.

rbaumhauer
04-05-2005, 08:56 PM
I believe Yoda's statements are untrue because he was wrong, not because Luke and Vader made different choices to affect their paths. If we're to believe that the Force is controlling the universe - and is indeed what we know as destiny - then there was only ever going to be one outcome.
Think of it in reverse... their destinies were not made because of the choices they made, but rather, they made the choices because it was their destiny to choose them the way they did. The choices end up being irrelevant because that one specific outcome was going to happen, anyway.
I believe the PT just added to the established destiny theme, whether the additions were contrived or not.

While this is a valid interpretation, I would argue that it is weak storytelling, especially for a "modern" audience. If you're not telling a story about characters encountering challenges and reacting to them (making choices), what's the point? If the characters can't effect their supposed fates, why should I care about them?

If the Star Wars Saga is meant to be the story of midichlorians/the Force controlling events, then I think it's a fundamentally weak story. I go to a movie (hoping) to see characters choosing how to deal with obstacles that are placed in their path, not to witness the machinations of microscopic critters controlling the fates of the supposed heros and villains for their own purposes.


I watched TPM last night and there's something I just figured out. I haven't any clue as to whether this has already been mentioned on here, but I wanted to throw into the very, very old debate.
This is probably going to be one of those "where the heck have you been?" kind of things, but did anyone else realize that there were 20,000+ midichlorians were living in each of Anakin's cells? When I first saw that movie, I thought there were over 20,000 in his entire body.
I know it doesn't do anything to help the case for the inclusion of the midi's (I know they were basically a contrived plot device to show how powerful Anakin was supposed to be), but I thought it was interesting.

End...

Ahh, midichlorians - where to start? Until very recently, I pretty much chose to ignore them - TPM was a bad enough movie without holding midis against it as well :) . The introduction of midichlorians changed the Star Wars universe fundamentally, as many have pointed out before, and all because Lucas wanted an easy way to show the kiddies that Anakin was "special". What's amazing is that he could have demonstrated some of Anakin's potential in other ways - actually did so in parts of the pod race that were cut - but somehow came to the conclusion that this thuddingly awful bit of expository dialog was the best way to handle it :rolleyes: .

Again, we're talking about removing choice from the characters we've come to see, and giving power in the story to an unknowable, invisible presence. It's bad enough watching the prequels, with the supposed "puppetmaster" Palpatine seemingly controlling events to his own ends - backing off another level and seeing it as the midichlorians actually controlling everything drains all the drama right out of the whole thing.

So, as I said, I prefer to see Luke and Anakin making choices that alter their supposed fates/destinies - I think this makes for the strongest story (which doesn't, of course, mean that it's necessarily the story Lucas was telling ;) ).

If there were going to be another trilogy (VII-IX, as it were), I might entertain stillakid's notion about Luke's "destiny" being dominated by the Dark Side - I am, admittedly, a fan of the Dark Empire comic series (but nothing else of the post-ROTJ books/comics continuity), and it posits a very similar scenario. However, given that Lucas has decided that all the story that's worth telling on film ends at EpVI, then I think it's entirely reasonable to see Luke's actions in ROTJ as a temptation by, followed by a refutation of, the "easy path".

Rick

Lman316
04-09-2005, 01:05 PM
So, I watched AOTC last night and I think I've figured a few things out.
Stillakid, I think I might actually have an answer to your Separatists-actually-separating question.
I know that it won't work on all angles, but Dooku actually gives their reason for wanting to leave the Republic - at least to Obi-Wan. It's because the Republic's senate is being controlled by a dark lord of the Sith. It's possible Dooku was spewing that, telling tales of corruption, to other worlds in order to make them break away. Some members of the Separatists would probably have to know the truth - especially those in the Trade Federation, even though Dooku said they were betrayed by Sidious. I'm sure they'd still be fearful of him and would continue their alliance.

So, I think that's the cover story, to conceal any involvement from Darth Sidious. He set this Separatist movement in motion basically for war. And I believe there's a really good reason for why he wanted the war. If there's a galaxy-wide conflict, you're going to spread your reach. The Separatists are conquering new worlds, and once they're "defeated," the Republic/Empire will have either influence or at least a presence in those areas. More to control... more resources, more people, more room for development, etc.

Just a thought, anyway.

End...

stillakid
04-09-2005, 04:10 PM
Yeah, but somebody wanting to leave something (an organization, a country, a union) has to want to leave for some reason (better offer elsewhere, got screwed by the current organization, got bored and wanted a random change).

Just "leaving" is one thing. Starting a full blown revolution is another. Something major has to occur to inspire legions of people or aliens to take up arms in the name of their cause (no taxation without representation, abolishment of slavery, my god is better than your god).

Any of those would do in the Star Wars universe, but instead we get nada, nothing, zilch. It's just this nebulous "conflict" with no rationale behind it. THAT'S the stuff I was hoping to see after Lucas's 1980-something Playboy interview when he stated that [paraphrasing] "fans probably won't like the new movies...it will be less of an action piece and more Machevellian as we see how the Emperor maneuvers politically." Where is THAT movie? Or even a small part of it?

rbaumhauer
04-10-2005, 11:53 AM
Which all brings us back to another burning Prequel Trilogy question - why exactly are the events of Eps 2 and 3 referred to as "The Clone Wars"? I know that JediTricks alludes to this in his sig, and I think it's only become a greater mystery over time.

When you call something the Clone Wars, the natural thought is that the war was either a) fought over the practice of cloning, or b) fought against the clones. I know this was one of Lucas' "gotchas" in AOTC - the clones fight for the Good Guys! But it still doesn't make any sense.

Given what we see on screen, I can't see any reason why the events portrayed wouldn't be referred to as either a) the Separatist Wars, or b) the Droid Wars. We, as viewers, are clearly supposed to see the clones as the precursor to the Imperial Stormtroopers - why doesn't the general populace seem to see this, especially since it's only been 20 years since the events of ROTS? I don't get the feeling that the Stormtroopers are seen as the descendents of the troops who saved the galaxy from the Separatist Droid Army not so long ago.

More importantly, why is there so little to imply that this is a galaxy which had seen a huge war fought against armies of droids only 20-25 years previously? Granted, we don't see any military droids in the OT outside of IG-88 (who frankly looks much more primitive than the regular Battle Droids of the PT, let alone the Super Battle Droids) and the Imperial Probe Droid (to an extent). These elements do not hint, even remotely, at armies of droids, squadrons of droid fighter ships, "crab" droids, "spider" droids. Just because these things are easily created in droves through CGI doesn't make them a logical precursor to what we saw in the OT.

Shouldn't there have been some indication of the real nature of the so-called "Clone Wars" in the OT? While there is some indication of anti-droid prejudice in ANH ("we don't serve their kind in here"), it seems more like a pseudo-racial prejudice (against an underclass of sorts, an entity that many seem to treat as a tool rather than a "person") than a fear-based prejudice against a potentially destructive force.

The more you look at it, the more the place depicted in the PT just doesn't seem like something that really evolved into the place depicted in the OT. While it represents a "possible" pre-history of the OT, there are just too many things that don't make any kind of sense. It all looks very cool, of course, but as a sequence of events that we're supposed to believe took place over a period of about 25 years on a Galactice scale, it's beyond implausible.

Rick

JediTricks
04-10-2005, 06:05 PM
Rick, those are all great points, and I'll just add that I am still a little confused why they are the Clone Wars, plural. We don't call it the Vietnamese Wars or the World Wars II simply because they were more than 1 battle or conflict location, when we talk about World Wars we are talking about similar wars that took place decades apart, yet these Clone Wars are all apparently just the 1 series of engagements between the Republic and the Separatists. Maybe if there had already been a first Clone War given any reference in TPM I could have bought AOTC's concept. What does Yoda really get at when he says "begun, the clone war has", is he seeing the inherent danger of these clone troops, and if so how does his wisdom eventually get out to the rest of the populace?

Slicker
04-10-2005, 06:09 PM
Insider gave an explination for it being called "The Clone Wars". They explained it as a series of wars kinda like WWI and WWII. Don't we refer to them as The World Wars? I guess it's kinda the same concept.

JediTricks
04-10-2005, 08:01 PM
I don't get the insider anymore so I'll take your word, but we call them the World Wars because, as I said in my last post, they were similar events taking place decades apart.

Slicker
04-10-2005, 08:10 PM
I don't know if it'll clear it up anymore but here's the question and answer from the "Ask the Master" section of the Insider:

Q: In ANH, Princess Leia says, "General Kenobi, years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars..." Now, noting the "s" in wars...does this indicate that there is more than one Clone War? It contradicts the end of AOTC, where Yoda states, "Begun the Clone War has." What's the deal?

A: The day Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, no one dreamed of calling the conflict World War I. It wasn't until time passed that the true scale of the conflict could be measured and a term could be coined that would accurately encompass the war. In this terrestrial example, what was once a strictly European war blossomed into the Great War, and when internation turmoil delivered a sequel, it became World War I.

Likewise, the Clone Wars had different labels in the early days of the conflict. The Great Clone War didn't stand the test of time as far as naming went. It was plural Clone Wars, suggesting the breadth of galactic conflict and scattered fighting on multiple fronts, that won out.

rbaumhauer
04-10-2005, 09:53 PM
Be that as it may, it still doesn't address why they're called the Clone Wars in the first place. It would be like the terrestrial World Wars being called the Western Alliance Wars or somesuch - it just doesn't make sense. We're talking about what the common people use to refer to events here, as even Luke knows about something called the Clone Wars. History is written by the winners, so why would the winners of the Clone Wars - that is, the clones and the people who created them - call them the Clone Wars, when other names make a lot more sense?

What's even more mysterious is that, during the filming of TPM, Lucas referred to the Battle Droids as the precursors to the Stormtroopers of the OT. Three years later (our time, 10 years in "movie time"), the Battle Droids were fighting the actual Stormtrooper precursors. Did Lucas really not know where the story was going to go in Ep2 while he was filming TPM? If he did, why would he make the above statement?

And on the topic of what Lucas knows before filming begins, "The Art of ROTS" book has a lot to say. Basically, he has only the barest outline in his head, and he starts the process by telling the conceptual artists to "design lots of new planets over the next two weeks, because I need seven planets for Clone Wars battlefields". Only after looking at the concept art does the actual story start to take shape, and it continues to be altered and shaped by the concept artists' ideas all during the writing process.

It's actually the inverse of what I think a lot of people assume - it's quite clear that the particulars of the story basically don't exist until the artists come up with an idea that Lucas likes enough to base a sequence around. He then combines these sequences, rearranges them, alters them until he gradually gets to something that fits his overall "vision" of where he wants the story to go. He does not tell the artists that he has specific story ideas and plot points (except under very rare circumstances) that he needs them to flesh out for him, because he really doesn't seem to have anything that concrete until very late in the pre-production (or even production or post-production) phase of making the movie.

I think people give Lucas way too much credit for the overall "vision" than he deserves, and I'm not sure if his lack of actual concrete ideas has been good or bad for the overall feel of the PT. On the one hand, I'm sure it's a great experience for all the concept artists to be shaping the story in such a tangible way, but on the other hand, you get the impression that Lucas' overall lack of a concrete vision has lead to some of the dramatic differences in tone between the trilogies, and caused some of the issues that we're discussing here.

It also becomes very clear why other writers were hired to write ESB and ROTJ, because without all the digital technology he has at his command these days, Lucas would probably be incapable of making a movie at all. These days, he's utterly dependent on being able to dramatically change the movie right up to the last moment, never even locking the story down until well after shooting has actually finished.

I'm not saying that Lucas' way of making a movie is bad, per se - in the hands of a better writer/director, I'm sure it would work just fine (Peter Jackson employed similar tactics on LOTR, particularly TTT and ROTK). I just think that many people give him credit for some over-arching "vision" that isn't really there - he's basically throwing the thing together as he goes, while trying to keep track of whatever main themes he originally had in mind when the process started. From what I've seen, the concept art process can dramatically change how he approaches those themes, and in some cases, it seems that he lost track of the "Big Picture".

Rick

2-1B
04-10-2005, 10:56 PM
I don't really see the clonetroopers as precursors to stormtroopers, I see the clonetroopers as the earliest incarnation of the stormtroopers.

It makes more sense that the clones come along and show to be more useful than droids which is why they replace the droids and we don't see a "need" for battle droids in the OT.

Who would use them, anyway ? Not the Empire since clones are more useful, and the rebels wouldn't bother to use a bunch of droids which have already been demonstrated as being inferior to clones . . .

In the days of the PT there is no single Grand Army (yet) so these trade federations, techno unions, etc. can use their droid armies to push around smaller groups (Naboo, for example) who don't have the firepower to combat them.

On the matter of calling it the Clone Wars I don't see the big deal. The use of clones was a major component in that war just as the French and Indians were a part of the French and Indian War.

2-1B
04-10-2005, 11:05 PM
I was one of the people who made that argument about the "good friend" thing, guess when? Right after AOTC came out, it was a reference to AOTC, ROTS is absolutely incapable of changing that - ROTS can show a DIFFERENT relationship, but it cannot change the one we saw in AOTC. If they have to totally redefine the Ani/Ben relationship to make it work with the OT in ROTS, then AOTC has *still* failed in that department because ROTS had to make that change.

I just don't see the need for ROTS to change it, it just needs to build upon it. AOTC had some nice moments between the two of them and some tense ones as well. Personally I see that as one phase of their relationship, one that does not need to be redefined through the next movie. Now that the Clone Wars cartoon has shown Ani's rise to the rank of Knight ("I was once a Jedi Knight, the same as your father.") I hope that ROTS will show that they have moved beyond the level of master/apprentice of AOTC and on to more equal footing in ROTS. I hope so . . .

princethomas
04-11-2005, 12:08 AM
Just to add a couple cents. I think Return of the Jedi is by far the worst of the 5 movies. I am not a "PT guy" I like ANH and ESB above them all. But I dont honestly enjoy watching ROTJ at all. Only The finale. The Luke/Vader stuff and the space battle is pretty good. I could skip pretty much the entire first 75% of that movie and never notice.

rbaumhauer
04-11-2005, 12:56 AM
I don't really see the clonetroopers as precursors to stormtroopers, I see the clonetroopers as the earliest incarnation of the stormtroopers.

It makes more sense that the clones come along and show to be more useful than droids which is why they replace the droids and we don't see a "need" for battle droids in the OT.

Who would use them, anyway ? Not the Empire since clones are more useful, and the rebels wouldn't bother to use a bunch of droids which have already been demonstrated as being inferior to clones . . .

In the days of the PT there is no single Grand Army (yet) so these trade federations, techno unions, etc. can use their droid armies to push around smaller groups (Naboo, for example) who don't have the firepower to combat them.

Yes, but there should be some indication that there was this HUGE war against the Separatist droid army, and there's no hint of it at all in the OT - nada, zip, bupkiss. No hint that there were ever hordes of droids being used to fight a war of any kind, or that droids had ever been capable of such a thing - in the OT, droids are seen by many people as tools, and this is one of the things that sets Luke apart early on in ANH.


On the matter of calling it the Clone Wars I don't see the big deal. The use of clones was a major component in that war just as the French and Indians were a part of the French and Indian War.

Uhm, thank you for proving my point :) It's called the "French and Indian War" because the British were fighting the French and their Indian allies for control of North America, and the British won. That is, the winners named the war after the foes that they defeated.


Just to add a couple cents. I think Return of the Jedi is by far the worst of the 5 movies. I am not a "PT guy" I like ANH and ESB above them all. But I dont honestly enjoy watching ROTJ at all. Only The finale. The Luke/Vader stuff and the space battle is pretty good. I could skip pretty much the entire first 75% of that movie and never notice.

While I won't go so far as to say that ROTJ is the worst of the current 5 movies, I will agree that it is far inferior to ANH and ESB, and marks the beginning of the downward slide in quality that has only continued in the PT. I have argued (as have others) that Lucas has always craved total control, but the evidence strongly suggests that he has done his best work while struggling against adversity, whether it was the financial constraints from the studio on ANH, or the desperate desire for ESB to do well enough to allow him to break away completely from Hollywood.

ROTJ was the first Star Wars movie that Lucas made knowing, beyond a doubt, that he was likely to make a HUGE amount of money, regardless of the quality of the film, and it shows. I think that TPM and AOTC are even worse, primarily because the scripts have lacked any real polishing from a decent writer (Kasdan was able to get some decent stuff into ROTJ, for all its faults) and because the director doesn't seem to see the "live action" portion of his film - you know, the parts with the actors - as anything more than an element that needs to be gotten out of the way so that it can be integrated into his grand "vision". While ROTJ is trite and predictable, with most of the major characters playing charicatures of themselves, it isn't quite the physically painful experience of trying to sit through TPM or AOTC.

Rick

stillakid
04-11-2005, 11:25 AM
But we're just "nitpicking" then, aren't we? ;)

JediTricks
04-11-2005, 07:03 PM
On the "clone" part, we don't call the American Revolutionary War the "Minuteman War", nor the "Redcoat War", nobody does this on either side. Nobody refers to the prussian mercenaries when using the name of the war, and certainly not the main tools or soldiers of the winning side of that war.

On the "plurality" part, nobody ever called WW1 "the World Wars" at any time, that term was reserved for discussion of BOTH world wars, it doesn't follow that a single war - no matter how many battles across how many territories - would ever be called a plural.



I just don't see the need for ROTS to change it, it just needs to build upon it. AOTC had some nice moments between the two of them Build upon what? What are these nice moments the film had between Ani and Obi-Wan? Obi-Wan chiding Anakin for every little thing, nagging him about losing his lightsaber or flying the wrong way? Being disappoitned in the boy's failed rescue attempt? Wandering off to let the boy think the master is being lazy and just getting a drink? Ani didn't seem to feel friendly towards Obi-Wan either when talking about him when he wasn't there, throwing tantrums and blaming him for holding him back, at best he thought of him as a father figure but not a friend; Obi-Wan behind Ani's back was not much better, showing (rightfully, I might add, which doesn't seem consistant with the way Obi-Wan talks about his failure with Anakin in the OT) a lack of confidence in the boy's abilities to make the proper decisions. I can't think of one moment in AOTC that shows any budding friendship between them, not a single moment.


Personally I see that as one phase of their relationship, one that does not need to be redefined through the next movie. Ok, perhaps what we saw in AOTC was phase one, but I cannot think of anything in AOTC that could act as a foundation for a phase two where they are now equals and good friends, nothing seems like a natural evolution to get us there, and there's no question in my mind that they will have to redefine their relationship if they are to portray the 2 Jedi as being in phase two of their interpersonal relationship because EVEN IF there was a proper foundation built for it in AOTC (which I submit there is not) the transition from master/apprentice to good friends in the short span of 2 or 3 years is a BIG difference since they're not really that much older.

2-1B
04-12-2005, 01:40 AM
Build upon what? What are these nice moments the film had between Ani and Obi-Wan?

Introductory elevator scene
Anakin feeling down post-meeting with Padme when Obi reassures him
Obi telling Ani that he looks tired and Ani's talk with him about his dreams, continuing into his eagerness to be around Padme, then the talk about politicians. The two diasgree but not in an unfriendly way.
Anakin chases after his teacher who is falling to his death and then goof around about what took him so long to get there
The two trade barbs of boast over Ani's wit vs. his saber technique
Anakin is excited to get into the club but Obi gently calms him down while offering a quick lesson
Obi Wan makes the "death of me" comment and Anakin feels uncomfortable about the severity of such a claim.
Obi-Wan sees his padawan off at the train station and the two are nothing but pleasant with each other as they wish the Force to Be With one another.
Obi-Wan cracks on Anakin when he is walked out next to his master in the Genosian arena and the two share a "buddy movie" moment.
The two have an argument on the gunship about going down for Padme but afterwords they work together in taking out those fuel cells and beginning the chase of Dooku

That's off the top of my head, if I watch the movie again I'm sure I'll come up with more. :)



Obi-Wan chiding Anakin for every little thing, nagging him about losing his lightsaber or flying the wrong way?
He might have nagged him about going the wrong way but I don't think he was nagging about the lightsaber. The original cut from the trailer very well might fit that description but the reshot scene is a more gentle lesson.

Being disappoitned in the boy's failed rescue attempt?
I wouldn't call it disappointment, I just got the feeling they had been through similar events before and Obi-Wan was falling for quite some time . . . ah hell, it doesn't really matter because that scene was just set up for a laugh. I think it's funny.

Wandering off to let the boy think the master is being lazy and just getting a drink?
What would give you such an idea ? Obi-Wan already told Anakin "he went in there to hide, not to run." They were in there looking, not chasing.

Ani didn't seem to feel friendly towards Obi-Wan either when talking about him when he wasn't there,
Then why did he tell Padme "don't get me wrong, Obi-Wan is a great mentor" ?
and why did he tell Padme "he's like my father" ?


throwing tantrums and blaming him for holding him back,
the first time he is alone with Padme, he says that he is really ahead of Obi because I think he is trying to impress Padme. He's what, 19/20 and trying to get with this woman and given his arrogance why not puff himself up a bit?
the second time, the time when he actually accuses Obi-Wan of holding him back, well the guy DID just haul back his mom's corpse after he arrived too late to save her, so I'll cut him some slack for lashing out like that. I wouldn't expect to be the most level-headed in that situation, myself.

at best he thought of him as a father figure but not a friend;
Nah, it's more than a friend . . . Padme says "he's your friend, your mentor" and Anakin snaps back with "he's like my father." To me that says that Anakin does think of him as more than just a friend or mentor.


Obi-Wan behind Ani's back was not much better, showing (rightfully, I might add, which doesn't seem consistant with the way Obi-Wan talks about his failure with Anakin in the OT) a lack of confidence in the boy's abilities to make the proper decisions.

He said that he thought he could train Anakin as well as Yoda and that he was wrong. The point where Obi-Wan talks about Anakin's skills making him arrogant and not being ready to take on that assignment on his own was a decade after the point where he decided to train him. So yes, he did fail to train Anakin in certain ways but at the same time Anakin is ultimately to blame for rejecting Obi-Wan.

I can't think of one moment in AOTC that shows any budding friendship between them, not a single moment.
I know. :D

Ok, perhaps what we saw in AOTC was phase one, but I cannot think of anything in AOTC that could act as a foundation for a phase two where they are now equals and good friends, nothing seems like a natural evolution to get us there, and there's no question in my mind that they will have to redefine their relationship if they are to portray the 2 Jedi as being in phase two of their interpersonal relationship because EVEN IF there was a proper foundation built for it in AOTC (which I submit there is not) the transition from master/apprentice to good friends in the short span of 2 or 3 years is a BIG difference since they're not really that much older.

No, they won't be much older but they are of a different status so I think that's why there is potential for them to move on to being better friends without the structure of a master-apprentice relationship. We'll see. :)

JediTricks
04-13-2005, 05:23 PM
Sorry Caesar, not one of those moments seems like the type of "nice moment" that you could claim a friendship was built upon. In too many, Obi-Wan seems mean and condescending, while others Anakin seems disconnected and self-centered.


Then why did he tell Padme "don't get me wrong, Obi-Wan is a great mentor"? and why did he tell Padme "he's like my father" ? You do realize that the first line you quote there Anakin immediately follows with a building diatribe about how he's better than Obi-Wan and such, right? And the second comes in a line about why Anakin is NOT going to help Obi-Wan, and the reasoning here isn't exactly sold as believable by Hayden (it possibly also doesn't help that it's not true, as Windu never said squat about going to Tatooine).


the first time he is alone with Padme, he says that he is really ahead of Obi because I think he is trying to impress Padme. He's what, 19/20 and trying to get with this woman and given his arrogance why not puff himself up a bit? If that's what was supposed to be there, Lucas failed to sell it, I didn't get that from the scene at all, Anakin ends up getting lost in his own yelling lunacy and has a freak-out, not the ideal way to puff his chest. It's like by the end he's taking part of a different conversation than the one Padme was engaging him in. I don't recall any other scenes besides this and the one you cut him slack over, so it's not a great run for your side of the argument. ;)


Nah, it's more than a friend . . . Padme says "he's your friend, your mentor" and Anakin snaps back with "he's like my father." To me that says that Anakin does think of him as more than just a friend or mentor. Not the way it's portrayed in the movie, that's not how I took it at all.

2-1B
04-15-2005, 03:07 AM
Don't be sorry, JT. I didn't expect to convince you in the first place. I do, however, enjoy the exchange of ideas. :)