PDA

View Full Version : Eps 2 & 3 don't fit the very first thing in Star Wars



JediTricks
06-06-2005, 09:47 PM
Before Lucas was able to put the "Episode IV - A New Hope" title onto the first Star Wars movie, the very first thing that the movie showed us, after the main title and the "a long time ago..." part, was this line from the crawl:


It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base,
have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.


So the first thing this story tells us is that we're in a period of civil war, and it involves the Rebellion and the Galactic Empire. By its very mention of it being "a period of civil war", the movie is telling us that this is unusual in that universe's recent history, yet Episodes II and III both deal chiefly with a civil war, where the Galactic Republic (who becomes the Empire in III) is going through a civil war with the Confederacy of Independent Systems, knownalso as the Separatists. This prequel civil war lasts about 2 years in the saga timeline and embroils nearly the entire galaxy in some way, it's a pretty major event which takes place only about 20 years prior to Episode IV, and in fact seems to be a bigger civil war than the one which Ep 4 speaks of in its crawl. That doesn't make much sense though, the galaxy was largely suffering a civil yet this much more minor insurrection by the Rebel Alliance is called "a period of civil war" where that is only referred to as "the clone wars"? Thoughsome I'm sure will claim I'm just quibbling over semantics, I would reply that this is part of the core of the original Star Wars story andI don't think the prequels make sense this way, I just don't think it fits.

Droid
06-06-2005, 10:27 PM
The Empire crawl says:

It is a dark time for the Rebellion. Although the Death Star has been destroyed, Imperial troops have driven the Rebel forces from their hidden base and pursued them across the galaxy. Evading the dreaded Imperial Starfleet, a group of freedom fighters led by Luke Skywalker has established a new secret base on the remote ice world of Hoth. The evil lord Darth Vader, obsessed with finding young Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of space...

It says that Luke led a group of freedom fights to establish the base on Hoth. Do you think this implies that Luke is the leader of the Rebels on Hoth, which is not true, since General Riekeen outranks him. Or do you think it implies he led the first group that went to Hoth? Maybe he led the mission to discover whether or not Hoth was suitable for a base.

The Return of the Jedi crawl says:

Luke Skywalker has returned to his home planet of Tatooine in an attempt to rescue his friend Han Solo from the clutches of the vile gangster Jabba the Hutt. Little does Luke know that the GALACTIC EMPIRE has begun construction on a new armored space station even more powerful than the first dreaded Death Star. When completed, this ultimate weapon will spell certain doom for the small band of rebels struggling to restore freedom to the galaxy...

The crawl says that WHEN the Death Star is completed it WILL spell certain doom. Not much wiggle room there. First, it says that it WILL be completed and that it WILL spell certain doom. Second, the Death Star II WAS fully armed and operation, yet it did not spell certain doom.

I think you're digging a tad too deep, JediTricks, and this is coming from a deep digger. :) It is a period of civil war, just not THE period of civil war. Also, perhaps since it is a short period of Galactic History that we see in Episodes II-IV, maybe in some people's minds the civil wars have just never stopped, first the Clone Wars and then snap, before you know it, the Rebellion. A period of never ending civil war, just as Palpatine warned Anakin would happen if they failed to wipe out the Jedi, which they did.

Not that I am a prequel apologist ... I'll leave that to Tycho. If you've read his interviews postings you know he's more clever than me. And you have to be clever to contstantly defend everthing done in the prequels. :D

stillakid
06-06-2005, 11:11 PM
I'll agree with you, JT. The impression we get from the ANH crawl is that Episode IV will be showing us a large conflict. "Civil War" implies that there is a huge division among the participants who are "members" of the organization in question.

But that crawl would be far more applicable to the conflict we see in the Prequels as the Separatists want to exit the Republic and the Republic fights back. That is a civil war.

The conflict we see in the OT is more like an insurgency as we see in Iraq today. Hardly a civil war in the most accepted terms.

Heck, even the ESB crawl indicates that the Rebellion is a very very small group as it is chased from Yavin to Hoth. Then we are meant to assume that the Rebellion gains membership by ROTJ as we see a far larger group.

Naturally, I recall a lot of people casually wondering in the 1980s just what the term "clone wars" was going to mean. Was it two simultaneous wars or was it to be a war involving genetic clones? Those were the ideas bandied about. But either way, the concept of a true "civil war" wouldn't be expected to arrive until after Episode III and prior to Episode IV. Everything during and before III would encompass an all out "war" of some kind, most likely against an enemy that was independent of the original Republic.

This idea would have worked far better than having to have Palpatine engineer some kind of false conflict just to gain power. With this alien attack, he would have had more than enough justification to build an army and take executive power without question or nonsensical machinations. Then, just as in ROTS, once the Republic had wrapped up these "clone wars" with this alien invader, Palps would have held onto his power thus instigating the Jedi (the guardians of peace and justice) into action against him.

Damn...this entire Prequel mess needs rewritten in a big way. And it will be so easy. How could George F up his own story so badly when the obvious better story was sitting there in front of him all along?

rbaumhauer
06-07-2005, 12:18 AM
JT - whatever "alternative" storylines you come up with, a lot of what you're talking about goes back to the timeline issues that I keep harping on. There is just no way that the universe we see in the OT is the place portrayed in the PT, only 20 or so years later. The feel is completely off, no matter how many stupid cameos (by both characters and hardware) GL threw into ROTS in a desperate attempt to tie things together.

The universe of the OT is not a place where vast droid armies had fought a Civil War against the valiant Clone armies of the Rebublic only 20 years earlier - there's just nothing about the OT that suggests that such a thing ever happened. No Separatists are ever mentioned anywhere, no Clans/Federations, nothing. Also, as I've asked before, why would the events portrayed in AOTC and ROTS be referred to as the Clone Wars at all? Wouldn't they be more accurately, more plausibly, called the Separatist Wars, or the Civil War?

You might be able to get from the events of the PT to the OT with a longer stretch of time between - I would argue that 30-35 years feels about right, but the story still doesn't make sense.

If I was to write an outline for my own PT, I would have started in the middle of the Clone Wars, perhaps (as stillakid) suggests, with the clones as an outside threat that the Jedi are fighting against. The war(s) has been going on for some time, the central character in EP1 is Obi-wan, and he meets the teen-aged Anakin Skywalker at the end of the first chapter. EP2 continues the Clone Wars, shows Anakin's apprenticeship and development (and no hint of him being the freakin' Messiah), with his relationship with Obi-wan more like that between Obi-wan and Qui-Gon in TPM (this would show us the "reckless" younger Obi-wan that Yoda mentions in ESB, and a warmer relationship between Master and apprentice).

At the height of the Clone Wars, Palpatine declares himself Emperor, and the end of the Clone Wars marks the end of Ep2. Ep3 would show the growth of the Imperial bureaucracy and military - with the end of the "hot" Clone Wars, the organs of the Empire turn to the search for internal enemies to justify Palpatine's continued "special powers". With the Jedi acting as the military force of the Senate, they move to the top of the Enemies List as the Senate agitates for a cessation of the Special Powers. Anakin, now a mature and full Jedi and very respected in the Order, is part of a delegation sent to negotiate with Palpatine, but he falls in thrall of the Sith Lord, who slowly corrupts his mind, etc.

The above isn't perfect, but it's by far the most detailed outline I've ever written for my own "alternative" PT, and it would clearly need some work. At its heart, though, I think it could at least make more sense than what we got. Given my druthers, of course, I'd abandon the "only 2 Dark Lords at a time" nonsense, and get back to the multiple Dark Lords of the "Star Wars" novelization, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Rick

jlw
06-07-2005, 01:36 AM
Man, I could not agree with you more. And the outline you made is great. Don't get me wrong I liked the PT for the most part, but it will never live up to the OT for the simple fact that we already know the plot. There is no big cliffhanger type revelation as seen in ESB. Unless you count the Death Star in AOTC, which took me by surprise.

Its like I've told friends, the PT is like watching Titanic - don't get excited when the boat starts to sink. The real movie was the action around the plot we already know. O.K. turn to the PT, don't get excited when the Jedi start dying; and when Anakin & Obi-Wan start to duel, we already know the outcome. The real story is the action around the plot: the Clone Wars, the rise of the Empire, the extermination of the Jedi, the fall of Anakin, and the rise of Lord Vader: these are all the plot; so where the PT has fallen short is the story/action around this plot(s).

Now, having already made the middle and end of the Saga; you would think that GL would have a "fact checker" type person to scan back over the OT to make sure that the PT doesn't contradict the OT in anyway and has a natural flow into it.

Another major contradiction (I think possibly THE major contradiction); and I know it has already been discussed but I do not agree with peoples comments; is the whole ROTJ scene of Leia "remembering her mother". Really all the other types of contradictions between the OT and the PT, I can either live with or sorta make a rational conclusion, except for the whole Leia "remembering her mother from the womb" stuff. Hey, if Leia (who has NOT been trained in the ways of the Force) can remember her mother from the womb, then why not Luke (who HAS been trained in the ways of the Force).

But anyway, back to what you said. What kinda sucks about the PT is that GL put the whole Anakin as a kid story in to attract a younger audience (same with Jar Jar). And I think this may be were the PT starts to fall short. I loved the whole Senator Palpatine orchestrates (sp?) the blockade to get elected, so on and so forth; but the way it was described throughout the PT just doesn't quite flow smoothly into the OT. Anyway, I think you made some good points.

JediTricks
06-07-2005, 02:39 AM
The Empire crawl says:

It is a dark time for the Rebellion. Although the Death Star has been destroyed, Imperial troops have driven the Rebel forces from their hidden base and pursued them across the galaxy. Evading the dreaded Imperial Starfleet, a group of freedom fighters led by Luke Skywalker has established a new secret base on the remote ice world of Hoth. The evil lord Darth Vader, obsessed with finding young Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of space...

It says that Luke led a group of freedom fights to establish the base on Hoth. Do you think this implies that Luke is the leader of the Rebels on Hoth, which is not true, since General Riekeen outranks him. Or do you think it implies he led the first group that went to Hoth? Maybe he led the mission to discover whether or not Hoth was suitable for a base.For all we know, Luke "leads" the small group of Freedom Fighters by his deeds even though he's not the highest ranking commander. Or perhaps because he's a commander in the field, he leads troops into battle and it's taken that way. We never actually see Luke taking orders from anybody else that I can remember. We don't have to know the exact military layout to get the jist of the comment, just as we don't have to know exactly which groups of people are rebelling against the Empire to create a civil war.


The Return of the Jedi crawl says:

Luke Skywalker has returned to his home planet of Tatooine in an attempt to rescue his friend Han Solo from the clutches of the vile gangster Jabba the Hutt. Little does Luke know that the GALACTIC EMPIRE has begun construction on a new armored space station even more powerful than the first dreaded Death Star. When completed, this ultimate weapon will spell certain doom for the small band of rebels struggling to restore freedom to the galaxy...

The crawl says that WHEN the Death Star is completed it WILL spell certain doom. Not much wiggle room there. First, it says that it WILL be completed and that it WILL spell certain doom. Second, the Death Star II WAS fully armed and operation, yet it did not spell certain doom. The crawl speaks of the possibility of it going online and spelling doom, which it absolutely DOES for our heroes, it's just that our heroes overcome this in the end. And the beginning of the film shows quite clearly that the Death Star II is not "fully armed and operational" because when Vader arrives, he lights a fire under Jerjerrod to get that task completed by the time the Emperor arrives.


I think you're digging a tad too deep, JediTricks, and this is coming from a deep digger. :) It is a period of civil war, just not THE period of civil war. Also, perhaps since it is a short period of Galactic History that we see in Episodes II-IV, maybe in some people's minds the civil wars have just never stopped, first the Clone Wars and then snap, before you know it, the Rebellion. A period of never ending civil war, just as Palpatine warned Anakin would happen if they failed to wipe out the Jedi, which they did. If I'm digging too deep, you could simply ignore my comments instead of lending credence to them by bringing attention to them with your arguments. If the period of civil war never ended, why mention that the period is between the empire and the rebellion when it wasn't previously? If it's taken as "another civil war" why not say that? It's been well over 100 years yet I bet if there was another US civil war people wouldn't simply refer to it as "the civil war".


Not that I am a prequel apologist ... I'll leave that to Tycho. If you've read his interviews postings you know he's more clever than me. And you have to be clever to contstantly defend everthing done in the prequels. :DI know Tycho, he's not more clever, just more disturbed. :p



The conflict we see in the OT is more like an insurgency as we see in Iraq today. Hardly a civil war in the most accepted terms. Well, to some Iraqis it is a civil war, and I don't mean just from the POV of the insurgents. However, in Star Wars, we're shown that Leia is part of the rebel ALLIANCE which suggests that there are other freedom fighter cells that have broken off from the Empire and are actively fighting it. You could also argue that since the movie is told with the focus being that the the rebels are the good guys, they see it as a civil war, but none the less they'd still have a sense of galactic history which now means there was another, larger civil war 20 years prior but originally seems to suggest that there was a different kind of war surrounding 'clones'.

Heck, even the ESB crawl indicates that the Rebellion is a very very small group as it is chased from Yavin to Hoth. Then we are meant to assume that the Rebellion gains membership by ROTJ as we see a far larger group. You are making an assumption without taking the "alliance" issue into account.


Naturally, I recall a lot of people casually wondering in the 1980s just what the term "clone wars" was going to mean. Was it two simultaneous wars I remember that too, but I have never heard the idea that it was 2 concurrent wars before, though that'd make some sense (so would a war that is fought for the exact same reason and having the same main activities and outcomes as another fought at a different time, but calling that the 'clone wars' might seem too glib for the context of discussing war). Interesting take, I'll have to digest it some more.


Everything during and before III would encompass an all out "war" of some kind, most likely against an enemy that was independent of the original Republic. Not that I'm arguing with the general idea you're getting at, I agree with what you're saying. However, it didn't have to be DURING ep 3, Lucas had no real intention of making a 'III' when he wrote the line, so we would never have known if it was during III or entirely before it, I'll submit that because of the short time frames Lucas was writing the true story - what we know as eps 4 through 6 now - from, that Ep III actually suggests that it happened years closer to ANH than the ROTS movie does. But yeah, your point seems valid, that the previous tales to Ep IV did not include a civil war, rather a different kind of war. Of course, if Lucas actually did mean to tell the story of the OT in 1 film, perhaps Ep 3 came WAAAAY before Ep 4 (and Eps 2 and 1 were just as distantly spread apart) which could fit your claim. I'm just saying we don't know if it must have been during Ep 3.


This idea would have worked far better than having to have Palpatine engineer some kind of false conflict just to gain power. What's funny is Lucas says the prequels we now know were always there, but what he says on the ANH commentary track is that there were rough outlines, such as "Palpatine did *something* to come to power" but never really put down that much. It's like the show "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda", the show claims to be created by Gene Roddenberry but it really spawned from a very short idea of his that said something like "a ship and its captain get stuck in time for 300 years until he comes out and finds everything he knew destroyed" which covers barely a fraction of even the first episode, much less the 5 years that followed.



Damn...this entire Prequel mess needs rewritten in a big way. And it will be so easy. How could George F up his own story so badly when the obvious better story was sitting there in front of him all along?As I said above, the prequels were never REALLY a story to F-up in the first place, Lucas said himself that Star Wars was never supposed to have any Eps 1 through 3 and that was part of the point. I am going to expand upon this later, dunno if tonight or not because I've blown too much of my day on the forums, but in the meantime, listen to the ANH commentary and you'll hear what I'm talking about, the reason why it's ok to be a SW fan and not like the prequels - the prequels never were supposed to exist as real stories, that was part of the gag and part of what made Star Wars so much of what it was.



JT - whatever "alternative" storylines you come up with, a lot of what you're talking about goes back to the timeline issues that I keep harping on. There is just no way that the universe we see in the OT is the place portrayed in the PT, only 20 or so years later. The feel is completely off, no matter how many stupid cameos (by both characters and hardware) GL threw into ROTS in a desperate attempt to tie things together.

The universe of the OT is not a place where vast droid armies had fought a Civil War against the valiant Clone armies of the Rebublic only 20 years earlier - there's just nothing about the OT that suggests that such a thing ever happened....I wholeheartedly agree, that's really my point here, it doesn't fit no matter how much shoehorning Lucas has done.



Also, as I've asked before, why would the events portrayed in AOTC and ROTS be referred to as the Clone Wars at all? Wouldn't they be more accurately, more plausibly, called the Separatist Wars, or the Civil War? I've thought that too, it'd be a little like the British calling the American Revolution "the Hessian Wars" because the Brits used Hessian mercenaries in several battles. Nobody in the US ever calls the Korean War "the Chinese Wars" even though the Chinese were a major force fighting alongside the North Koreans and had hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers sent to their deaths during that conflict.



What kinda sucks about the PT is that GL put the whole Anakin as a kid story in to attract a younger audience (same with Jar Jar). And I think this may be were the PT starts to fall short. This is one area where I really don't understand Lucas's logic, the original Star Wars was a MASSIVE hit with children yet had no incredibly goofy characters that added nothing to the plot (until ROTJ which sucked due to this inclusion) and no kiddie characters at all (again, until ROTJ which was hampered due to this). What made Star Wars work so well for kids was not just the whiz-bang of it, or the sense of incredible adventure and action, though they all played a big part for sure, but also that when Lucas took all that time researching how myths work and what makes them resonate with people, he tapped into something very deep in us all, those core tales which help drive humanity forward, he was able to boil down to simple yet strong points all which made these stories grand which made them accessable to children. The prequels, in contrast, while initially pandering to kiddies, didn't put in any of that mythos work and ended up with these convoluted tales that were also somewhat devoid of meaning (if you catch my drift - I'm not saying they're meaningless, just that the cosmic idea of the mythos isn't really showing up on the set most of the time).

sith_killer_99
06-07-2005, 05:45 AM
I have to disagree on this point.


the movie is telling us that this is unusual in that universe's recent history

I didn't get that at all from the crawl. What's more:

Leia: "General Kenobi, years ago you served my father during the Clone Wars."

Luke: "My father didn't fight in the Clone Wars."

Both of these lines tell me that there was some big battle(s) that took place about 30 years ago, give or take.

All I got from the part JT posted was that these Rebels were just getting started or finally building some momentum, afterall, this is their "first victory against the evil Galactic Empire." Which tells me that this isn't some huge division within the Empire, more like a few East Coast States deciding to break off and start a rebellion in the US. The beginings of a Civil War. Had this been some massive Civil War, I would think that there would have already been victories and losses on both sides.

You can argue, "Why didn't they call the Clone Wars a Civil War" or "Why did they decide to call this a Civil War", but I really don't read much in to why Wars are named the way they are, that seems irrelavent to me. Would you have felt better with, it is a period of Civil Discontent or it is a period of Civil Disobedience


There is just no way that the universe we see in the OT is the place portrayed in the PT, only 20 or so years later. The feel is completely off, no matter how many stupid cameos (by both characters and hardware) GL threw into ROTS in a desperate attempt to tie things together.

I feel the discontinuity as well. But I think it has more to do with CGI. The OT seemed more real, it had a real world "lived in" quality that the PT is sorely lacking! It seems that it is very difficult to make computer generated images appear to have a "lived in" quality to them. Everything feels too clean.

Droid
06-07-2005, 08:55 AM
My assessment of the prequels and a proposed outline of the prequels that I posted in another thread:

The more I think about this the more I think having Luke and Leia's mother be such an important character was a big mistake. I really think the prequels should have been about Anakin's relationship with Obi-wan Kenobi, Owen, and the Emperor.

In Episode I he had no contact with Owen and a few brief scenes at best with Obi-wan and the Emperor. During the gap in between Episode I and II we are led to believe that Obi-wan and the Emperor had all kinds of contact with Anakin, by we don't get to see it onscreen.

By the time Episode II kicks in, we have one or two scenes (and about five minutes of Anakin's life) with Owen.

Obi-wan and Anakin are far from the friends we were led to believe they were by the original trilogy and are at each other's throats. But we really don't get too much of Anakin and Obi-wan's relationship in Episode II because Anakin spends the whole time with Padme and Obi-wan spends the whole time off on Kamino, neither of which had to be done to support we heard about in the original trilogy. We heard in the original trilogy how Obi-wan and Anakin were good friends, we heard nothing about how much Anakin loved Luke and Leia's mother and we heard nothing about Obi-wan's quest to find out who was trying to kill Luke and Leia's mother.

We have one scene in Episode II that shows how the Emperor and Anakin are close, but we are not led on screen to know why Anakin is close to the Emperor. And for those of you who have listened to the audio commentary and tracked the original scripts of both Episode I and II, Lucas never wrote a scene with Palpatine and Anakin in either film and added them as after thoughts. "Oh ya, I have to have a reason these two team up."

In Episdoe III, Obi-wan and Anakin are now supposedly good friends, but the transition from the bickering in Episode II until the "friendship" in Episode III happens, once again, offscreen. And then they are apart for most of the movie because Obi-wan goes off to fight Grievous. In one scene they are expressing their absolute admiration for one another. Then Anakin tells Palpatine he understands the Jedi all have to die and that Obi-wan is an enemy. Then he is ready to kill Obi-wan. It makes little sense. Anakin may resent the Jedi, but he tells Obi-wan how much he admires him, and I think we are supposed to believe he is sincere. Then Padme shows up, tells Anakin things Anakin KNOWS to be true (you've turned to the dark side and killed younglings) and now he is ready to kill Obi-wan? Why? I don't really know. To save Padme? That doesn’t really make sense.

There is quite a bit of Palpatine and Anakin in Episode III. And there is nothing with Anakin and Owen in Episode III.

I think the problem with Padme reallly is that Lucas tried to write "the greatest love story of all time", with every hint of Romeo and Juliet he could throw in. It would have been better to just offer to the audience that they loved each other, have them already be together or just have Anakin met a girl and they clicked, rather than spending all of Episode II trying to convince us that we were watching something truly special.

Anakin should have turned to the Dark Side because of a quest for power, not this “I might be able to save Padme from dying business”. If his love for Padme was the reason he was going to turn evil it might have played better if Lucas had the Jedi discover his secret relationship with Padme, expel him, and have him turn on them rather than this “I must save her” business. Or if he blamed them for not letting him go save his mother, he sensed Padme was in trouble, they wouldn’t let him help her, she died, and he turned evil.

I think the story might have worked better if:

Anakin Skywalker and Owen SKYWALKER were brothers, with their wives, are farming on Tattooine (at a different farm for Pete's sake so the hiding place is better). Anakin is tired of the family life and the farm. He has wonderlust. Young Jedi Obi-wan Kenobi comes to Tatooine recruiting for people to fight in the Clone Wars, which are tearing the galaxy apart, because the Republic, which doesn't use Clones, is overwhelmed by the forces of the Mandalorians, who do. Anakin agrees to go because the Republic has more cash than soldiers and he wants the money, but also thinks the galaxy is worth fighting for. He leaves with Obi-wan. Owen is very bitter that Anakin is leaving and tells him not to go. The wife and Owen are pretty much out of the picture.

Obi-wan and Anakin became close fighting in the Clone Wars under Bail Organa, who owns R2-D2 and C-3P0, who would have virtually no contact with Obi-wan, Anakin, or any other character from the original trilogy. Anakin also works alongside, and perhaps under, a non-Jedi general named Tarkin.

Obi-wan and Anakin make a good team. They have Butch Cassidy and Sundance type adventures and they are both kind of like Han. Obi-wan is known as a bit of a rogue, impatient, reckless, sometimes angry. He and Anakin are a great fit. Obi-wan is promoted to Genearl and people start to know the team as talented. Obi-wan senses how strong the force is in Anakin. He wants to train him, but isn't allowed to because Anakin is too old to be trained in the traditional sense, and he has a wife. So, Obi-wan trains him in secret, convinced he can do a good job.

But Anakin is greedier than Obi-wan. Obi-wan sees him use the Dark Side where necessary and is alarmed. Anakin goes for money and power. Obi-wan goes to his master, Yoda, and confesses what he has done. However, he is impudent with Yoda, showing his own flashes of anger. Yoda agrees that Anakin needs to be kept an eye so is made a Jedi Knight, so he can be watched.

Anakin is interested in status and in gaining more and more power. Though happy to be a Jedi, he rebukes the control the Jedi try to place on him. A politician named Palpatine, who was elected promising to end the Clone Wars, takes an interest in Anakin and offers him the universe.

At some point, Anakin goes home on leave and impregnates his wife.

Of course, you need lightsaber duels, so you would have some Sith Lords, who are working with the Mandalorians to take control of the galaxy. You could have had a bunch of Jedi fight Sith Lords, as there was no reason to limit them to two.

The Jedi work hard to destroy the cloning centers, the true reason the Mandalorians have success in the war, their sheer numbers.

During the Wars, the Republic is having a tough time so Palpatine declares himself the Emperor and the Republic the Empire, for security. He secretly offers Anakin the number two spot and Anakin agrees. Palpatine is a Sith who left the fold, because he wanted to rule alone, not be a part of the larger Sith, but perhaps Anakin never knows Palpatine is a Sith. Given that Anakin has always used the dark side when it suited him, it woudln’t be such a drastic shift.

The Wars are coming to a close and Palpatine orchestrates an event that leads the populace to believe the Jedi are a threat to the Republic. He announces they must be destroyed and puts Anakin in charge of it.

Yoda says that the Jedi must stop the Emperor and kill Anakin. Obi-wan goes to try to turn Anakin back to good, but is unable. They fight. Anakin is horribly injured. Obi-wan believes he is dead and takes his lightsaber.

He soon discovers Anakin lived and reemerges as Darth Vader, who is hunting down the remaining Jedi. With the populace against them, the Jedi are overwhelmed. The Empire could only have fallen with the Rebellion to support it.

Obi-wan goes to tell Anakin’s wife what has transpired and discovers she is pregnant. He says she must leave Tattooine. Owen is unwilling to leave Tatooine, but understands the threat. He sells the family farm and Owen and Beru go into hiding on the other side of the planet and assume the name Lars. Given that the wife lives on Tattooine and prenatal care isn’t what it could be, no one knows she is carrying twins.

The wife goes to Dagobah with Yoda. Yoda instructs Obi-wan to go watch after the Lars’ from a distance, since they are in danger and it is kind of Obi-wan’s fault. The twins are born. Yoda gives Leia to Organa to live with the royal family on Alderaan. The mother goes with Leia to Alderaan, to watch over her from a distance the way that Obi-wan was with Luke, only visiting Leia occasionally because she does not want to run the risk that Vader will find her and figure out they had a child.

The Emperor wants any children Anakin had before the accident. Vader can’t find anyone on Tattooine, but does track his wife to Alderaan. He talks with her and doesn’t think that she children. He offers for her to come rule the galaxy as his queen. He rebukes her and he kills her.
Yoda gives Luke to Obi-wan. Yoda does not tell Organa or Obi-wan that there are two babies. Obi-wan gives Owen and Beru Luke and agrees to watch over him, in exile, devastated at what he has done to the galaxy. Owen is happy to have the farm hand but tells Obi-wan to keep away. R2-D2 and C-3P0 end up with Antilles by the end. Obi-wan assumes the not so clever secret name Ben Kenobi. Owen, Beru, and Luke assume the name Lars until Luke is ready to know his true destiny and even name when Obi-wan tells him years later. Yoda sits on Dagobah.

In addition to what I said, it could have been fleshed out with all sorts of interesting creatures, characters, and planets we are accustomed to (and got in the prequels).

Oh, by the way, I like the prequels much more than you might think. I just think they could have been done better, with original trilogy dialogue as a guideline.

rbaumhauer
06-07-2005, 09:32 AM
Droid - excellent outline, I think you did a really good job of tying things together without being as heavy-handed as Lucas was. I also agree with your take on the Anakin/wife relationship, an area that I (intentionally) didn't touch on in my brief outline.

One of the really major failings of the PT is that, in place of giving the audience compelling stories and characters, Lucas instead places characters with names we know into situations that, we are told (and told, and told), are very IMPORTANT, so we should be very happy and grateful to see them. Problem is, these events are not particularly dramatic or compelling, and making the characters into such important people just heightens the problem. "So, the Messiah and the Queen/Senator/hottie fall in love, with disastrous consequences for the Republic."

Much better to have, if not ordinary characters, then characters who are easier to identify with for the audience. The Jedi could have been depicted as a combination of Samurai and warrior-monks, but Lucas instead made the regrettable (and impossible to write your way out of) decision to turn them into Superheroes instead. Anakin could have been a normal man from humble beginnings, living in obscurity with his young wife on Tatooine but wanting more from life, but instead he's a slave/Messiah/cute little kid.

Honestly, your outline is the basis of a much better trilogy than what we got, and one that would flow very nicely into the OT - why couldn't the billionaire-auteur have seen all the weak points in what he was doing?

Rick

JediTricks
06-08-2005, 07:15 PM
I have to disagree on this point.

the movie is telling us that this is unusual in that universe's recent history
I didn't get that at all from the crawl. What's more:
Leia: "General Kenobi, years ago you served my father during the Clone Wars."
Luke: "My father didn't fight in the Clone Wars."
Both of these lines tell me that there was some big battle(s) that took place about 30 years ago, give or take.That's only part of what I said, your quote of my original point is out of its context, I said "By its very mention of it being "a period of civil war", the movie is telling us that this is unusual in that universe's recent history". The "this" in your quote is a period of civil war, to make your rebuttal accurate, we would HAVE to assume that the Clone Wars were indeed another civil war, but that would be putting the cart before the horse since this argument is about what ANH said, not what AOTC and ROTS later say.


All I got from the part JT posted was that these Rebels were just getting started or finally building some momentum, afterall, this is their "first victory against the evil Galactic Empire." Which tells me that this isn't some huge division within the Empire, more like a few East Coast States deciding to break off and start a rebellion in the US. The beginings of a Civil War. Had this been some massive Civil War, I would think that there would have already been victories and losses on both sides. I don't see what that has to do with anything, your references are both types of civil wars, ANH says we're in a period of civil war, even if it's not a 50/50 split it's still a civil war, you say so yourself. I don't think I claimed it was a massive civil war in ANH.


You can argue, "Why didn't they call the Clone Wars a Civil War" or "Why did they decide to call this a Civil War", but I really don't read much in to why Wars are named the way they are, that seems irrelavent to me. Would you have felt better with, it is a period of Civil Discontent or it is a period of Civil Disobedience No, my whole point of this thread is that the Clone Wars weren't originally supposed to be a civil war, and that AOTC and ROTS by making the Clone Wars about that do not fit with the OT in this way.


Rick B, when Lucas first made Star Wars, he created accessable characters through the use of classic archetypes in order to give the audience an instant feeling of connection to them so he could move the story along without forcing a character play into the spotlight, and it worked very well (you probably already know this better than I, but it helps counter my next point... which you also probably know better than I ;)). However, when Lucas made the prequels, he seemed to abandon this notion of using archetypes because he felt he already had established characters to work with even though he was working backwards in their characterizations, and I think this forced Lucas to end up having to write out his characters to make up for that, which only further made the prequels feel out of step with the original Star Wars.

rbaumhauer
06-08-2005, 10:48 PM
Rick B, when Lucas first made Star Wars, he created accessable characters through the use of classic archetypes in order to give the audience an instant feeling of connection to them so he could move the story along without forcing a character play into the spotlight, and it worked very well (you probably already know this better than I, but it helps counter my next point... which you also probably know better than I ;)). However, when Lucas made the prequels, he seemed to abandon this notion of using archetypes because he felt he already had established characters to work with even though he was working backwards in their characterizations, and I think this forced Lucas to end up having to write out his characters to make up for that, which only further made the prequels feel out of step with the original Star Wars.

JT - totally agree. It seems like Lucas saw the OT as the "fun" movies, while the PT were his "serious" movies, encompassing his ideas about the way that free societies slip into totalitarianism, etc., as well as how a "good" person turns "evil". So, the PT is more about "themes" than about characters, with the result that it doesn't really seem to be about the characters themselves, and the logic of their actions is hard to discern at times, because they are serving the plot, first and foremost.

While the OT may not be exactly "character-driven", I think we do get the sense that they are about the consequences of the characters' choices, where the PT seems to force characters into a particular course of action in order the serve the "theme". In fact, my girlfriend (not a "fan" by any means - she barely remembers what happened in the OT) made the observation after we saw ROTS that it felt like we were watching a reenactment of events, rather than the events themselves, because the characters seemed locked into certain actions, and many of the characters had no real development at all.

In the end, I guess we just have to be thankful that he decided to make the entertaining movies first :) .

Rick

DarthAngel
06-08-2005, 11:42 PM
Ok, I am sure that many of you are not going to like what I am about to say, but oh well.

While many of you make very compelling arguments as to why AOTC and ROTS don't fit in with the OT, give it up, I mean enough is enough.

Now I am by no means apologizing for uncie George, but give the man a flippin break. I'd like to see some of you try and do some of the things that he has done. It's not easy (trust me, I am a writer, I know how difficult it is to write a story that is going to be overall appealing to my audience no matter how old or young). There are quite a few things that I don't like about the PT just as there are things that I don't like in the OT, but it is not my place to play critic, nor is it my place to rewrite an entire 2 movies or beg and plead and whine and complain in the hopes that the creator of the movie will change the things that I don't like, just so things fit together perfectly.

So many people complained about Jar Jar from TPM so much that George gave him less and less screen time in the subsequent films. Now what about the people that actually liked Jar Jar, huh? Granted there may not be that many people who liked Jar Jar but I digress. Should they make a big stink until George alters AOTC and ROTS so there is more Jar Jar? What about the people who hate the Ewoks? Should George remove the Ewoks and any reference to them from ROTJ just so the Ewok haters are pleased?

Furthermore, while George has been on record saying that the entire saga is about Anakin's rise, fall, and eventual redemption, if you notice, a lot of the important events that take place in the OT, all have to do with Luke, NOT Anakin, if all 6 movies were about Anakin like George says they are, then we would see a lot more of Vader than we do in the OT. So that right there shows you that sometimes even George doesn't know what he is talking about. The PT is simply all about Anakin, and the OT is simply all about Luke and Leia. That's it nothing more nothing less.

The bottom line is that no matter what we think should have been done, or what we would have liked to have seen doesn't matter. The movies are what George wanted them to be, and if we continue to whine, moan, complain, and b**ch the way many people have, eventually there will come a time when George will tell us all to go take a flying leap. So quit your complaining and just enjoy the movies for what they are and leave the whining, moaning, complaining, and b**ching to our 'oh so wonderful' elected officials (don't you just love the sarcasm?) .

rbaumhauer
06-09-2005, 12:05 AM
It's like there's a ticking clock on every topic where we actually discuss, in detail, what we wish these movies had been. Inevitably, somebody has to come by to tell us to "Stop!", and you have to wonder why. DA, we're thinking out loud, bouncing ideas off each other - I don't think any of us has any illusions that we're going to effect anything via our discussions, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable or doesn't have some value to us.


The movies are what George wanted them to be, and if we continue to whine, moan, complain, and b**ch the way many people have, eventually there will come a time when George will tell us all to go take a flying leap.

Sorry, two responses:

1) George would never take notice of what we're talking about here.

2) If, through some bizarre set of circumstances, he did happen by here, read what we're writing, and told us to take a flying leap, I'd shrug my shoulders and say,"Whatever". He's already made a mess of the franchise that made him what he is - why should I care if he threatened to stop?

Rick

DarthAngel
06-09-2005, 12:19 AM
It's like there's a ticking clock on every topic where we actually discuss, in detail, what we wish these movies had been. Inevitably, somebody has to come by to tell us to "Stop!", and you have to wonder why. DA, we're thinking out loud, bouncing ideas off each other - I don't think any of us has any illusions that we're going to effect anything via our discussions, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable or doesn't have some value to us.

rbaumhauer, I am by no means saying that what we are doing here on these boards have no value. I am simply saying that by reading some of the other posts, not only in this thread, but other threads as well, some people feel that it is their duty to point out everything that is wrong with the saga. That is what ****es me off. I don't disagree with bouncing ideas off each other, and there have been several threads where I have shared my ideas. I just feel if the only thing that you (and by you I mean the collective you) are going to do is nit-pick every single detail of the entire saga, then what will it take for them to be pleased. Does that make any sense to you?

rbaumhauer
06-09-2005, 12:30 AM
I don't even bother with the nitpicking topics, honestly - they're missing the forest for the trees. Topics like this one address larger structural issues, I think, and should be seen as a different sort of exercise.

Regardless, coming into a topic and asking (however nicely) that people stop posting their opinions isn't likely to produce the results you're looking for.

Rick

2-1B
06-09-2005, 12:43 AM
And why was ANH called "Star Wars" in the first place ? It opened during "a period of civil war" , not wars, so where are the other wars and why isn't the title being called into question ? lol

I only ask because of the flogging that the clone war / clone wars issue took . . . so why was it called Star Wars ? lol

stillakid
06-09-2005, 12:43 AM
I just feel if the only thing that you (and by you I mean the collective you) are going to do is nit-pick every single detail of the entire saga, then what will it take for them to be pleased.
That's a rash generalization and innaccurate at that. I don't think I'll hear any arguments from anyone by declaring myself as one of the largest instigators of this eternal questioning of the saga. But by no means, have I or anyone else "nitpicked EVERY SINGLE DETAIL" in the saga. That's ridiculous. :rolleyes:

DA, I too am a writer and as such, it benefits me and my work to critique the work of others, for better or worse. Whether publically or privately, I note what works in a story or film and what doesn't then take that and attempt to apply the lessons learned to what I'm doing. It just so happens (for me) that Star Wars has been a hobby and a great inspiration and is what guided me into the career in the entertainment industry that I have right now. And despite what I personally think about the quality of the newest arrivals to the saga, Star Wars continues to provide inspiration to what I continue to strive for.

Naturally, if the Prequels were 100% with no errors whatsoever, it might become difficult, if not impossible, to talk about them for this long. How many times can you say that something was "cool"? But as fate would have it, the Prequels are chock full of inherent story and character flaws which provide nearly endless opportunities for discussion and critique.

Because a few of us enjoy dissecting the films in this manner, it tends to nip at the tender sensibilities of "non-professionals" or the casual viewers who would just as soon "enjoy it for what it is." That's fine and there's nothing wrong with someone choosing to enjoy mediocrity in his/her life. Lord knows, we don't often get the chance to enjoy true greatness as it comes along rarely. But discussion of the problems shouldn't necessarily dissuade someone from choosing to enjoy whatever they want for whatever reasons they choose. If our discussions do annoy someone that much, then I'd have to question if they really like the films in the first place. If a person is certain about something, no amount of banter will sway their opinion. But if they are so afraid of hearing the opposing viewpoints that they request that we "shut up," it would seem as though their initial conviction toward the films wasn't as strong as they'd like to think.

The other "cop out" and misconception is that "we" go in to the theater looking for things to bit** about. That's absolutely absurd, but it seems to make the Apologists feel better about their own decision to "enjoy it for what it is." Most of the issues pop off the screen and even the non-writers and non-filmmakers can see them. But the claim by the Apologists (yes, I apologize for lumping "them" into one group like that...I recognize that there are varying levels of support given to the Prequels...but for the sake of the discussion, I am over-generalizing) is that there are no problems at all and we're just "nit picking." Again, that's absurd. I'm sure you've heard the adage that just because everyone knows the alphabet, they all think that they can write...a corallary to that is that because everyone has $8 bucks and a couple of hours to kill, it makes them an expert at critiquing a film.

For that reason, I can't take it too seriously when a random fan with a random job from some random place in the world tells us that he/she didn't see any problems or that we're "nit picking." I believe that they either can't see the problems because they have no formal training in the art of writing and/or filmmaking or they refuse to see the problems because they hate to think ill of Star Wars in any way. Obviously, there are varying degrees of fandom and very few people actually seem to think that the Prequels are as great as they ever could be, but in general, those categories seem to hold up pretty well.

Keeping that in mind, at the end of the day it is fun to talk about this stuff. For me anyway. :)



And why was ANH called "Star Wars" in the first place ? It opened during "a period of civil war" , not wars, so where are the other wars and why isn't the title being called into question ? lol

I only ask because of the flogging that the clone war / clone wars issue took . . . so why was it called Star Wars ? lol

Cuz it sounded cool! :cool: Marketing baby...marketing! :greedy:

2-1B
06-09-2005, 12:49 AM
How many times can you say that something was "cool"?

Probably as many times as you can say:


there's nothing wrong with someone choosing to enjoy mediocrity in his/her life.

:rolleyes:


If our discussions do annoy someone that much, then I'd have to question if they really like the films in the first place.

Ahhh, what ? :confused: At least "we" are hear to talk about movies we DO like, and not endlessly critique a group of films we dislike for the most part. lol

stillakid
06-09-2005, 01:07 AM
Ahhh, what ? :confused: At least "we" are hear to talk about movies we DO like, and not endlessly critique a group of films we dislike for the most part. lol

But what would "you" guys talk about without "us" around to prompt the defensive? How cool everything is? :cool: ;)

Some people, like JJB just plain got up and left because he got tired of defending the love of his life. Why couldn't someone like that stop responding to "our" threads and instead open up a slew of "that was cool :cool: " threads? I don't see a lot of those popping up at random.

Believe me, I'd much rather be talking about how cool EVERYTHING is. But everything is not so cool in Mudville. But I think that in this hypothetical world where the Prequels did live up to expectations, if there were any discussions at all, they would probably involve more inclusion of EU material as simply talking about all the nifty cool things in the films would get stale after a while.

2-1B
06-09-2005, 01:46 AM
Oh, so you're saying that talking about all the nifty cool things would get stale, but talking about the crummy bad things doesn't ? :confused:

As for JJB, I can't speak for him, but maybe if you hadn't leveled all those personal attack PMs at him, he would be more willing to discuss things. ;)

But on to the point, I, an unrepentent prequel LOVER, am on record here on several issues that I do not care for in the films. So no, I wouldn't just be talking about how cool everything is. But I can tell you this much, if I disliked the prequels so much more than I liked them, I would have moved on with my life to more satisfying hobbies. :)

Personally, in celebration of ROTS I opened up a few threads of my own praising Hayden Christensen's performance and also my love of the Buddy Comedy Duo as in The Negotiator & The Poster Boy of ROTS. The latter thread drew little interest . . . but you're welcome for the opportunities to complain provided by the former. :crazed:

stillakid
06-09-2005, 10:37 AM
Oh, so you're saying that talking about all the nifty cool things would get stale, but talking about the crummy bad things doesn't ? :confused:
Yeah. Pretty much. :)


As for JJB, I can't speak for him, but maybe if you hadn't leveled all those personal attack PMs at him, he would be more willing to discuss things. ;)
I don't know what he told you, but I can guarantee that any PMs from me are not the reason he doesn't discuss the films anymore. :) If I ever "attacked" him in any way, it was well-deserved and I can think of one incident in particular in which this was the case, and he was more than well aware of it. Never an apology to me for his initial erroneous intial attack, though. That shows strength of character, eh?


But on to the point, I, an unrepentent prequel LOVER, am on record here on several issues that I do not care for in the films. So no, I wouldn't just be talking about how cool everything is. But I can tell you this much, if I disliked the prequels so much more than I liked them, I would have moved on with my life to more satisfying hobbies. :)
Talking about the problems...and positives...in Star Wars IS a satisfying hobby. :)


Personally, in celebration of ROTS I opened up a few threads of my own praising Hayden Christensen's performance and also my love of the Buddy Comedy Duo as in The Negotiator & The Poster Boy of ROTS. The latter thread drew little interest . . . but you're welcome for the opportunities to complain provided by the former. :crazed:
Thanks! :D But I'll remind the panel that I also opened up a thread about how I loved Grievous and it too resulted in posts proclaiming the opposing viewpoints. That's the nature of the beast...and that's what discussion is. And that's what I'm getting at. If everybody loved absolutely everything at the same level, the forum would be nothing but people telling each other how cool this or that was. Just as in a good story, a certain amount of "friction" creates interest. And that goes the other way too. Imagine a site filled with nothing but scorn. That would become laborious and dry as well. :)

2-1B
06-09-2005, 01:42 PM
But why do you bother to "discuss" with us, when in your arrogance you are often just lecturing us about what we are blind to see and choosing to ignore ? :confused:

That's not a discussion. ;)

stillakid
06-10-2005, 12:23 AM
But why do you bother to "discuss" with us, when in your arrogance you are often just lecturing us about what we are blind to see and choosing to ignore ? :confused:

That's not a discussion. ;)

It's not arrogance...it's confidence. And this only comes up when others choose to turn attention from the topic and attack me personally, like now. If I can back up a claim with evidence from the films, I see no reason to back down when the argument is valid just to placate someone else's "opinion."

ME: 2+2=4
OTHERS: No it doesn't. 2+2=5
ME: Okay, I can see that you have another opinion and I respect that. What else can we talk about?

But of course, because this is "art," the argument is that "2+2=4" isn't valid because everything in "art" is open for interpretation. Okay then, in that case, I think that the following scene indicates just how much Han Solo romantically loves Greedo by shooting him dead so he doesn't continue down the awful road. Not only that, Han meant that he wanted Greedo to have nasty sex with him "over his dead body" if he survives:



HAN
Over my dead body.

BLAM!


My opinion. My interpretation. Is this valid or open for debate? Or is there room for absolutes in art? I will abide by your decision. Humbly yours, stillakid. :zzz:

2-1B
06-10-2005, 02:02 AM
this only comes up when others choose to turn attention from the topic and attack me personally, like now.

Don't forget that it also comes up when you make blanket statements about Lucas' "Apologists" lol . . . how many times have I read your well thought out and reasoned posts just to find at the end that you have to slip a flippant jab at people who haven't even attempted to post yet. That's a great way to turn people off to what you have to say. lol


If I can back up a claim with evidence from the films, I see no reason to back down when the argument is valid just to placate someone else's "opinion."

No, you shouldn't back down. :) But that doesn't mean that somebody else can't also have a valid argument without being written off as "choosing to ignore" something or being an "apologist."

Talk about a personal attack, calling people Apologists. Wow. lol


]Humbly yours, stillakid. :zzz:

stillakid ? Humble ? Never ! :crazed:

stillakid
06-10-2005, 09:51 AM
Don't forget that it also comes up when you make blanket statements about Lucas' "Apologists" lol . . . how many times have I read your well thought out and reasoned posts just to find at the end that you have to slip a flippant jab at people who haven't even attempted to post yet. That's a great way to turn people off to what you have to say. lol

Re: "Apologists" I didn't invent the name, but it is an convenient way to put people into tidy columns. :) As in, one either likes and defends the Prequels or doesn't. And I do believe it was JJB who fired the first salvo by calling me a "nitpicker." That term isn't just insulting, it completely belittles every single valid point every made regarding every critique ever leveled at the saga. It assumes that any critique that isn't merely glowing praise means that the person is just looking for nearly non-existent problems. From that derived the concept that the "Defenders" were incapable of seeing the problems in the first place...or unwilling to.

But I suppose there should be a third and fourth category for those of us in the middle...yes, I said us...people who don't hate the films entirely. :) Perhaps you, Caesar, aren't an "Apologist" and I certainly am not a "Nitpicker"...it's just that what bothers me about the films you let slide or find value. :) For example, I truly loved Grievous for all the reasons that everyone else hated him. In the same way, you love Hayden for all the reasons that I hated him. Make sense? :)




No, you shouldn't back down. :) But that doesn't mean that somebody else can't also have a valid argument without being written off as "choosing to ignore" something or being an "apologist."
True, but not all arguments are valid and therein lies the conflict. If I or someone else can point to A, B, C and D as evidence to back up conclusion Z, then it stands to reason that "we're" correct. But if party 2 decides to ignore points A, B, C and D then where does that leave the discussion? Again, like I alluded to above, I believe that the facts are the facts and what how we choose to react to them is a personal decision. As in, I don't begrudge anyone for liking a superficial piece of sh**. I do it all the time myself. :) Those opinions are valid, to like or dislike something for any reason one wishes. But not every "interpretation" is necessarily valid when it comes to looking at "art." If it was, that would be saying that the artist had nothing at all in mind when jotting down the script...that he was leaving absolutely everything up to the minds of the audience. I don't believe that for a second. When Luke sits there in the cockpit of the Falcon asking Han what he thinks about Leia, we are supposed to believe that Luke has a crush on Leia. Period. End of discussion. Lucas meant that to be the "interpretation" for that scene and it was written and filmed in such a way that his intention was clear. What you're suggesting is that we all should "respect" every single "opinion" and "interpretation" that comes down the pike even if there is evidence to the contrary. While there are indeed some ambiguous incidences (ie. Were the dead Wookies in ROTS killed by Clone Troopers by Order 66 or were they just merely dead from normal battle?) caused by intention by the writer or bad filmmaking (not making the intention clear), I think that in most cases, the writer definitely has something specific in mind.


Talk about a personal attack, calling people Apologists. Wow. lol
Well, I didn't consider it an attack...more like a "label." Perhaps "Defender" would be more appropriate? :sur: I don't know, you tell me. :)




stillakid ? Humble ? Never ! :crazed:
You don't know me very well. :) Don't confuse confidence in an argument with arrogance. When I'm proven wrong, I'm the first to step up and say so. But then again, I don't often get into discussions when I'm unclear initially. Quite often, there are threads I'll read through but add nothing when I have no position or don't have an answer. All you (and others) have chosen to consider is what you see (what you think you see) and ignore all else. That's terribly unfair, but I've come to expect nothing more. :(

2-1B
06-10-2005, 01:48 PM
Well, I didn't consider it an attack...more like a "label."

Maybe that's all they meant when you were called a nitpicker ? Maybe they didn't consider it personal, either. ;)


Perhaps "Defender" would be more appropriate? I don't know, you tell me.

Me ? I'm just a fan. :)


Okay then, in that case, I think that the following scene indicates just how much Han Solo romantically loves Greedo by shooting him dead so he doesn't continue down the awful road. Not only that, Han meant that he wanted Greedo to have nasty sex with him "over his dead body" if he survives:

Hey, I can't argue with that theory:



lol lol lol

stillakid
06-10-2005, 02:28 PM
Maybe that's all they meant when you were called a nitpicker ? Maybe they didn't consider it personal, either. ;)
Don't count on it. :rolleyes: ;)





Hey, I can't argue with that theory:

lol lol lol

Holy Sh**! I can't believe you have a picture of that! lol I swear I made that sh** up. Somebody beat me to the punch! That's fu**ing :crazed:

JediTricks
06-10-2005, 07:59 PM
While many of you make very compelling arguments as to why AOTC and ROTS don't fit in with the OT, give it up, I mean enough is enough.That wasn't an especially compelling argument on your part, I know you go into greater reasoning to support your claim here, but the initial tag there doesn't seem to have any actual thought put into it. What kind of a reason is "enough is enough"? Seriously, if it were "enough", wouldn't we not be talking about this in the first place? Wouldn't people like you not feel drawn to discussions such as this?


Now I am by no means apologizing for uncie George, but give the man a flippin break. I did, I willingly paid to see Eps 2 and 3 a second time each.


There are quite a few things that I don't like about the PT just as there are things that I don't like in the OT, but it is not my place to play critic Why not? Why is it not your place to discuss amongst your fellow Star Wars enthusiasts what you feel about Star Wars, especially when you come to a place like this? That's EXACTLY what this place is for.


nor is it my place to rewrite an entire 2 movies or beg and plead and whine and complain in the hopes that the creator of the movie will change the things that I don't like, just so things fit together perfectly. Your point is fatally flawed as nobody here is doing any of that. I created this thread without the motivation to rewrite the movies, they are what they are, I am just pointing out that they missed something. I started this discussion with no belief that Lucas would ever change his already-completed prequels to fit the OT - I have come to grips that these 2 trilogies will never be one story, and am simply exploring my opinons as to why, as well as defending myself to idiotic claims that I'm simply a "prequel bashing lucas hater".


...So that right there shows you that sometimes even George doesn't know what he is talking about. The PT is simply all about Anakin, and the OT is simply all about Luke and Leia. That's it nothing more nothing less.Um, yeah, I think most of us already know that, what's your point with this claim?


The bottom line is that no matter what we think should have been done, or what we would have liked to have seen doesn't matter. Then why come here, why partake of this discussion? You couldn't possibly be arrogant enough to think you are above the rest of us and handing down an "important life lesson from on high" as you have no more or less credibility here than any of the rest of us.



And why was ANH called "Star Wars" in the first place ? It opened during "a period of civil war" , not wars, so where are the other wars and why isn't the title being called into question ? That's a fair one, absolutely. I would chalk it up to poetic license, Lucas was making a reference to the idea of serials even though he never intended to show previous serials, and it's catchy. Plus, it's a title, not a plot-point.


Oh, so you're saying that talking about all the nifty cool things would get stale, but talking about the crummy bad things doesn't ? No, it will too probably, but I personally feel the prequels have quite a lot of material to mine there still before that happens. For me, the nifty cool stuff feels quite talked out, though I must confess that there was little there for me to begin with, but for me even the stuff that is there it's like "wow, that was neat" is really all that needs to be said for a lot of things, there's not much need for the "why" aspect which I think is key to where any good discussion exists. I thought Slave I was cool in Ep 2, but what else is there to say really? "It made a good floaty noise and looked neat hovering", sure, but where's the extended discussion about that? The toys are different too, and they're a big part of my Star Wars hobby, but look at the POTF2 and POTJ and Saga forums, they're dead, nobody wants to talk about much anymore.

I mean, you recently started a thread dumping on TPM's Yoda puppet, yet I haven't seen a lot of positive comments from you about TPM in that forum lately. :p It's perspective-based, you feel the TPM Yoda is bad, I feel the premise of having the Clone Wars being a civil war is bad, you discussed your thing and I'm just doing the same - both threads are totally voluntary, the only thing compelling you to come here is YOU.


But on to the point, I, an unrepentent prequel LOVER, am on record here on several issues that I do not care for in the films. So no, I wouldn't just be talking about how cool everything is. But I can tell you this much, if I disliked the prequels so much more than I liked them, I would have moved on with my life to more satisfying hobbies. Part of my issue is that the prequels are intertwined with the OT, it's more difficult to dismiss them the way one might the EU because not only are these movies supposed to be canon, but they are "half the saga" which brings a lot of weight into discussions with folks such as yourself.


Well, now my thread seems to have totally taken a left turn. I still welcome any discussion, pro or con, on the original topic though... not that it's too likely to happen.

2-1B
06-11-2005, 12:49 AM
stillakid, I found that in Mad magazine and the timeliness of that discovery could not have been better ! lol

JT, my comments were directed specifically at stillakid since it seems to be his mission in life :D to come here and tell me and others how dumb we are for liking the new movies. :crazed: It wasn't meant toward you, really. :) As for TPM, what can I say . . . I love it even more in light of AOTC and ROTS (and I did already really enjoy it when it came out). Thanks, that gives me a new idea for a thread tomorrow after work. :)

BTW, that Yoda puppet is still goofy. :crazed: :beard: :crazed:

2-1B
06-11-2005, 02:07 AM
I haven't seen a lot of positive comments from you about TPM in that forum lately.

Hey waitaminute, didn't you notice my sig line ? EVERY post of mine carries with it the Glory of TPM ! ! ! ! :crazed: :crazed: :crazed:

JediTricks
06-11-2005, 04:27 AM
Rick McCallum doesn't really exist, he's a digital character to shield Lucas from the brunt of the criticisms and distract us from the lack of quality in the prequels. ;) Look at his career, you cannot tell me a career like that could get a job producing a hundred-million-dollar movie in real life. :D

stillakid
06-11-2005, 04:47 AM
JT, my comments were directed specifically at stillakid since it seems to be his mission in life :D to come here and tell me and others how dumb we are for liking the new movies.


For the record, I never once said that to anyone...you just did. If you feel "dumb" because you choose to enjoy the flawed Prequels, that's your decision to make, not mine. :) I personally think that you in particular are smart...because you find something you like then go to great lengths to back that choice up. I don't always agree with your logic, but at least you make the attempt. Less schooled youngin's tend to leave it at "I think it's cool, so Fu** off." Not much to discuss there. :)

I've said this before and I'll say it again until it gets through everyone's heads, I could personally care less if somebody likes a part of the movies or the whole enchilada. A like/dislike opinion is entirely valid. All I've ever said was that these movies are inherently flawed and I and others have backed that assertion up time after time after time. That someone chooses to like something despite said flaws is really none of my business. :)

DarthAngel
06-11-2005, 03:18 PM
For the record, I never once said that to anyone...you just did. If you feel "dumb" because you choose to enjoy the flawed Prequels, that's your decision to make, not mine. :) I personally think that you in particular are smart...because you find something you like then go to great lengths to back that choice up. I don't always agree with your logic, but at least you make the attempt. Less schooled youngin's tend to leave it at "I think it's cool, so Fu** off." Not much to discuss there. :)


Ok so Stilla, while you might not come right out and say that those of us who like the prequels should feel dumb, you have said things along those lines rather indirectly. Your post above shows that. While you may not have intended to belittle people for liking the PT, your little jab about enjoying flawed prequels sure did. You claim that you are not attacking people, but while we all understand that you HATE the prequels, is it really necessary for you to call them flawed? I think not. You have made it known that you don't like the prequels, nor will you ever, so why make the fans of the prequels feel like they are less of a Star Wars fan then you because of which films we like more or less?



I've said this before and I'll say it again until it gets through everyone's heads, I could personally care less if somebody likes a part of the movies or the whole enchilada. A like/dislike opinion is entirely valid. All I've ever said was that these movies are inherently flawed and I and others have backed that assertion up time after time after time. That someone chooses to like something despite said flaws is really none of my business. :)

I really don't think it needs to get through everyone's head Stilla. It is quite apparent that you adore the OT. For someone who said every opinion on these boards is valid, by some of the comments you have made, it seems to me that people either see things your way, or they are fools for liking something that you don't. You know I had a few professors like you, and they failed me for not seeing things their way. There again your insertion of the word flawed, was not really needed.

In my honest opinion, one of the greatest FLAWS in the OT is the behavior of my favorite character, not to mention one of the greatest villians ever, Darth Vader. When we first see him in ANH he is acting like one bad @$$ mofo, but then he suddenly becomes Tarkin's major domo. Then Vader get's into his TIE fighter and again is a bad mofo taking out rebel pilots left and right. When we then get to ESB, he is pretty much pure evil throughout the entire movie. Then in ROTJ, he starts off being evil like he was in ESB, but then from the time the Emporer arrives until he dies, he is a big cry baby.

I understand that in ROTJ Vader is brought back to the good side and that is why he kills the Emporer, but if you are going to have a villian be a bad mofo in one movie, then make sure and do it in all 3 movies.

And Jt, I will agree parts of my argument were not as well thought out as they could have been, and I thank you for helping me understand the way things work here in the forums, for I am still learning the ropes here.

stillakid
06-12-2005, 12:40 AM
PART I: ADDRESS THE "KILL THE MESSENGER" ELEMENTS
(or, when they can't argue logically with you anymore, they attack you personally)


Ok so Stilla, while you might not come right out and say that those of us who like the prequels should feel dumb, you have said things along those lines rather indirectly. Your post above shows that. While you may not have intended to belittle people for liking the PT, your little jab about enjoying flawed prequels sure did. You claim that you are not attacking people, but while we all understand that you HATE the prequels, is it really necessary for you to call them flawed? I think not. You have made it known that you don't like the prequels, nor will you ever, so why make the fans of the prequels feel like they are less of a Star Wars fan then you because of which films we like more or less?
Interesting, your line about "indirectly." So what you're suggesting is that I in fact do have something very specific to say and that your interpretation of my indirect thoughts is the MOST LIKELY scenario? Or have you left room in your hypothesis to allow for unlimited alternate scenarios and unlimited other valid opinions about my intentions? I eagerly await your response. :)






I really don't think it needs to get through everyone's head Stilla. It is quite apparent that you adore the OT.
Adore? No. I wouldn't go that far. And if that's the way you color your view of everything I've said, I can see why your opinion of me is so flawed. All I've ever said is that the OT films are fairly solid in their storytelling and any hiccups that might be called into question are relatively minor and cause no significant strains on the plot. In contrast, the Prequels not only are problematic as stand alone films for a variety of certifiable reasons, they also conflict with established continuity of the films that came before them.


For someone who said every opinion on these boards is valid,
:confused: I've never said that. What I said was that if someone chooses to like or dislike something, that opinion is perfectly valid. What isn't valid is an opinion based on ignorance or faulty reasoning. That holds true whether we're discussing films or real life situations.



by some of the comments you have made, it seems to me that people either see things your way, or they are fools for liking something that you don't.
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm guilty of liking all sorts of flawed films, it's just that I don't give as much leaway to the Star Wars films as I do other movies. If you want to rationalize or ignore problems in movies in order to enjoy them, be my guest. But don't expect to sit there proclaiming that the Prequels are perfect in every way without receiving opposition to that viewpoint.


You know I had a few professors like you, and they failed me for not seeing things their way. There again your insertion of the word flawed, was not really needed.
Sure it was, because the Prequels are indeed "flawed." If they weren't, I would have said "perfect" instead. It is an entirely valid assertion to make.


PART II: ADDRESS THE ACTUAL TOPIC


In my honest opinion, one of the greatest FLAWS in the OT is the behavior of my favorite character, not to mention one of the greatest villians ever, Darth Vader. When we first see him in ANH he is acting like one bad @$$ mofo, but then he suddenly becomes Tarkin's major domo. Then Vader get's into his TIE fighter and again is a bad mofo taking out rebel pilots left and right. When we then get to ESB, he is pretty much pure evil throughout the entire movie. Then in ROTJ, he starts off being evil like he was in ESB, but then from the time the Emporer arrives until he dies, he is a big cry baby.

I understand that in ROTJ Vader is brought back to the good side and that is why he kills the Emporer, but if you are going to have a villian be a bad mofo in one movie, then make sure and do it in all 3 movies.
You obviously were trying to paste your own preconceptions about what a supervillain like Darth Vader should be instead of looking at what he really is. The character arc of Darth Vader from ANH to ROTJ works perfectly well given the progression of story events and revelations that he receives along the way. Spend a little less time projecting your own concepts upon the story and you'll see how well it actually works. :)


And Jt, I will agree parts of my argument were not as well thought out as they could have been, and I thank you for helping me understand the way things work here in the forums, for I am still learning the ropes here.
The way anything works well is to think everything through beforehand. It's a skill that far too many people fail to attempt, much less practice regularly. I look forward to future discussions with you. :)

DarthAngel
06-12-2005, 01:27 AM
Interesting, your line about "indirectly." So what you're suggesting is that I in fact do have something very specific to say and that your interpretation of my indirect thoughts is the MOST LIKELY scenario? Or have you left room in your hypothesis to allow for unlimited alternate scenarios and unlimited other valid opinions about my intentions? I eagerly await your response. :)

And here is my response piece by piece. You have no idea how open-minded I am. Belive me when you're queer you tend to be open-minded. I have never once tried to dissway someone from liking something or thinking a certain thing, just because I don't agree with it. What I am suggesting is that you have some rather interesting internal conflict going on stilla. You talk about people's opinion's being valid and such, and yet the way in which you organize your thoughts, words, and sentences say otherwise. You sure you never participated in politics on any level?





Adore? No. I wouldn't go that far. And if that's the way you color your view of everything I've said, I can see why your opinion of me is so flawed. All I've ever said is that the OT films are fairly solid in their storytelling and any hiccups that might be called into question are relatively minor and cause no significant strains on the plot. In contrast, the Prequels not only are problematic as stand alone films for a variety of certifiable reasons, they also conflict with established continuity of the films that came before them.

Well I would, and I did, and I stand by my convictions. The hiccups are minor huh? What about the fact that Boba Fett supposedly hates Han with such a passion, but when Boba is with Jabba at Docking Bay 94, how come Fett never tries to take Han out?



:confused: I've never said that. What I said was that if someone chooses to like or dislike something, that opinion is perfectly valid. What isn't valid is an opinion based on ignorance or faulty reasoning. That holds true whether we're discussing films or real life situations.

You didn't have to say it, it was implied by the words you chose.


You're putting words in my mouth. I'm guilty of liking all sorts of flawed films, it's just that I don't give as much leaway to the Star Wars films as I do other movies. If you want to rationalize or ignore problems in movies in order to enjoy them, be my guest. But don't expect to sit there proclaiming that the Prequels are perfect in every way without receiving opposition to that viewpoint.

No I am not putting words in your mouth. If I was, you would know. I am merely drawing my own conclusions based on other postings you have had up here in this thread and other threads, as well as what others have said to you as well.



Sure it was, because the Prequels are indeed "flawed." If they weren't, I would have said "perfect" instead. It is an entirely valid assertion to make.

Fine, its flawed, you happy now? I said it, I like the FLAWED PREQUEL TRILOGY! Now it never has to be said again that the Prequels are flawed.





You obviously were trying to paste your own preconceptions about what a supervillain like Darth Vader should be instead of looking at what he really is. The character arc of Darth Vader from ANH to ROTJ works perfectly well given the progression of story events and revelations that he receives along the way. Spend a little less time projecting your own concepts upon the story and you'll see how well it actually works. :)

Nope, not in the slightest Stilla. Never once in all the years that I have been watching Star Wars did I project my own concept upon the story. I formulated my own opinion, listened to and read what other people had to say about the character of Darth Vader, and came to a conclusion, and even after all that, while Vader is a very interesting, and complex character at times, I think it still sucks big time.



The way anything works well is to think everything through beforehand. It's a skill that far too many people fail to attempt, much less practice regularly. I look forward to future discussions with you. :)

You are absolutely right, but not many people would want to try and reason, and have what is supposed to be a friendly discussion, if someone continually talks down to them. But I forgot you talking down to people is you just being assertive in your convictions. Well let me make my assertions known. Kiss my *** It's obvious that we will never see eye to eye on this stilla, just like my professors that failed me. I have nothing further to say to you, or in this particular thread. Hope your satisfied stilla.

2-1B
06-12-2005, 02:50 AM
If you feel "dumb" because you choose to enjoy the flawed Prequels, that's your decision to make, not mine. :)

My enjoyment of this movie series would never in a million years lead me to feel "dumb." And I don't CHOOSE to enjoy something that I find flawed . . . but let's try it, let's test your theory:

I want to like the C-3PO hijinks in the Droid Factory.

Really, I do.

Trying . . . trying . . . trying . . .

I can't. :(

Sorry, I can't choose to like something that turns me off. Just as you can't choose to like midichlorians, Hayden, or any of a number of other components of the films.

Let's try it the other way, stillakid, and see how you like it:

stillakid, why do you choose to not like Hayden's portrayal as Anakin Skywalker? Why ? It's clear to me that Hayden did a fantastic job so why do you choose to dislike him ? Why ? I can't stop you from choosing to not like something, but you're free to not like whatever you want. It is entirely up to you if you want to not like the near perfectness of Hayden.

See how goofy that is ?


I've said this before and I'll say it again until it gets through everyone's heads, I could personally care less if somebody likes a part of the movies or the whole enchilada. A like/dislike opinion is entirely valid. All I've ever said was that these movies are inherently flawed and I and others have backed that assertion up time after time after time. That someone chooses to like something despite said flaws is really none of my business. :)

It's not your business ? Then why did you take up the cross and bear the burden of having to tell everybody else how wrong they are ? :confused: I come here to goof around, discuss the toys and movies, and when I discuss the movies I do so from my own perspective. I don't come out and tell people they are flat out wrong for not liking something. I will offer WHY I think differently and that's enough for me. Why isn't it enough for you ? Okay, so you believe that you and others have clearly outlined why the prequels are so flawed. Why isn't it enough for you to Know that ? :confused: It justs comes across that it is set firmly in stone that the prequels have been proven as inherently flawed, so any further discussion of them is at a disadvantage because you're just here to remind people that ultimately they are wrong, no matter how well the films work for them.

So why bother ? Why do you have to keep reminding people of what you've "proven" ? It almost has a creepy religious vibe to it. :D Do you take pleasure in deflecting praise of the prequels by filing any enthusiasm under superficial liking or ignorant acceptance of a bad movie ? :confused: 'Cause that's the way it comes across sometimes, and that's why I questioned the part about it not being your business what people like. lol

I've said this before and I'll say it again as well ;) , stillakid I really think you turn off many people to your arguments by slipping in your little jabs at prequels fans on the whole, as pointed out by DarthAngel. :)

Really, I'm not being sarcastic, but you might want to drop the whole "shoot the messenger" routine because it's not very convincing. I could type out a list of names of the so-called 'prequel haters' on this site whose anti-prequel opinions are welcomed by the 'prequel fans' and I NEVER see any of them take that same route that you do. So, in matters such as these, maybe there is a reason that the messenger is being shot ? ;) So anyway, why is it that JT calls you Mr. Charm (http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showpost.php?p=407312&postcount=3) ? lol lol lol

A counter example:
As many times as I disagree with JT (and there are many ! :D ) not once that I can recall has he ever replied to a discussion thread, stating his thoughts and opinions, and then adding the little jab that "hey you can choose to like whatever you like, no matter how flawed."

KPl
06-12-2005, 01:35 PM
1. The period of the Clone Wars is indeed more akin to our own Civil War in that you have those who feel the society of democratic staticism (TPM felt like Congress taking six months to decide to do something about Ethiopia during the famine) requires a direct cessession to retrieve a kind of 'States Rights' degree of immediate working autonomy. I could have _dug this_ if it had /ever/ been properly explained. As in having Ep.II center largely on Coruscant with enough political insider plays to make Obi Wan's comments seem more believable. Also, using megacorp type power blocks to represent what SHOULD have been 'noble ideals' (the whole scene where Padme says the Separatists have the right idea came out wrong, given what we all knew they represented and indeed how she had personally suffered at their hands) doesn't help separate the immoral from the moral struggle of later on. It just makes Dooku look like a git rather than a Che Guevera or VI Lenin. Which brings us to the latter days as The Rebellion sounds like more of what you would expect in a true insurrection if not revolution. i.e. if the mouse cannot outrun the elephant's trampling hooves, it will run up the trunk and proceed to eat it from the inside. In this, I think there is -some- wiggle room because we don't know how Leia and the others had fought their rear guard action to maintain some control in the Senate. But the plausibility factor remains small because, personally, I see no rational reason for the response to Palpatine's end-speech because it is always easier to believe in individualist heroes than it is to support a swaggering Big Stick Talks Loud endgame and it was pretty clear that the Jedi were too widely spread to be anything but victims. Probably the key element here (for the TV show) is the way the local systems continue to provide support while nominally under a military governancy. Because you cannot have shielded X-Wings destroying unshielded TIE Fighters using nothing but a popular uprising motif. That's like giving the Taliban F/A-22 Raptors.

2. I'll stick with what I have always said which was that the notion of the Clone Wars _is and always should have been_ about either a need to clone Jedi (to rapidly boost their ranks for the current conflict, obviating the requirement for a separate clone-troop infantry). Or their recreation as a Sith 'specialty' as assassins and rabble rousers, undermining the popular confidence in their 'divine right' to control the Galaxy. Using the notion that while you can copy the man or woman, you cannot infuse the new being with Force Properties. UNTIL the Sith discover how to replicate non-nuclear DNA or somesuch (Midichlorians:Mitochondrials).

3. Fantasy before SciFi.
Has always characterized Star Wars as grand opera rather than the dry 'engineer everything' approach of say Trekkian law (explanations for everything). If you 1+2 integrate a potential background of stultified social convention in which the KNIGHTS rule as a kind of federated feudal oversight (star systems instead of counties and sheriffs) similar to say the Russian Czarist period; then it becomes easier to see both why Jedi get along on reputation /backed by/ real temporal power (fleets and underlings). And why, when they start to fail in that role as they are called away to a WWI type environment which consumes them (fighting other cloned-Jedi of equal, AWESOME, powers. Forget the whole 'seduction' business, just make them evil right out of the tank) in large quantities, it could be seen that the population would begin to stir with Rosie the Riveter type realization that they don't NEED a lord or lady that is not present and accounted for.
You don't destroy authority by making it seem corrupt.
You destroy authority by taking away it's daily reinforcement of presence and then supplying an environment which encourages a sense of independence. Such 'rebellious provincial powers' then being what Palpatine puts down, brutally, once THEY have (somehow) turned on their overlords. i.e. Was it time for a change in the Star Wars universe? Or did the Jedi have greater wisdom of continuity than their plebian populaces could see? There would be SO MANY echoes with our own times fascination with even symbolic/figurehead (Royals of Britain) autocratic vs. the seemingly cold mechanization of a democratically generic world.

4. Anakin should not have become evil.
THAT was the surprise that Lucas didn't have the GUTS to pull off. Because it would have been so simple and so elegant compared to the contrived villainy, desperation and STUPIDITY that marked both his descent and the Jedi's inability to foresee/stop it.
Again, the whole notion of it being a CLONED JEDI WAR would allow this to happen on a "Bu-but Obi Wan said..." basis of filtered truths and experiential vs. disinformation biased perceptions of who Anakin was. And how he died. Heroically. Leaving only a clone to assume his memories, a clone that Palpatine had 'especially imbued' with Force Potential but who needed the IDENTITY of a warrior to focus that capability into a unique Sith Marauder type killing machine (fit to slaughter all the remaining Jedi and a _great deal_ more akin to David Prowse' original physique).

5. The whole business with child lovers was just _sick_. If you make Anakin and Padme say 17-19 (still younger than Luke but not so utterly drivelous in terms of a 9-year old barely able to reach let alone control a whipping control line on his pod racer) then you can make Epi-1 about how a bitter and DARKLY temperamental 'commoner' falls for the Anastasian princess who was far from elected but still too young on the royal inheritance line to ever be more than a Senatorial representative. Until the Dark-X threat comes to her world (I would have made Naboo into Alderaan just to make it's Core World political power more believable) and starts a Final Solution type genocidal attack which draws in the Jedi of other worlds, even as it leaves her, a genetically tailored leader, the sole inheritor of whatever remains. Under the regency of Palpatine. THAT being your 'in' to Senatorial power. In any case if Anakin finds pity for a sad girl in the royal he class-despises. And the girl finds kindness in a man who is more bark than bite, you can WORK THE TRAGEDY FACTOR (Will she save him? How can he be so foolish to give up such a love, simply because of some other 'social factors' betrayal?). Right from the start of the PT. More character depth from an older, homogenous (no blond to brunette, round face to chiseled soap star changeover) character arc was NEEDED to explain who Darth started as. Less innocent than unable (class again) to see into the political sphere in identifying who his true real oppressors were.
If you can do all this in TPM, then you can make the rest of series alternating murder mystery (dueling individual Jedi) as something other than the campy sounding AOTC (Fall Of Darkness being my choice) and let the final MASSIVE battles occur ala the Modoc Wars or Chief Joseph's Flight vs. the U.S. Cavalry as the Jedi are forced into a final retreat /from a popular revolts/ 'torch bearers at Frankenstein's castle'. Until they make a last stand 'in the lava fields'. This rather than Lucas' nonsense about the Jedi being 'hoodwinked by the shroud of the darkside' so that The Force itself looks like it is taking sides if not actually yielding to Palpatine's will rather than being an immutable energy constant whose USE determines it's 'flavor'. The name of this one would most likely be 'Forlorn Hope/Redemption' or some such as they gave their all to destroy the means by which their powers could _truly_ be abused (seemingly selfish but ultimately grand sacrifice) as the Cloning Society/Technology was utterly destroyed. And Anakin is found to be more of a hero than anyone thought.

6. ROTJ was a terrible movie. Namely because it didn't stick with the building pace of a Major Confrontation that put Jedi vs. Sith on the 'other end of the stick'. With the plotter now the big obvious target. And the clever Jedi the one who fulcrums the moment with his powers and his insight. The ways to go about this are again, to ISOLATE those moments which are basically _unimportant_ (the first third of the movie being a return to Tatooine was ridiculous bordering on criminal) and AMPLIFY those which are.
Ep.VI scene opens with the Door Droid getting ****y with LUKE. And then the door SLAMS upwards (or inwards) with the /casual/ power of The Force as his ally. And Luke walks to Jabba with 'his crew' holding open the way out. And standing directly over the trap door (which should NEVER have been 'previously indicated') Lukes says something like: "I have little time to spare Hutt. Return to me my companion and his debt will be repaid, force me to slaughter you and I will." Jabba bangs the trapdoor. Luke doesn't fall an inch. Everybody gasps and tries to draw weapons. Only to end up SMASHED against the wall (Boba Fett being spread eagled on the ceiling) where they collapse. Luke shakes his head sadly and you see his new saber just /appear/ in his hand, almost as if by teleportation it is so fast. And as the saber hisses into existence, Jabba roars. END SCENE, Luke is walking out with the others, Han thrown over Chewie's shoulder.
They ALL go to Dagobah. And Luke and Leia BOTH have 'their moment' as Leia tries to explain she loves Han and Luke 'understands' as a function of his bond with her (twins) or what Yoda tells him.
Then we do the fleet scene. And the Briefing goes on. And rather than follow things thru as we did with ANH (yawwwwwn), Luke stands up halfway through and says: "No. This is how it MUST be done." (Force 'suggests' an alternative, requiring Han and/or Leia to remain safe behind the lines).
And so the movie goes with the descent to Endor and Luke's capture 'as planned'. And it looks like he's got too-big-for-britches syndrome again. As he is captured by an even more Clever Vader (no Ewok /crap/). And put on the Shuttle to the Death Star. Here his intro to the Emperor is minimalist (again setting you up for the REAL character of Palpatine to be revealed in the PT) as there is a war to be won in the coming fight which Luke is 'aghast' to discover the Palpatine already knows about (or has pulled from his mind). And further because The Emperor has been Spanish-Inquisitioning Jedi Knights for a long time and KNOWS that the way to destroy a their will is to take away all the things 'more important than me' that they believes in and /then/ torture him into submission. The Rebel Fleet arrives and is held in place by _Interdictor_ class hyperspace null generators. And a massive battle ensues with things like the Rebel Transports acting as 'fire ships' to ram the bigger Star Destroyers with drive cores on overload so that masses of the smaller frigates and corvettes can get inside (pure Francis Drake/Nelson here). Yet the enemy is now fighting with TIE Avenger (Darth Vader TIE with Shielding) and has /so many/ ships that they quickly begin to lose. There is no el-stupido moment as Lando 'suggests' they will never get another chance (what chance if the Strike Team died the second they entered the system as would seem likely by the trap motif) because there is no way for the Rebellion to retreat.
NOW you see the 'POWER of the Jedi...' for their use of The Force is not that of electrical mayhem. But the seeking of knowledge and wisdom. One mark of which is that, just before the battle erupts, a SECOND Tyderium Class shuttle enters the system. And in it is the team which will release Luke Skywalker from his (Geonosis like stasis field) prison cell. And he will in turn LEAD THEM (protect as well as guide) to the Death Star beam control center. Which is what will be the doom of The Executor. And Vader and Palpatine will of course respond. But they are but shadows of their former selves. And Luke is a Jedi. Relentless, remorseless, POWERFUL, using The Force to drag them away from the shock team as he heads for the reactor core. While they isolate themselves behind massive 'moats' of satchel charge dropped floors and elevators which the Imps can simply not bypass.
And so it is that the final battle will indeed see Luke destroy both Palpatine and Vader. But the VICTORY will belong to the Rebels who destroy the Imperial Fleet using their own weapon against them. i.e. 'Doom' takes on a whole 'nother flavor when Luke turns nightmares of a rampant Death Star into a weapon turned against the hand that wields it.
For such is indeed the gift of the Jedi, to interpret the future and focus the obvious upon themselves /dealing with it/ (cleaning house) so as to -enable- the weaker but more subtle elements of those they are set to guard to find their own destinty, 'for the greater good'.

Unfortunately, Lucas can't write worth a darn. Can't direct well enough himself to have hand-held Marquand while personally doing the second set shoots. And lacks the editorial talent to keep things focused and DARK (no fuzzy wuzzy JTS crap, the Jawas were enough thanks) so that when the dawn breaks from deepest midnight of the soul, it shocks you, completely, with it's simplicity.

The final difference being that, t'were me, I would have made either Luke or Han die, sacrificially (blowing up the Death Star to keep its power out of anybody's hands), in such a way that the Jedi Legacy carried on through Leia's line so that nobody could mess up the What Comes Next (son of X) element with such bantha poodoo as the Yuuzhan Vong and their idiotic 'living technology' fetish. Again, to tint the glory with sadness and to shock you with how _easy_ it is, even for heroes, to pay the ultimate price for victory in _Star Wars_.


KPl.

stillakid
06-12-2005, 03:14 PM
And here is my response piece by piece. You have no idea how open-minded I am. Belive me when you're queer you tend to be open-minded. I have never once tried to dissway someone from liking something or thinking a certain thing, just because I don't agree with it. What I am suggesting is that you have some rather interesting internal conflict going on stilla. You talk about people's opinion's being valid and such, and yet the way in which you organize your thoughts, words, and sentences say otherwise. You sure you never participated in politics on any level?
Hmm, interesting. You're projecting your own incorrect interpretation of my motives and arriving at an erroneous conclusion despite my claims to the contrary...and sticking with it. Yet simultaneously, you are asking me to be more open-minded when it comes to believing what others say.

There most certainly is a conflict going on...but it ain't in my head. :ermm:







Well I would, and I did, and I stand by my convictions. The hiccups are minor huh? What about the fact that Boba Fett supposedly hates Han with such a passion, but when Boba is with Jabba at Docking Bay 94, how come Fett never tries to take Han out?
Case in point. Where in Hades did you ever arrive at such a conclusion: that Boba Fett "hates Han with such a passion." :confused: NONE of the films EVER suggest such a thing. This wouldn't be you projecting your own concepts about what you wanted to see onto what is really there, would it?





You didn't have to say it, it was implied by the words you chose.
There again you're using your own incorrect assumptions to back up an erroneous conclusion. There is no possible way anyone can defend themselves against unfair attacks if the attacker is relying on their own sense of interpretation. So "imply" away...but it won't make it true except in your own head.



No I am not putting words in your mouth. If I was, you would know. I am merely drawing my own conclusions based on other postings you have had up here in this thread and other threads, as well as what others have said to you as well.
And ignoring my own claims to the contrary? Nice.





Fine, its flawed, you happy now? I said it, I like the FLAWED PREQUEL TRILOGY! Now it never has to be said again that the Prequels are flawed.
What are you getting so worked up about? :confused: It's just a movie. :) Or did you have stock in Lucasfilm or something? :confused:







Nope, not in the slightest Stilla. Never once in all the years that I have been watching Star Wars did I project my own concept upon the story. I formulated my own opinion, listened to and read what other people had to say about the character of Darth Vader, and came to a conclusion, and even after all that, while Vader is a very interesting, and complex character at times, I think it still sucks big time.
I've never once heard what you've said about Vader in the OT from anyone else. You're definitely the first.





You are absolutely right, but not many people would want to try and reason, and have what is supposed to be a friendly discussion, if someone continually talks down to them. But I forgot you talking down to people is you just being assertive in your convictions. Well let me make my assertions known. Kiss my *** It's obvious that we will never see eye to eye on this stilla, just like my professors that failed me. I have nothing further to say to you, or in this particular thread. Hope your satisfied stilla.
Don't take your frustration with your professors out on me. :mad: This was a friendly discussion until a couple people here chose to take comments about the film personally for some reason. Relax, it's just a movie. :) And don't worry, nobody is grading you this time. :p

stillakid
06-12-2005, 04:08 PM
My enjoyment of this movie series would never in a million years lead me to feel "dumb." And I don't CHOOSE to enjoy something that I find flawed . . . but let's try it, let's test your theory:

I want to like the C-3PO hijinks in the Droid Factory.

Really, I do.

Trying . . . trying . . . trying . . .

I can't. :(

Sorry, I can't choose to like something that turns me off. Just as you can't choose to like midichlorians, Hayden, or any of a number of other components of the films.
Wait! WHoa whoa whoa. Who ever suggested that anyone should make the conscious choice to enjoy something that turns them off? :confused: Certainly not me. OBVIOUSLY we all find elements that "turn us on" that can exist within a greater whole, which is flawed.

If I'm reading this correctly, you think that I'm accusing you of believing that the Hayden performance was flawed but you like it despite that? :confused: While there would be nothing wrong with that, I would question it, as would anyone. From that standpoint, I've been asked innumerable times why I continue to like "Star Wars" when I "hate" (their word) the movies. Well, to begin with, that assertion is just flat out incorrect. I don't "hate" the movies. But just as much as I find to be wrong about them, there are other aspects which are enjoyable. :) I am able to find pleasure within something that is fundamentally flawed.

I believe that the obstacle here is that "you" don't see the films (or the performance, in this case) as being fundamentally flawed and I do.


Let's try it the other way, stillakid, and see how you like it:

stillakid, why do you choose to not like Hayden's portrayal as Anakin Skywalker? Why ?
For a couple of reasons. The first being something that Hayden had little control over: the script. The character was written in an uneven fashion having to do action and say words which frequently contradicted actions and words that came previous. These are assertions that can be backed up by a simple review of the screenplay and the film itself.

In terms of Hayden himself, it gets a bit more on the subjective side as critique of acting talent depends greatly on individual tastes. But in spite of the script given to Hayden, I feel that the character might have been given a better chance by another actor with a larger range and more experience. Hayden, to me, is a pretty one-note performer unable to express a wide enough range of emotions to portray the beginnings of the most infamous villain of modern times.


It's clear to me that Hayden did a fantastic job so why do you choose to dislike him ? Why ? I can't stop you from choosing to not like something, but you're free to not like whatever you want. It is entirely up to you if you want to not like the near perfectness of Hayden.
Your subjective opinion of a subjective aspect of critique. Now back it up.


See how goofy that is ?
No. But I see what you're getting at...and I would agree with you except that I don't always see adequate "evidence" to back up such an opinion (and I'm not necessarily talking about you personally). Likes and dislikes are a personal matter. But when we're talking about a craft that takes skill of some level (such as acting), there are benchmarks by which we can gauge and measure a performer against. And in my opinion, measuring Hayden against other actors who have come before him, he's not very good at it.




It's not your business ? Then why did you take up the cross and bear the burden of having to tell everybody else how wrong they are ? :confused:
WHOA! again. You think that I'm here to tell "everybody else how wrong they are?" Confused is right! I'm here to goof around, discuss the toys and movies and do it from an objective standpoint, except when I specifically make a point to express my like/dislike opinion about something.



I don't come out and tell people they are flat out wrong for not liking something.
When have I ever done that? :confused: I believe that I just got done saying that I could care less what someone chooses to like or dislike. You can't be "wrong" or "right" for choosing to like something. That's just silly. :) Well, unless we're talking about Nazis or something. :eek:



I will offer WHY I think differently and that's enough for me. Why isn't it enough for you ? Okay, so you believe that you and others have clearly outlined why the prequels are so flawed. Why isn't it enough for you to Know that ? :confused: It justs comes across that it is set firmly in stone that the prequels have been proven as inherently flawed, so any further discussion of them is at a disadvantage because you're just here to remind people that ultimately they are wrong, no matter how well the films work for them.
Yes, I see. You'd rather we don't express our conclusions because our conclusions are diametrically in opposition to the idea that absolutely every element of film is open for personal interpretation? That there are no "absolutes" and that every single interpretation and opinion is valid? :confused: I offered up a couple of great alternative perspectives (ie, Leia is a man in drag) that were summarily shot down because, apparently, they weren't backed up by events in the films. Go figure. :ermm: That's all "we've" ever done, yet I'm crucified while he who gunned down my idea gets a free pass from Prequel "Defenders." I can't remember who it was or which of the "attack stillakid" threads it was in, but it was definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.



So why bother ? Why do you have to keep reminding people of what you've "proven" ?
Because others keep discussing this stuff. :) I suppose "we" should just let it go and allow everyone to express themselves without commenting on it. Maybe that's a good idea. :) It'll be a new world...a fresh SSG with no dissenting opinions where everyone agrees with everyone else with a big ol' :classic: . Those discussions will be fun. :)



SSG MEMBER 1
Hey, remember that thing in the movie? That was cool! :)

SSG MEMBER 2
Yeah, I remember. It was cool! :)

SSG MEMBER 1
Okay...

SSG MEMBER 2
Okay...

SSG MEMBER 1
Um...

SSG MEMBER 2
Now what?


It almost has a creepy religious vibe to it. :D
Sweet, it's working! :evil:

;)



Do you take pleasure in deflecting praise of the prequels by filing any enthusiasm under superficial liking or ignorant acceptance of a bad movie ? :confused:
Um, now that you bring it up, and I've thought about it...yeah, I suppose I do. I mean, I don't really take perverse pleasure in it, the way you accuse, but I do suppose I do the second part...the bit about filing...yeah, that's probably accurate. But to be fair, I accuse myself of the same things...of enjoying what I know to be crap. I've heard that we're all entitled to a guilty pleasure. For some it's chocolate...for us, it's Star Wars. :) But the problem again here is that you don't view it as "crap" and are thus insulted because I start with that assumption. With that in mind, all I can ask is that you accept that all my critiques about the films will begin from that point and progress forward.


'Cause that's the way it comes across sometimes, and that's why I questioned the part about it not being your business what people like. lol
Like I said above, I don't derive any particular pleasure from "deflecting praise." If anything, it can get downright frustrating when others refuse to acknowledge the evidence that I and others lay in front of Defenders just to protect their "opinions."


I've said this before and I'll say it again as well ;) , stillakid I really think you turn off many people to your arguments by slipping in your little jabs at prequels fans on the whole, as pointed out by DarthAngel. :)
Well, I can't do much about that, can I? I mean, if I start out my thought process with the concept that the Prequels are fundamentally flawed, everything that follows will be in line with that. However, these "jabs" you speak of are "assumed," which Darthangel also says. Nowhere do I insult Prequel fans. That is an accusation based on an assumption by those who disagree with me. An assumption that is wrong. Once again, like it or don't like it. I could care less. :) It's not my money....it's George's! :beard:


Really, I'm not being sarcastic, but you might want to drop the whole "shoot the messenger" routine because it's not very convincing.
But unfortunately, it's true.


I could type out a list of names of the so-called 'prequel haters' on this site whose anti-prequel opinions are welcomed by the 'prequel fans' and I NEVER see any of them take that same route that you do.
And which "route" is that? See, some of you take this stuff way too personally and begin confusing my comments about the films with assumed comments about those who like them. There is a difference. The responsibility for how you and others react and interpret doesn't lie with me... :ermm:


So, in matters such as these, maybe there is a reason that the messenger is being shot ? ;)
Definitely there is! :) Because diehard fans don't appreciate someone coming into their "house" telling them that the object of their desire has flaws. But what's new? :ermm:



So anyway, why is it that JT calls you Mr. Charm (http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showpost.php?p=407312&postcount=3) ? lol lol lol

:D I suppose it's because I refuse to kiss up to people and "play nice" in the name of maintaining a friendly atmosphere. I'd much rather say what's on my mind instead of dancing around the tender sensibilities of others. Not everyone is accustomed to that sort of ....well, I'd say confidence, but you'd probably rather call it "aggressiveness." :) But in the end, it all comes down to telling the truth and not pulling back just so as to not hurt someone else's feelings. :cry:

Charm is for dinner parties and politics. We're just talking about movies and toys here. I'd just ask everyone to lighten up a bit. :classic:


A counter example:
As many times as I disagree with JT (and there are many ! :D ) not once that I can recall has he ever replied to a discussion thread, stating his thoughts and opinions, and then adding the little jab that "hey you can choose to like whatever you like, no matter how flawed."
So you'd prefer that I just thought it and didn't type it? ;)

VaderhitsJarjar
06-12-2005, 04:23 PM
I LOVE ALL SIX MOVIES!!!!

Ducks - runs n' hides

DarthAngel
06-12-2005, 07:34 PM
Hmm, interesting. You're projecting your own incorrect interpretation of my motives and arriving at an erroneous conclusion despite my claims to the contrary...and sticking with it. Yet simultaneously, you are asking me to be more open-minded when it comes to believing what others say.

There most certainly is a conflict going on...but it ain't in my head. :ermm:

You are lucky I don't stay quiet for long. If you re-read what I originally stated, I am not asking you to be more open minded. I simply stated that you have no idea how open minded I am. That is what I said. I said that seeing as how I am gay, you have no idea how open minded I can be. But because you are so full of yourself I can see how my talking about myself would sound like me telling you to be more open minded. What you call "confidence" I call arrogance.







Case in point. Where in Hades did you ever arrive at such a conclusion: that Boba Fett "hates Han with such a passion." :confused: NONE of the films EVER suggest such a thing. This wouldn't be you projecting your own concepts about what you wanted to see onto what is really there, would it?

Several books that I have read have explored the relationship between Han and Boba. Dare I speak the unspeakable words. I formulated my thoughts and conclusions from knowledge provided by Expanded Universe...But I suppose that's wrong too, ain't it Stilla?




There again you're using your own incorrect assumptions to back up an erroneous conclusion. There is no possible way anyone can defend themselves against unfair attacks if the attacker is relying on their own sense of interpretation. So "imply" away...but it won't make it true except in your own head.

It might also make sense to others who like the prequels. It might also make sense to others whom you have attacked in other threads. But what do I know? According to you Stilla EVERY CONCLUSION I MAKE, BE IT ABOUT YOU OR THE FILMS, IS WRONG.





And ignoring my own claims to the contrary? Nice.

Hey...do on to others as you would have them do on to you.







What are you getting so worked up about? :confused: It's just a movie. :) Or did you have stock in Lucasfilm or something? :confused:

I didn't have stock in Lucasfilm, but I saw how much you enjoyed saying that the films were flawed I thought you might get joy out of seeing someone who likes the prequels agree with you that the films are flawed.







I've never once heard what you've said about Vader in the OT from anyone else. You're definitely the first.

Well maybe I am the first, but just because I am the first person to think this way about Darth Vader, who happens to be my favorite character in the entire Star Wars saga, doesn't automatically mean that I am wrong.







Don't take your frustration with your professors out on me. :mad: This was a friendly discussion until a couple people here chose to take comments about the film personally for some reason. Relax, it's just a movie. :) And don't worry, nobody is grading you this time. :p


No one is grading me huh? Well Stilla it appears that you are grading me. I count 4 time where you have told me that I am wrong. You are right it's supposed to be a friendly discussion, but it is painfully obvious you have a problem with the ideas and feelings expressed by myself, Caesar, or anyone else who likes the prequels. You know that the things we don't like in others are the things we really don't like about ourselves. So can it be said that the reason Stilla you attack those of us who like the prequels, is because you like the prequels more then you will allow yourself to admit? I had a disagreement with JediTricks, on another topic, but he never once turned around and told me that I was wrong or that my conclusions were erroneous, the way you have done to me and several other people you have had issues with. Maybe you wouldn't feel so "attacked" all the time if you just got off your huffy bike, and learned how to discuss things on a level instead of just talking down to people as if though they are beneath you. I may only be 25 and may not know as much as you or other members of these forums, but I know when and how to tell when someone it talking down to me, and that is exactly what you are doing stilla. And this is not my way of trying to get you to be more friendly. Trust me when you spend 3 months in a body cast because 5 people you went to school with didn't like who and what you are and wanted to see you dead, you grow tough.

And just to make things a bit more clear for you Stilla, if you remember way back to when there were all these rumors as to who was going to play Anakin for AOTC, and when George picked Hayden, he clearly stated that he picked Hayden because of Hayden's ability to play rather dark and brooding characters (the classic troubled teen...might I suggest seeing 'Life As A House'). Besides with the exception of Sam Jackson, Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid (sp?), and Christopher Lee, George always said that he wanted a cast full of the unfamiliar actors, like he did with OT. But because you are so well versed in all that is Star Wars you already knew that.

stillakid
06-12-2005, 07:58 PM
You are lucky I don't stay quiet for long.
I feel honored. :)



If you re-read what I originally stated, I am not asking you to be more open minded. I simply stated that you have no idea how open minded I am. That is what I said. I said that seeing as how I am gay, you have no idea how open minded I can be. But because you are so full of yourself I can see how my talking about myself would sound like me telling you to be more open minded. What you call "confidence" I call arrogance.
If it makes you feel better, call it what you choose. :)









Several books that I have read have explored the relationship between Han and Boba. Dare I speak the unspeakable words. I formulated my thoughts and conclusions from knowledge provided by Expanded Universe...But I suppose that's wrong too, ain't it Stilla?
Well, if we're talking about the films, then yeah, that would be wrong too. But seeing as I apparently am incorrect about absolutely everything I've ever said and am arrogant about it, you are 100% correct in bringing Expanded Universe material into a discussion about onscreen canon. Congratulations! You Win! :classic:






It might also make sense to others who like the prequels. It might also make sense to others whom you have attacked in other threads. But what do I know? According to you Stilla EVERY CONCLUSION I MAKE, BE IT ABOUT YOU OR THE FILMS, IS WRONG.
Whoa! When have I ever "attacked" anyone in any of these other threads you're referring to? I want to see links to the specific posts you're referring to as well as specific highlighting when these "attacks" occurred.







Hey...do on to others as you would have them do on to you.Uh, it's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But I forgot that you're the infallible one here. My apologies. :zzz:









I didn't have stock in Lucasfilm, but I saw how much you enjoyed saying that the films were flawed I thought you might get joy out of seeing someone who likes the prequels agree with you that the films are flawed.
If you don't believe it, I don't want to hear it. That would be like Fascism. :eek:









Well maybe I am the first, but just because I am the first person to think this way about Darth Vader, who happens to be my favorite character in the entire Star Wars saga, doesn't automatically mean that I am wrong.
No it doesn't. But you used your extensive reading up on Mr. Vader as justification for your opinion. I merely questioned the sources for what went into forming your opinion as I had never heard similar. Then here we have your quote above suggesting that you may indeed be the first to think this way. What, no sources as you claimed before? Really, I'm open-minded about this. Enlighten me.










No one is grading me huh? Well Stilla it appears that you are grading me. I count 4 time where you have told me that I am wrong. You are right it's supposed to be a friendly discussion, but it is painfully obvious you have a problem with the ideas and feelings expressed by myself, Caesar, or anyone else who likes the prequels.
Problem? :confused: No. But I am allowed to question opinions, aren't I? I mean, you question mine, don't you? Why is it okay for you to question my point of view but I can't reciprocate? :confused:


You know that the things we don't like in others are the things we really don't like about ourselves. So can it be said that the reason Stilla you attack those of us who like the prequels, is because you like the prequels more then you will allow yourself to admit?
Yeah, that's it. :D


I had a disagreement with JediTricks, on another topic, but he never once turned around and told me that I was wrong or that my conclusions were erroneous, the way you have done to me and several other people you have had issues with. Maybe you wouldn't feel so "attacked" all the time if you just got off your huffy bike, and learned how to discuss things on a level instead of just talking down to people as if though they are beneath you. I may only be 25 and may not know as much as you or other members of these forums, but I know when and how to tell when someone it talking down to me, and that is exactly what you are doing stilla. And this is not my way of trying to get you to be more friendly. Trust me when you spend 3 months in a body cast because 5 people you went to school with didn't like who and what you are and wanted to see you dead, you grow tough.
Assuming the worst about me and my intentions and then turning around and attacking me personally based on your assumptions is "tough"? Okay. As long as I understand the ground rules here I'll play along. :)


And just to make things a bit more clear for you Stilla, if you remember way back to when there were all these rumors as to who was going to play Anakin for AOTC, and when George picked Hayden, he clearly stated that he picked Hayden because of Hayden's ability to play rather dark and brooding characters (the classic troubled teen...might I suggest seeing 'Life As A House').
If you check the archives, you'll find that I was probably the first person here to refer to LIFE AS A HOUSE in reference to Lucas's choice of Hayden.

But anyway, what's your point?


Besides with the exception of Sam Jackson, Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid (sp?), and Christopher Lee, George always said that he wanted a cast full of the unfamiliar actors, like he did with OT. But because you are so well versed in all that is Star Wars you already knew that.
As a matter of fact, I already did. But thanks for reminding me. :)

KPl
06-12-2005, 08:06 PM
>>

You have made it known that you don't like the prequels, nor will you ever, so why make the fans of the prequels feel like they are less of a Star Wars fan then you because of which films we like more or less?

>>

While I cannot speak for Stillakid, I can say for myself that it is because we came first and like all 'originals', we feel that there is a quality that needs continuity as more than a franchise name. In many ways this is our own fault because Lucas himself has _said_ that he wanted something of a Flash Gordon type feel which 'only the extant technology prevented' (and with those godawful chrome ships that look like copies of SR-71, B-2 and Ming's Yacht, he certainly came close).

While the rest of us grew up with a Star Wars that felt more like the 'tired side' of New York. A workaday world where the tech was real (greasy, dirty and used) and the people struggled to live out their lives in spite of rather than because they existed in a world of hyperspace travel and working magic etc. etc.

THAT was _real world storytelling_. No matter how much fantastical nature it added.
>>

I really don't think it needs to get through everyone's head Stilla. It is quite apparent that you adore the OT. For someone who said every opinion on these boards is valid, by some of the comments you have made, it seems to me that people either see things your way, or they are fools for liking something that you don't. You know I had a few professors like you, and they failed me for not seeing things their way. There again your insertion of the word flawed, was not really needed.

>>

Let yourself grow up a little more. Start to not only look for but _demand_ subtleties of expression on the parts of your actors. Look at Han 'waving off the whacko' in the Rebel briefing and try to find something that is equivalently classic in it's understatement rather than slapstick OTT "Oh my head!" in the Prequels.

At the end of that process, you may find that you are closer to your professors in ten years than you are today. Either way, at least you will have kept a 'here to there' historical log in your head as to why your beliefs HAVE REFINED (and they will, one way or another).

My bet is that, in a decade, PT'ers look back on the Annie and Padme 'melohama' like some kind of advertisement for soap and dismiss it as being just as flat and overhyped as any other commercialist crap.

OTOH, I can equally almost guarantee you that OT'ers will still be /spitting mad/ because it will in fact have been THIRTY YEARS since we last saw something worthwhile (and even in that, ROTJ acid rained on the parade).

>>

In my honest opinion, one of the greatest FLAWS in the OT is the behavior of my favorite character, not to mention one of the greatest villians ever, Darth Vader. When we first see him in ANH he is acting like one bad @$$ mofo, but then he suddenly becomes Tarkin's major domo.

>>

Agreed except that I always found the gargoyle mask and looming black body armor to be something of an affectation as a function of single combat warrior harda$$ and Darth in the TIE didn't do anything but shoot ducks in a barrel.

>>

When we then get to ESB, he is pretty much pure evil throughout the entire movie.

>>


Again agreed given that you see Vader as a _can do_ executive type person. A field operative that controls others by using his head, not simply before but in preference to his fist.

He lost some of that with the casual cruelty of offing Ozzel and Needa but he never lost his focus "Give me a goal and I will get it done..." motif until Luke chose suicide and he chose to let him fall (in the Novelization, Vader literally reverses the winds of the whole shaft to "See what you have lost..." show Luke the error of his assumptions).

My big complaint here is that I never understood the nature of the whole father:son deal. Shocking? Yeah, for about 2 seconds and then...whoopy.

Luke has never had a father and clearly was supposed to feel trapped by the uncle who stood in for one.

WHY then would he suddenly feel betrayed, less pure or in any other way 'ethically challenged' by the man who _JUST CUT OFF HIS ARM_ suddenly proclaiming a biologic link? Even as an exercise in "My name is..." association with a former (and most famous of all) Jedi, it just doesn't make sense for Luke to be ignorant of his potential bloodlink.

Yet in the absence of direct hero worship (the dream of what never was) I think people overstate the whole orphans-miss-the-filial-connection theme by yards and miles. I would have been MUCH more interested in Luke actually being (wild child) 'tempted' by the "But...Why?" of Light-Dark Force conflict of empowerment as a function of honest curiosity in (being trapped and having nothing better to do) so that he HAD TO listen to Vader's plea for assistance in killing the Emperor.

Much like Anakin himself was offered everything 'and a good cause!' by Palpatine at the end of the ROTS novelization (Imperial Apartments, Naboo as a homeworld, a Fleet of his own and "Oh by the way, Palpatine is a really bad guy but I no longer have the strength to defeat him...alone.")

Possibly even offering the potential of /changing the Sith/ as a function of getting rid of the assassination clause and the restriction from attraction (to Leia the unknown sister).

Of course even this goes right out the window when you are in agonizing pain because daddy just whacked off your hand at the elbow.

"What The Heck Was Mom Thinking?" then being the operative psychology I believe.

>>

Then in ROTJ, he starts off being evil like he was in ESB, but then from the time the Emporer arrives until he dies, he is a big cry baby.

>>

VERY MUCH in agreement. But again, I take it from Luke's angle and a genuine disgust for all the repetitive "I feel your thoughts, no I feel yours!" (even though I cannot see you with The Force or my imaging IR goggles)" back and forth verbal diarhea that passes for dialogue.

I mean COME ON PEPPLEZ!

Sidious is applying Force Battle Meditation to increase the efficiency of his own combatant forces in the deciding engagement of the whole war and at the same time he has loosed a wild cat in his shorts with a questionable bodyguard as his only defense?

Nuh Uhh. No Way Dude.

Put the little impudent brat on ice and then get back to him after the battle at hand is won.

There being FAR too much in the current pot (new Death Star, majority of Fleet, own Life) to be distracted by a mere non-crippled 'potential apprentice' who might sit in at a future hand.

Especially when you consider the psyop effect of letting Luke stew as his awareness brought him intimate knowledge of the Rebel's fading hopes and ultimate destruction. And then, when he has completely missed the superbowl of last battles, going to him with a little friend electroshock therapy, a death-by-firing-squad warrant.

And an alternative.

THAT is a master at work. Because a master strategist plays all the variables he can, right up to the moment where it's no longer a matter of the grand view but the enemy right in your face. Then he switches to hard linear tactics that deal with each threat or opportunity strictly in and of itself.

OTOH, again, from _Luke's_ POV, there is simply nothing there to engender a feeling of lost-puppy noblesse oblige to daddy.

I would understand why I didn't need the distraction (looking down at my artificial arm) while training so rebellion against Yoda and Ben makes no sense.

And I _frankly would not care_ about the status of Pop's soul. Because I never knew him. And because the hurt he has done to the Universe At Large (BILLIONS WITH A B WORTH OF SLAUGHTER!) requires him to die irrespective of my personal anger at his attack on me.

IMO, from ROTJ onwards, Lucas was too proud/jealous to admit he was better off letting the reins fall into more competent hands and so rode the glory of other's efforts thinking he could match them. Unfortunately, his method for doing so basically came down to opening 'the book of prescripted plot events ' and filling in a mechanical storyline without a HINT of choose your own adventurism ingenuity as he ended the OT in a full-on belly flop fashion that ruined much of the developing (actor skill as well as character drama) 'specialness' that the ANH->ESB progression had generated.

And yes, I fully believe that there is much to be said for seeing ACTORS grow into a role as the specific portrayal itself. Because it says much about the writer/creators views of the disparate hero/lover paths in Campbell's set of seven primary story arcs. And because it shows how much of a future they have as thespians outside their own first jouney down the path of crafted character study. BEING a Jedi was something that Mark Hammil never got to finally do in the Hero Path alternative to the Han+Leia romantic story.

Which ****es me off to this day.





KPl.

JediTricks
06-12-2005, 08:37 PM
Alright, that's enough of the personal stuff, if you want to have an argument about personality conflicts, take it to PM or email, this is a discussion thread about the topic, not the forumites. No more of the personal stuff at all, the end, go back to discussing the thread's original topic.

DarthAngel
06-12-2005, 09:05 PM
My deepest apologies JT.

KPI, I am glad we see eye to eye on the whole Darth Vader theory. I also agree with you about some of the other things you said. And I think you are right, about Vader in his TIE was just him shooting sitting ducks. That is a fair and valid conclusion.

JediTricks
06-12-2005, 10:14 PM
KPl, first off, I am shocked, SHOCKED, that anybody actually responded to anything in this thread after the free-for-all going on around here. Thanks for actually bring any content like that to this madhouse. Now, onto your actual comments.


The period of the Clone Wars is indeed more akin to our own Civil War in that you have those who feel the society of democratic staticism (TPM felt like Congress taking six months to decide to do something about Ethiopia during the famine) requires a direct cessession to retrieve a kind of 'States Rights' degree of immediate working autonomy. I agree, it does feel more like that than the OT.

Which brings us to the latter days as The Rebellion sounds like more of what you would expect in a true insurrection if not revolution. i.e. if the mouse cannot outrun the elephant's trampling hooves, it will run up the trunk and proceed to eat it from the inside. In this, I think there is -some- wiggle room because we don't know how Leia and the others had fought their rear guard action to maintain some control in the Senate. But the plausibility factor remains small... Again, I agree with you. My chief issue here is that in the Star Wars universe, the first thing that is established with the audience is that we are now in a period of civil war, so while the Clone Wars of AOTC and ROTS are more like a real-world civil war, I still believe they don't fit too well with the SW-universe "period of civil war" that had already been previously-established.


personally, I see no rational reason for the response to Palpatine's end-speech because it is always easier to believe in individualist heroes than it is to support a swaggering Big Stick Talks Loud endgame and it was pretty clear that the Jedi were too widely spread to be anything but victims. What end-speech are you referring to? If it's ROTS where Palps tells the senate he's turning them into an Empire, that scene bugs me because with only a slight change to Eps 2 and 3, Lucas could have made it so Palpatine ASKED them for the empire-shift and they were such suckers or so powerless or corrupt that they GAVE him that last step - this would have been better for me also because Palps could have immasculated the Jedi in the eyes of the public at large at this time as well as just demonizing them the way ROTS actually played out.


Probably the key element here (for the TV show) is the way the local systems continue to provide support while nominally under a military governancy. Because you cannot have shielded X-Wings destroying unshielded TIE Fighters using nothing but a popular uprising motif. That's like giving the Taliban F/A-22 Raptors. Dang, that's an excellent point, I give you big props for your socio-political take on all of this, way above my level. I think Lucas was trying to get at something like this with the holonet news website that was online during the ramp-up to AOTC's release, he let the writers explain what the military creation act was and why Padme and Bail were on the loyalist committee and why they didn't believe a centralized military was wise or necessary since local systems had their own militaries to deal with everything else (they hadn't had a widespread war in generations), that sort of thing gave the impression that the Republic Senate we saw in Eps 1 and 2 were not like the US Senate but more like the UN Senate and that Palpatine's trickery and manipulation with creating the Separatists is what changed all that - unfortunately, it wasn't really in the movie that way, so we got lip-service political comments more than anything.


2. I'll stick with what I have always said which was that the notion of the Clone Wars _is and always should have been_ about either a need to clone Jedi (to rapidly boost their ranks for the current conflict, obviating the requirement for a separate clone-troop infantry). Or their recreation as a Sith 'specialty' as assassins and rabble rousers, undermining the popular confidence in their 'divine right' to control the Galaxy. Using the notion that while you can copy the man or woman, you cannot infuse the new being with Force Properties. UNTIL the Sith discover how to replicate non-nuclear DNA or somesuch (Midichlorians:Mitochondrials). Even more good ideas about what the Clone Wars could have been. As for the Force-issues in cloning, I think there's even precedence for that in the Thrawn trilogy, though I don't remember the particulars. I myself have toyed with the idea that was floating around Lando during pre-production of ESB, that he was prince of a planet of clones, and perhaps that planet of clones repeatedly attacked the Republic back in the day until they were wiped out - simple yet effective.


If you 1+2 integrate a potential background of stultified social convention in which the KNIGHTS rule as a kind of federated feudal oversight (star systems instead of counties and sheriffs) similar to say the Russian Czarist period; then it becomes easier to see both why Jedi get along on reputation /backed by/ real temporal power (fleets and underlings). And why, when they start to fail in that role as they are called away to a WWI type environment which consumes them (fighting other cloned-Jedi of equal, AWESOME, powers. Forget the whole 'seduction' business, just make them evil right out of the tank) in large quantities, it could be seen that the population would begin to stir with Rosie the Riveter type realization that they don't NEED a lord or lady that is not present and accounted for. You don't destroy authority by making it seem corrupt. That is a very interesting idea, even before there were prequels announced, I often felt that Palpatine had turned the people against the Jedi and used that alone to bolster his power and let the people decide to destroy the Jedi, sort of like the way it played out in "The Last Samurai", and perhaps convincing Anakin to join him and give information Palps needed to aid in that plot without Anakin actually ever killing a single fellow Jedi, he just opened the door and "helped" the Empire wipe them out -- I suppose in a slight way ROTS does this, but it really doesn't track I think as those elements are more lip service, the clones already wipe out the Jedi by the time it goes to the senate, Palpatine declares it an empire without any further assistance from the senate, Palps lies with insane accusations about the Jedi trying to destroy all the senators which passes muster instantly without thought or need for Anakin to actually supply anything at all. It was only recently that I came up with that "immasculation" idea I mentioned above. Anyway, it's somewhat different from your idea since the Jedi I had were warrior monks more than feudal ruling Knights - I never thought of Jedi as wanting or wielding that sort of power but it does seem to track, especially if they really see themselves as guardians of peace and justice when in reality they're elitist royals (it's just that I personally would have a hard time buying it at first, I can't see how it'd be established quickly through the cinematic medium).


4. Anakin should not have become evil.
THAT was the surprise that Lucas didn't have the GUTS to pull off. Because it would have been so simple and so elegant compared to the contrived villainy, desperation and STUPIDITY that marked both his descent and the Jedi's inability to foresee/stop it.
Again, the whole notion of it being a CLONED JEDI WAR would allow this to happen on a "Bu-but Obi Wan said..." basis of filtered truths and experiential vs. disinformation biased perceptions of who Anakin was. And how he died. Heroically. Leaving only a clone to assume his memories, a clone that Palpatine had 'especially imbued' with Force Potential but who needed the IDENTITY of a warrior to focus that capability into a unique Sith Marauder type killing machine (fit to slaughter all the remaining Jedi and a _great deal_ more akin to David Prowse' original physique). I don't think I could have followed the story there m'self. I like the idea of Anakin not becoming evil, but I would definitely had it go a different route, Anakin being seduced by the idea that the Jedi have squandered their gifts and their duties with small vision, and eventually joined Palpatine in believing they to be above the Jedi, that they were ubermensch and the Jedi simply wasted too much time not taking care of what he and the Sith felt was the business of the superior man, becoming Nazi-esque. Then you have Anakin not realizing he's becoming a Sith, he just sees the Jedi as bugs beneath his feet who occasionally bite him and eventually have to be swatted.

As for your Anakin-Padme age change, that is an interesting discussion but I'm not sure how it fits directly in here, definitely worth exploring in a new thread though - I do see how you get to that on a second read and how it ties in, but I'm gonna save my responses for now.


This rather than Lucas' nonsense about the Jedi being 'hoodwinked by the shroud of the darkside' so that The Force itself looks like it is taking sides if not actually yielding to Palpatine's will rather than being an immutable energy constant whose USE determines it's 'flavor'. Damn, I love this point so much I'm going to embroider it on a quilt! :D


Your Jabba's palace ideas sound really cool, but I don't think it would have been enough payoff to have Han saved immediately after Ep 5's ending, there had to be a few points where we feel that he is in hot water for a while and we may not save his behind. Likewise, your solution to how ROTJ plays out seems a little too far afield for the Jedi we discover in ANH and ESB, turning it into more of an EU story that concentrates on the commando battle structure and (as yet unearned) nigh-infinite abilities of Luke Skywalker.