PDA

View Full Version : It's ok to not like the Prequels, to feel they aren't SW



JediTricks
06-11-2005, 12:17 AM
I know it's a controversial title, and surely this will become a controversial thread, but please hear me out, let me explain where I'm coming from. As someone who doesn't especially care for the prequels individually or as a whole story, I've come under a lot of fire from those who like it saying I somehow am a Lucas-basher or I don't really like Star Wars, stuff like that, in reality I think fairly highly of Lucas and think he did something really truly special with the Classic Trilogy, but I never felt he really duplicated with the prequels - I know a lot of folks have and that's fine for them, but as the prequels are now intertwined with the Classic Trilogy, I cannot totally ignore them when discussing stuff here on the forums the way I would the EU, the prequels have become too far ingrained within our hobby. Plus, I kinda like some of the toys, though I generally make my own scenes for them when I enjoy them.

Anyway, I've always felt the prequels were "different" and "not really what Star Wars was about", and that's been a sore spot between a lot of you guys and myself over the past 6 years, there's even an active thread in the Ep 3 forum yelling at anybody who doesn't agree that the prequels are mighty awesome are not valid SW opinions and should shut up - I suppose in some ways this thread is a rebuttal to that whole school of thought.

A few days ago, I finally cracked open my SW Classic Trilogy DVD set which I had bought the day it came out but couldn't bring myself to watch due to the changes (it wasn't a conscious decision, I'd just feel slightly repulsed whenever I considered it - not hyperbole), and noticed the irony that the box set title is "Star Wars Trilogy" rather than "Star Wars Classic Trilogy" or something equally division-oriented. More importantly, I watched ANH straight through with the commentary track, and felt very strongly that the things Lucas said throughout spoke to my "prequel dislike" feelings, so much so that I got my DVD-ROM drive working and transcribed the parts I felt were germane to the overall discussion of "to prequel or not to prequel" - it was an arduous, slow-going journey to say the least because Lucas talks fast and has a lot to say while I am not a particularly fast typist. The below comments are not in order, though I will include the entire comments I transcribed in their original order as an attachment (keep in mind this is absolutely not an entire transcription of Lucas's directors commentary from ANH, just exerpts I chose) - the style of language is entirely Lucas's as exact as possible. Ok, now down to the real business of this thread...

Lucas's original intent with the original Star Wars:

When I started writing the film, I originally intended it to be one episode of a Saturday matinee serial that used to play in movie theaters, and every Saturday they'd have a new episode of a particular story that would go on for a while and then it'd end in a cliffhanger and you'd come back the next week and see it again. It's sorta like what television is today. So when I started writing, the script got bigger and bigger and bigger, and longer and longer and longer. I worked on the script for about 2 years, doing a lot of research on mythology and mythological motifs and that sort of thing, and then when I finished it I realized I had almost a 200 page script, so I knew I couldn't make that into a movie, it was just too big and too complicated and way too long, but rather than cut it down, what I decided to to was simply take the first act of the film and make a movie out of that, but at the same time that I put the rest of the movie on the shelf to start working on this episode, I swore to myself that all that other work that I had done for a year wasn't going to go to waste and I would eventually finish the whole story, because the first part of the story doesn't have much to it, it's just an introduction of characters, originally it didn't even have the Death Star, the DS was actually at the end of the big script, but I felt I really needed to have that climax so I pushed it into this film, but the overall arcing story of Darth Vader, and the relationship of Darth Vader to Luke, and all that sort of thing, was too much to try to get into one movie.
What Lucas has said here is that ANH was always meant as the first actual story in the Star Wars saga, I highlighted some parts for emphasis and for those who wanted just the bare bones elements. Also, when Lucas talks about doing years of research on myths, he's talking about the Classic Trilogy story, there were no prequels that got any research of that level, and I don't believe the prequels ever do come close to tapping into that part. Some prequel fans may argue that it's not important to all of this, but Lucas himself says that it's at the core of why Star Wars exists:

My original inspiration on this film was really to use mythological motifs to create a whole new kind of myth that was very updated and contemporary, so I used the Saturday matinee serial as my vessel to put this barrel of mythological motifs together.
One might argue that the original Star Wars script looked nothing like the OT that we have now even though Lucas has already said otherwise (above), and that the prequels were the original starting point. However:

When I originally wrote the screenplay for this episode, it was very much like it is now (this is during the Leia being brought to Vader scene aboard the Tantive IV - JT) which is that the story starts with Princess Leia and Darth Vader and sets up the premise of the movie which is their stolen plans to a Death Star, but once we get past that little piece of exposition, we follow the 2 most insignificant characters - which are the droids. And this was an idea I was enamored with that was used by Akira Kurosawa in the film The Hidden Fortress - where you take the least important characters and follow their story in amongst this gigantic, intergalactic drama that's going on around them that they don't understand.
Keep in mind, Lucas has already said that ANH is supposed to be the first episode and he broke them up into 3 parts, here he's describing an exact element of that first part which is similar to the beginning of ANH. The quote also has the distinction of showing that the prequel idea of R2 and 3PO being more important than they are is not the original intention, R2 was never meant to see it all and have grand historical knowledge and 3PO was never meant to be built by Anakin.

Lucas says what he originally was planning to do with Star Wars before ANH originally came out and became a success:

I was a struggling director, I had just made my first successful film, I thought I sorta had my one success in life which was American Graffiti, and so I was just going from movie to movie and then by the time I finished this film, and I had never expected this was gonna go anywhere, and I figured my struggle was going to be to try to get the other 2 made somehow, borrow, beg, steal the money to, you know, go and make a movie after this one was not that successful.
He specifically says right there that even when ANH was about to be released in theaters, his goal was to make ESB and ROTJ, the prequels weren't even a glimmer in his eye. One might say that the prequels were in the mind there to some degree, and they'd have a point, but the degree was small and only a tool to write the actual story, as you'll see here:

When I wrote the original screenplay I had written a backstory for all the characters so I knew where they came from, and since I was starting this whole thing in Episode 4, I had to know kinda where all these characters came from and how they fit together and what the story was, so that was written up in a outline form with brief descriptions of who everybody was and where they came from, I never really intended it to be turned into a movie, but now its the basis for the... for Episode 1, 2, and 3, which tells you how Obi-Wan got here in the first place (this is said during scene where Ben and Luke are talking in Jundland Wastes, before looking for 3PO - JT). I had the outline so I kinda knew how the dots connected, but then there's a whole story that has to fit around that, you have to sorta make, turn that into, you know, another 6 hours of film (chuckles) when all it really is is just a little backstory of what the Jedi were like and what the Republic was like and what the relationship of Obi-Wan and Darth Vader was and, and obviously Luke & Leia's relationship to Darth Vader and, the Emperor, what is the empire. The thing about making a movie like this is you have to create a whole world - in this particular case I guess it's a whole universe - but all the customs, all the politics, all the history, all the character motivations, everything has to be created, and since it's based on a very kinda old story and not a high-tech story it's more of a fantasy film than a science-fiction film. I was able to use archetypes which helped develop the characters and put them in a context where they could be easily-grasped, because they are traditional characters that are easy to understand, I felt that was important in a movie like this because if you're in a really bizarre, strange environment, if the lead characters have emotions and motivations that are very very familiar to you, then it's very easy for you to grab onto something in the movie and make sense out of it. And this is the same story that has been told a thousand times around the world for several thousand years.
Here we have a lot of interesting points, most of which Lucas makes in a single, very long, run-on sentence which was amazingly difficult to transcribe. ;) Lucas says that there really was not anything of a story written, just little backstory aspects to help flesh out what would become the Classic Trilogy. Lucas says he always had Vader as Anakin and Leia & Luke relationships worked out, I am not sure how true that is really though, it challenges my beliefs on that topic, but that's not relevant to THIS discussion.

Lucas also says something which may suggest the prequels are about Obi-Wan, which I have often felt should be the case, but I may be reading too much into that - it's interesting though.

Something else Lucas touches on is his use of archetypes for the classic Star Wars characters, he makes a good argument about why he uses them and why it's important, but I don't think the prequels have any archetypes in them and instead base its characters off of establishments and developments of characters that came in the OT through various stages of its process. This is something a lot of wiser folks than I have touched upon here before, but I never totally got it until now, the prequels are supposed to be the start of the story but significant parts are based on parts of the saga that are supposed to come LATER.


Below, Lucas touches on his inspiration and the feelings he wanted to convey when he made the original Star Wars:

My introduction to Kurosawa's films were very powerful because it happened in film school and I knew very little about Japanese history at that point, and when I would get thrown into something like 'Seven Samurai' or 'Yojimbo' or 'Ikiru' or any of the movies, it was like, I had no idea what was going on, but I could follow the human story, but the culture was completely complex and oblique - and I liked that! I liked that feeling of being thrown into an environment, you know, trying to get my bearings, and still be able to tell a story in that environment that made sense, that you weren't so confused that you just couldn't follow it. And in terms of fantasy films and everything, I can't stand it when you sit around and try to explain how a teleporter works or why. You know, it's just not what the movie needs to be about.
I've already commented about that last part as it applies to Midichlorians in another thread, but the whole comment applies to a lot of prequel elements, overall storytelling and specific plot points, they feel different because they're not successfully conveying that same feeling. Lucas is downright passionate about this, he LIKES that feeling of being thrown in and latching on to the human story only, but in the prequels I don't think he gets that right, if he's trying at all.

Here, Lucas goes into more depth about what I just mentioned, as well as why the classic Star Wars was meant to be an "Episode IV" without previous episodes:

when I first made the film, the studio was adamant that I not put "episode 4 - a new hope" on it, because they said people would be completely confused by it since there is no other star wars films, and so, when it was originally released in theaters, that part of it wasn't there, it wasn't until after the film became a big hit that I was able to put it back on.

The story is ultimately about Princess Leia (in the course of this commentary track, Lucas has pinned the story on Luke, R2-D2, both droids, Luke and Leia, Vader, Obi-Wan, and now Leia alone - most of those, I did not bother to transcribe because they weren't germane to this discussion - JT) and her attempts to destroy the Death Star as a Rebel leader, and the boys kinda just tag along on her adventure, and this particular film you don't really understand all the relationships between everybody and where everybody came from, but I was very keen on making a movie that was like watching a foreign film where you just didn't know the world you were in, you didn't know what was going on, you didn't know the politics, you didn't know anything, and nothing was explained to you, so you simply were thrown into this world and there's an adventure going on and you have to kinda... get with it, as opposed to a traditional fantasy film where they spend a lot of time sort of explaining everything. Unfortunately, now I'm in the position of having to explain everything. One of the fun things to me about this movie was that I was making it "Episode 4", which is why I was so adamant about having that on the film - it's ironic that I was wanting it on the film to explain why I haven't explained anything, and the studio was afraid to advertise it that way for fear that they would say "well where are the other movies? I don't know", they didn't know how to sell it. But the concept here was all the stuff has happened and you're never going to know about it, that was like 2 weeks ago on Saturday, you didn't come to that one and your friends didn't see it, then you just wouldn't have any clue of what they're talking about, you know, "'we meet again and all,' well that was in episode 3" - and it never was intended that you'd know what that was, and it's, it's, it's fun now for me in a way to be able to do the first 3 stories so you can, you know what some of the things that are going on here, but this was always intended to be a kinda "what in the world is going on in this movie?!? I don't understand." But in one way it all makes sense, you can sorta follow it, but in another way most of the information is not there at all, and that's a particular case of the confrontation between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader, you know there's something, some relationship they have to each other because they talk about meeting again, and the problems, and "now I'm gonna get you," and all this kinda stuff, so there's some kind of old battle going on here that we don't know anything about, that, is, um, works amazingly well considering that all it is is ultimately this one scene between him and Tarkin (that's the scene we're seeing at this point in the commentary - JT) where he says here "he's come for me, it's our destinies to meet up again, and I'm gonna handle this myself, I have to."
Lucas says he's having fun with the prequels, and that is all fine and good, but the bottom line is still that the very idea of the prequels is in direct contrast with the classic Star Wars, the prequels defy the point of Star Wars, and I think this is the main division where you get the 2 camps, prequel-likers and prequel-dislikers, how could you not really? But I think that speaks to why the prequels and the OT do not go together, they are going after 2 different goals where the prequels defy the goal of the OT, since the OT was made first they must always be at odds because the prequel series was made later and becomes the odd man out. That also makes Lucas's attempts to alter the OT to fit the prequels that much more baffling, how can you make something which goes against the very nature of what you're basing it, and then take the original and twist it to fit the new creation? How does that not fly in the face of the original's intent?


Ultimately, with this thread I do not want to impact YOUR enjoyment of the prequels in any way, consider that if you feel these comments have done so it could be because Lucas's words and intentions have changed your mind, that the change comes from within you. But honestly, I do not want converts, I am not looking to change anything except the incorrect perception that those such as myself who do not like the prequels and say they are not what Star Wars is about have no valid reasons to feel that way and are not Star Wars fans - nothing could be further from the truth, I certainly would not continue to waste my precious free time on the forums if that were the case, and in large part my discussions about the prequels are an attempt to get into the mind of the prequel-likers, see why things that don't work for me DO work for you, try to figure out what if anything is missing.

To everybody who has read this oversized post, thank you for your patience and open-mindedness.

2-1B
06-11-2005, 12:37 AM
Sometimes when I come to this site I feel talked down to, as if I'm a fool for being a fan (for the most part) of the new films.


there's even an active thread in the Ep 3 forum yelling at anybody who doesn't agree that the prequels are mighty awesome are not valid SW opinions and should shut up

Which thread ?

JediTricks
06-11-2005, 12:40 AM
The thread entitled: I'm So SICK of Prequel Bashers and Lucas-haters!!!!!!! http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?t=28622

You must know it Caes, you're the second-largest poster in it with 8 posts, second only to Mr Charm himself ;), stillakid, with 12.


What do you think, should I move this thread to the Prequels section? I may be too close to it and am not really sure which section it applies to more, it says more about the OT but the content is meant to apply to its relation to the PT.

rbaumhauer
06-11-2005, 12:56 AM
JT - Bravo! I'm not sure if I've actually made it all the way through any of the OT DVDs, just because my girlfriend has to be in just the right mood to watch them and I've seen them all so many times that it's hard to just sit and watch by myself. I know I haven't listened to the commentary tracks with anything like the attention you obviously paid, and you've made some really excellent points, especially given that they come directly from Lucas himself.

It's amazing to realize that he knows what was so fun about the original movie - that lack of information and having to just go along for the ride - but still decided to make the PT in a way that completely destroys that feeling. As many of us have been discussing in various other topics, in order to really succeed on their own and not destroy most of what made the OT so special, the PT really had to exist for some reason other than to fill in the backstory that we already "knew" as well as we needed to. And Lucas, by his comments about "Episode 4" and its origins, seems to know this as well as anyone.

To quote Andrew Rilstone, who wrote the most elequent essays on why the OT (particularly the first film, for him) was so magical in its effects, and why the existence of the PT in its ca. 2002 state was so harmful to that original story:

"The original movie was abstract and non-specific, and therefore it colonized the day dreams of a whole generation of children.........The prequel trilogy, on the other hand, is specific and crowded; and therefore, it will colonize the day dreams of no-one at all."

and

"The prequel trilogy is supposed to provide a backstory for the originals. But the original films had their own back story, and it was a good one...........Clear, coherent meaningful, and infinitely suggestive. Once upon, on a farm, there were two brothers, Owen and Anakin. One day, Ben the wizard came along, and asked them to become Jedi Knights and fight against the evil empire. Anakin went, but Owen stayed at home. Anakin had a baby son, and he left it with his brother to look after. Anakin was the best star pilot in the galaxy, and a good friend to Ben. He was not, in any sense, the messiah or the saviour of the universe. Ben also had another young apprentice, Darth. Darth was jealous of the master's hotshot new apprentice. He was consumed by the Dark Side of the Force, and murdered Anakin. He betrayed the Jedi to the evil Emperor. The dying Anakin gave his lightsabre to Ben, to pass onto his son. But when Ben goes home, Owen won't accept the lightsabre, and won't even tell the boy how his father died. The boy grows up in ignorance of his father, even though the scar on his forehead is purely metaphorical. And then, one day…

This is rather a good story, and its existence is an important part of the original power of Star Wars. The main purpose of Phantom Menace is to annihilate it: to make us forget we ever even imagined it.

I mourn its passing."

Lucas clearly knows this, and yet still made a new trilogy of films that destroys that feeling in the original movies. Why would any artist who seems to understand very clearly the reasons for his past success, set out to make a new work that will do nothing but undercut the strengths of that original work? It makes no sense, but that's precisely what Lucas has done..........

Rick

darko666
06-11-2005, 01:25 AM
JT, excellent post. After reading Lucas' commentary on IV, It seems as though he did this when he wrote the PT. Maybe not all the commentary, but some of it. This further goes into my conclusion that Lucas did not have a well planned out PT in his head when doing IV. He might have had some back story, but it's nothing like the PT except for some small points. But I tend to just watch(if i'm in the mood) the PT and take it for it's own trilogy, that has nothing to do with the OT.

Honestly, we didn't need a PT. I liked the idea of just imagining what could have been in the old times in SW before the OT. When they had certain dialouge between characters it would make you think, but now that the PT came out, it either gave it away or changed it in a dramatic way. That took the fun out of watching the OT.

And for Lucas to go back and change the OT just to claim he didn't do it the way he wanted to, is a crock. But i will let the Special Edition slide, but then to go back once again and add elements into the movie just to coincide with the PT is simply wrong. It ruined the OT by connecting it to the PT. Lucas tried to hard to make up for the mistakes he made with the PT by not connecting them well enough. Thus, he ruins the classic trilogy. But this is my opinion.

I can watch the PT and not link it to the OT and somewhat enjoy it. As i stated many times before, i like TPM, minus a few bad characters/scenes. But overall it's better than the other ones. Now I fell Lucas did not have it in him when making the PT. As stated, he was having fun making them. Ok, good. But what about character development and a story that carries over to the OT. Instead we got a trilogy that leaves more questions to be asked and leaves viewers(not all) confused and baffled at what he did wrong. Granted, we can see the faults, but we are more confused as to why Lucas didn't acknowledge the OT and even take the time to watch them a couple of times to get a better idea of what he should do in the PT.

In simple terms, GL missed the "boat" he built and was left to build another one out of twigs and some twine. But i like where this thread is going, it should make for some great discussions and rants between members. good job JT. and when I bought the SW dvd set, i was hesitant to watch them, but i had to see how GL could have ruined a classic. and i was not surprised at how well he did...ruin it that is.

2-1B
06-11-2005, 01:59 AM
The thread entitled: I'm So SICK of Prequel Bashers and Lucas-haters!!!!!!! http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?t=28622

You must know it Caes, you're the second-largest poster in it with 8 posts, second only to Mr Charm himself ;), stillakid, with 12.

Oh yeah, that one. lol
I remembered it when I found it again after posting in this one. (your thread came up before that other one under New Posts :) )

Well, in that case then, I'm going to give myself some credit there because I was the first to post in it and I suggested that we steer away from the whole "us vs. them" or "OT Faction vs. PT Faction" types of schism.

Anyway, I don't think everybody should just automatically enjoy the prequels "Because They Are Star Wars." If you don't like it, that's cool. I'm sorry that you don't, but it's cool. :cool: I consider myself to be slightly above average intelligence levels (my friend Jim Jam Bonds might confirm or disconfirm that, I can't really be sure of his opinion :crazed: ), I'm college educated, and I can tell you when I like a movie or not and WHY I liked it or not.

It pains me to see Prequel Fans dismissed as "video game junkies" or "ignorant of a good story" or "apologists for Lucas" or any other such jabs because I do not fit any of those descriptions. What can I say, I love . . . . probably 90% . . . of the Prequel stuff. Shoot me. lol


What do you think, should I move this thread to the Prequels section? I may be too close to it and am not really sure which section it applies to more, it says more about the OT but the content is meant to apply to its relation to the PT.

Well, considering we don't have a specific Prequels Section but rather 3 sections devoted to each film as opposed to one section for the Almighty OT . . . I'd leave it here. lol lol lol

Really though, you're starting this thread from the POV of an OT fan but not a PT fan, so I think it fits here just fine. :)

sith_killer_99
06-11-2005, 02:01 AM
Well, I am neither a basher nor a defender for the Prequels.

George Lucas has said that these are very different films. Though, he has said a lot of things that tend to contradict themselves from time to time.

Let me say that:

1. I love the OT, it was magical and without a doubt it inspired the imagination. Are Stormtroopers just regular guys under that armor? Are they robots? Are they Clones? What were the Clone Wars? Who are these Jedi and what are they all about. What happened to Darth Vader? And on and on.

2. I love the PT, for very different reasons, though not as much as the OT. The PT had lots of action. It had incredible FX. We get a lot of answers we were wondering about. Is it still Star Wars, yes, is it completly different, yes.

3. I do not like the way GL recut the OT to fit the PT. It just didn't need it IMO.

Here's the way I look at it. You have 2 different stories about some of the same characters. Now, if I read 2 different stories written about some of the same characters from a different perspective I am going to get 2 very different things! A classic example of this is Ann Rice. In "Interview with the Vampire" we have the story of Luis. Ann Rice sets the stage for LeStat and other characters. However, in "The Vampire LeStat" we see a totally different character than the one we thought we knew, LeStat is nothing like the one from "Interview with the Vampire". Now, granted, that example is easier to follow because we are changing perspectives from Luis to LeStat. With the films we see a change in style. So yes, these are very different films.

I appreciate both and saw no need to go back and re-work the OT. They worked fine as stand alone films, just as the PT worked fine as stand alone films.

I agree with a lot of what JT says, except I like the PT. Are they different, yes. But where was GL to go with a new set of films? Rehash the OT? Maybe, but he didn't and I'm OK with that, I always have been.

Look, I seldom get into these OT vs PT debates because to me it's like comparing apples to oranges...what's the point? I like both. My only concern was when GL started pouring orange juice into the apple juice. Some of the changes GL made to the OT were fine IMO, adding stormtroopers, TIE fighters, a better Jabba, etc. but seeing Hayden in the OT really turned my stomach. :dis:

I like the PT, Hayden did a fantastic job in EPIII IMO, I never knew he had it in him. Ewan McGregor was phenomenal in all 3 films! I enjoyed watching all these Jedi running around kicking butt. Did the PT stir my imagination like the OT, no way, but they are both fine trilogies.

Rocketboy
06-11-2005, 04:16 PM
Wow, great post JT!

I agree with much of what sk99 said.

I've always seen the PT for pretty much all it is - the back story for what happens in the OT.
I love the PT, but the OT will always be more fun, more "Star Wars," than the PT ever could have been.

Rogue II
06-11-2005, 05:12 PM
Good job, JT.

I try not to bash the PT, but I just can't get into them.

Bel-Cam Jos
06-11-2005, 06:01 PM
Someone here on SSG posted in the "Jabba's Skif Guards" thread in this Classic Trilogy section that he felt the OT was more in a fairy tale style, whereas the PT was more Shakespearean/Greek tragedy style. I agree. The Star Wars movies were an escape, and even the PT has been an escape. Are the two the same? Well, in some ways, yes, and in others, no.

Same:
Obviously, the characters and universe are the same. While there are changes due to new technology in our real world, it's basically similar. The energy and sharp-witted dialogue (even if it's not the most gripping, seriously delivered wording) remain. More subtle allusions to "reality."

Different:
We know the characters and the universe, but we don't know ALL about them, so the PT filled in gaps (some gaps we thought were filled but became open). The Jedi are more active. The connections to our "reality" seem more obvious, but I attribute that to the explosion of information today.

Do I like all the films? Yes. I rank ROTS as #2, and ATOC #3 behind ESB. I know that a story needs a slow, deliberate beginning to develop the tale, so the 1st and 2nd episodes do move a tad slower than ANH (but not by much).

KPl
06-11-2005, 10:53 PM
While I agree with the spiritual mysticism being better off 'imagery experienced and detail unsaid' in it's dramatic appeal, I don't frankly care what GL has to say about something so grand in the OT that he has butchered so completely in the PT.

Indeed, I knew we were headed off the rails when Ep.VI was so poorly rendered but Ep.III 'as a justification' for the OT is nothing for what it says in and of itself as a senseless piece of gratuitous murder bordering on slasherific. Indeed, /any/ film where you have kids being butchered for the sheer "It must be darker!" character contrast (selfish becomes insane, wow what a surprising journey) gives no 'deeper meaning' so much as proof of the pablum that was TPM and AOTC.

I have also read the novelization and find that it explains more but is even shallower for the _value_ of what it has to say. Anakin the 'tortured youth' (27? Grow Up Son) feels hurt that he cannot save the world and is afraid of his pet dragon and doesn't like the thought of his pregnant wife dying so... he trusts the man who took his arm, his replacement Father Figure and whose war has been the most likely reason for his 'not being there' to save his wife (grow a brain bucko).

Even at a ready-resource level (Hands or Dark Jedi, whatever) the notion of murdering novitiates that could just as readily be seduced to become the focal point of a new Sith Army (as indeed Tyranus/Dooku wanted) made ZERO sense.

In fact, ALL of it just _reeks_ of a Hercules Poirot type 'meat at the last' mystery where you get a bunch of data at the very end without which there is no hope of solving the conundrum, proving that the author is a talentless hack for his inability to answer complex psychologic questions earlier on (why Jedi who have been doing this for 25K years don't have a clue about child psychology sufficient to 'unlearn' a spoiled petulant BRAT, for one) with a bit less browbeaten lack of subtlety.

That said, what REALLY IRKS ME is twofold:

1. Who, As Why.
Among the many and varied attributions "It was really about him/her/them..." for story arc (or justification of presence), one of the most demeaning was the notion that it was always about Anakin/Vader as some kind of Hulk-does-Hyde fall and redemption. Yet let's get this straight: Anakin hates being enslaved so he enslaves BILLIONS, with a B. Hates death. So he kills BILLIONS with a B. He is, in effect, Reinhardt Heydrich for Sidious' Hitler. The latter is just a chump (he certainly dies like one) who needs no special sacrifice on the part of all those trampled lives to kill him as a Darkside Vergence of Force power. Yet if Vader has no grand 'Paradise Lost' purpose in being a Jedi or falling from Grace as a function of theologic politics, then you are left with the notion that The Galaxy As A Whole would have been VASTLY better off if he had remained a simple slave. And that is ugly beyond despicable. As is the notion of The Force imbuing him with enough mana to be attractive as a potential Jedi (yes, I realize there is a potential linkup with Plagueis' supposed special abilities). It's all just SICK because it makes all the tenets of The Force less a function of chosen fate than absolute moral avatars and no-way-out psychoses of contrived convenience.

2. The Jedi are PATHETIC.
I could understand an old man and a cripple. But the entire Arena 'rescue' scene and indeed most of the Naboo 'duel of fates' crap simply highlights how /massively/ unimpressive these so-called 'Knights' really are.
A. You do not wear monks robes in combat. Anything which 'flows' sufficient to inhibit your feet or you shoulder cuff rotations is a BAD IDEA. I accepted it in ANH because it made Obiwan look like an old cook and it gave you /something/ of a Bedouin/Bursid type motif. By ROTJ it was just...ick.
B. You DO NOT abandon your mission (living deflector shield and tactics advisors) to duel a single Sith. Indeed, when that door opened up and none of them simply SHOT the satanic clown right in his smirking teeth, the numerous errors in the rest of the so-called 'commando raid' became just so much idiocy.
C. There are THREE PERIODS of proper 'rescue' in a hostage recovery operation: When they are first taken and everything is fluid. After they have gotten settled in but -before- they become antsy with boredom and tension. And when somebody or chosen group is being butchered, as a mechanism for distracting and isolating the bad guys from the rest of the saveables. In ALL THREE CASES you /never/ go in without a fluid egress plan also in place. Yet here is this grand poobah (Mace "Get Me My Lightsaber It's The One That Says 'BAMF' On The Grip" Windu) who doesn't even _start to move_ until after the people he's come to save have been at the mercy of the animals for MINUTES. And when he does, there is no sense of 'you get the hostages, you contain the beasts, you cover all the tiered balconies, you hold open the egress route.' Even a 'Constable' (which is what a keeper of the peace comes down to, according to Webster) would have sufficient awareness of SWAT type tactics to be more capable (and certainly armed with superior weapons or ranged Force Powers). Jump In, Jump Out, Get to the Dustoff, Total Contempt Of Engagement for enemy Main Forces (never saw a droid leap 40ft straight up, did you?).

ARGUMENT:
I didn't expect much from the PT. Because by the time Ep.IV came around, I was utterly sickened by the cheap as opposed to childlike turn the story and directing had taken. But what I wanted was deep insight into what made these Jedi the single potent glue that held together an Camelot type environment. And that died almost the very instant the two Jedi came aboard the Nemoidian ship without 'worry one' (and certainly no plan of action).

I KNEW that it could be bad when I considered the likely options for 'how you kill a society of precognitive, clairvoyant, telepaths'. But the whole Darkside Rising crap just makes my skin crawl because it too stands against the notion of 'Fear is the mindkiller but CHOICE is the driving potency of the Light Side' inherent to Yoda's Cave. i.e. There is no real Light and Dark, only the fate one makes with the tools one is given in The Force.

ALTERNATE REALITY:
In this, I actually didn't mind the Midichlorians because they gave me what I thought both the most elegant and the most (potentially) _beautiful_ beginning-of-an-end type story. Namely that, up until 'just before now' nobody COULD clone a Jedi. Because The Force gift did not transfer across. But the Jedi (who should have been able to fight at Yoda's level from apprenticeship on, leaving Yoda to be a Minor God.) KNIGHTS, a group of powerful families sharing a Compact of Accord suddenly began to fall victim to a sudden war from Outside (the Sith or one of their Own) and could not stand to hundreds of themselves being made to fight without the restraints of a lifetimes teaching.

In this, the Midichlorians are not The Force or even it's emissaries, they are simply the subcellular microbes whose 'spin' activation (throughout the body in a lifetime's quest for wisdom) gradually increased until full potency. And it is their isolation within the Maternal non-nuclear DNA and -activation- by the Male 'Force' Potency that made the Jedi what they were (special couples, unique latent precursors etc. but never a 'living Jedi' because The Force either sterilizes the living agent or otherwise renders incompatible their subsequent offspring to be Jedi.)

If they had done this, then they could have made Anakin, an OLDER (Nine and Fourteen another ewe icky moment of 'star crossed lustiness') man, in his late teens, the already-dark moody person. And stayed on Naboo for more of the 'death camps and mass murder' scenes. With the first of these clone-Jedi forcing the 'real thing' offworld in a BLIZZARD of combats (Force Celerity driven coverage of spatial volumes for instance). Before going to Coruscant to discover a younger 'Anastasian' princess who was spoiled and lonely and 'not wanting to be the Senatorial journeyman just because I'm the youngest!'.

Giving both youths (17-19 chronologic ages) time to hate each other for what was a 'class corrupted democracy' (imagine a world in which Lords and Knights were bred as overseer to a plebian commons). And then to fall in love as each found in the other comfort for a loss that neither could prevent or wanted.

BANG. The love affair of _Ep.1_ is solidified without further ado as Ep.II and III become _THE CLONE WARS_ as an all out battle. With more of the 'We tracked Sidious through DNA sniffers to the bottom of the Senatorial Apartments' MYSTERY in Ep.II. Ending in the beginning of the Templaresque Friday The 13th extermination that carries right on through the beginning of a _guerilla war_ which is Jedi renegades vs. Replacement Lookalikes in Ep.III.

Battle, oh grande and glorious struggle beyond the **STAR WARS** of old. Instead of as cheap CGI effects with lousy looking ships niched-but-not-necessary as scenic transitions between Capital and Kashyyyk.

And the END of the story, would have been the shocker. The REAL tragedy which spins everything 180` out of true from what you expect being that Anakin _does not_ go from hyper young idiot to gullible nutbar to psychotic butcher. But rather he dies, in his lovers arms (or saving her to escape with their kids) _A True Hero_. And the man who lied to Luke on the Bespin power shaft tower, was in fact 'only telling the truth from a certain point of view'.

Because Obi Wan Kenobi thought he slaughtered a CLONE to avenge Padme or Anakin or his own hurt feelings. And that CLONE'S MEMORIES were all that it knew to be real.

THAT was what the PT needed in the way of Campbellian Mythos.

Reinforcement of 'A potentially (angry, disbelieving) bad man, saved by True Love but destroyed by random chance, lives on thru his children to kill the evil which he could not.' THE MAGIC being that, 'just this once', the power of that Love Eternal allowed a Jedi to pass on his gift, directly to his children.

Instead of making it seem like these two mixed up people should NEVER have met to become dependent chemistry-less fools to begin with.

And further allowing me to skip the whole hurling-yak moment of Messiah and Immaculate Conception BS for a more humble yet elegant moment of understanding what it is between two people that will make one give up everything to allow the other's continuum to be assured through children.

NONE of which can happen now. ALL of which _should_ have been what the _CLONE WARS_ were about. I mean, use your noggin' Mr. Lucas, it takes ten years to make a 'conventional' (Imperial Doofus) Clone Grunt.

On ONE planet, they were producing battledroids: 2 every 4 seconds.

Duuuuh.

Even if it weren't obvious as heck (Trillions of Credits and no paper trail?) as an external ploy, it is utterly ludicrous as a logistical method to combat X with YYYYYY on a mass-attrition scale of warfare. Not without Jedi Powers to make that decade worth the numeric differential.

It MIGHT have also solved another little bit of nastiness for me in that, if Anakin and Obiwan are these great heroes, why doesn't Luke the escapist dreamer and reader of all things Holonet (_SOTME_) not know of his famous namesake? i.e. Anakin could be the name of someone /else/, further showing you the subtle twist-within-a-twistiness of Old Ben's manipulative persuasion.


Sorry for the Rant, I feel a /little/ better now. Though in fact I never felt at all 'embarrased' about DESPISING the PT. JC must be rolling in his grave...


KPl.

JediTricks
06-12-2005, 10:25 PM
First off, let me apologize to those whose great responses here so far I haven't replied to, I definitely appreciate you taking the time to read the post and contemplate what is in it, and any response here no matter the viewpoint is greatly welcome.



Oh yeah, that one. lol
I remembered it when I found it again after posting in this one. (your thread came up before that other one under New Posts :) )

Well, in that case then, I'm going to give myself some credit there because I was the first to post in it and I suggested that we steer away from the whole "us vs. them" or "OT Faction vs. PT Faction" types of schism. I didn't say you were guilty of anything Caes, just that you would know it since you're the secondmost active user in there. ;)


What can I say, I love . . . . probably 90% . . . of the Prequel stuff. Shoot me. lol *BANG!*


Well, considering we don't have a specific Prequels Section but rather 3 sections devoted to each film as opposed to one section for the Almighty OT . . . I'd leave it here. lol lol lol

Really though, you're starting this thread from the POV of an OT fan but not a PT fan, so I think it fits here just fine. :)I see what you mean with both comments, but I really wanted people to see and discuss, and the views-to-replies ratio on this thread is pretty poor, says people are either not seeing it or not clicking it, and since Ep 3 is right now the focus of the prequels in the community's eyes, I think I'm going to move it for now and see what happens because ultimately I do want it to be seen and to be that interesting discussion that darko mentioned. I wanted to make it a beacon of hope to people who felt like I did and came here to discuss that with the final prequel affecting them, and a touchstone to those who feel the PT is being unduely attacked by the fan community and just wonder "why are they coming down on me?"

JediTricks
06-12-2005, 10:50 PM
I love the PT, for very different reasons, though not as much as the OT. The PT had lots of action. It had incredible FX. We get a lot of answers we were wondering about. Is it still Star Wars, yes, is it completly different, yes.I will agree that the PT had lots of action and some top-drawer visual effects, but when you say "is it Star Wars? yes", beyond the surface stuff, how so? I understand there are lightsabers and Jedi and Obi-Wan and R2 and so-on, of course, but what actually makes Star Wars... well, "Star Wars", and how do the prequels apply? To me, Star Wars is the classic myths and character archetypes told in a pulp serial sci-fi setting with some of the greatest cinematic presence, giving it that "magical" juice, and none of that seems to apply to the prequels for me, so that is where my confusion stems from.


Look, I seldom get into these OT vs PT debates because to me it's like comparing apples to oranges...what's the point? I like both. My only concern was when GL started pouring orange juice into the apple juice. Some of the changes GL made to the OT were fine IMO, adding stormtroopers, TIE fighters, a better Jabba, etc. but seeing Hayden in the OT really turned my stomach. :dis: Now there's something I can really get behind! That's part of what bugged me about ROTS in particular, it felt to me like a litany of OT riffs Lucas wanted to touch upon while paying only lip-service to them, "here's another OT element to 'bridge the gap'" without enough contextual reason to be there beyond surface elements. I can accept the new ESB scene where Vader leaves Bespin, it's not quite to my liking but I can accept it, and one of my favorite scenes from ANH is now the Falcon taking off from the docking bay, but shoehorning A into B or B into A is still just shoehorning to me.



In fact, ALL of it just _reeks_ of a Hercules Poirot type 'meat at the last' mystery where you get a bunch of data at the very end without which there is no hope of solving the conundrum I definitely feel this way about ROTS as well, though to be fair, Lucas admitted as much recently in Entertainment Weekly (http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?p=399446#post399446) when he says "60% of the prequel plot takes place in E3. (So Eps 1+2 are) jazz riffs…things I enjoy…just doodle around a lot." I doubt Lucas sees this as much of a negative as you and I (and Thrawn who brought that quote to my attention) do though.

KPl
06-13-2005, 01:05 AM
>>
I will agree that the PT had lots of action and some top-drawer visual effects
>>

Pfui.

Watch the opening of the TPM Duel. See how the lighting of sabers noise comes /after/ the scene where they have 'struck a pose', with lit sabers, post decloaking. That is just plain clumsy.
See how the Destroyers choose to engage the least dangerous and least exposed of the commando targets (no heavy weapons in sight) rather than back shooting the Jedi and letting Maul role up the team from behind.
Further note the moment in the hangar where Obiwan starts a cut at Mauls back and then pulls it back because the actor has his 'staff' (don't even get me started) blade engaged with Quigon and COULD NOT parry behind as they dance around in a circle.
Because that's the simplest way you take out a light-staff user. Lock him high or low and then goose him from an opposed angle because he CANNOT change grips to use _quartering_ position leverage to sweep or slide the blade down and away. Not without losing his hands.
See Maul start a high kick with his saber carried along the axis of his leg. If Obiwan squats and cuts up, Maul loses his limb. If Maul /connects/ with Obiwan, his own saber takes off his leg in the recoil. And for what? To move all of 2 feet and teek-fling a piece of equipment at a door panel? Both that's impressive.
Watch the Daring Duo of Dumb and Dumberer jump across the void (Obiwan feet first in a no-eyes-on-threat flip, the git) while Maul _just sits there_ with no Force Push or lateral step out to a slice'n'dice 'troll on the bridge' moment of his own proactivity to stop them. Indeed, see ALL the moments where Maul is 'shakey' in his muscle control and balance. From lighting the saber staff to post-leap and post donkey-kick stumbles.
Watch Quigon pimp smack Maul with one hand and NOT break his neck with the power of The Force amplified muscular motion inherent to the idea of his being able to run perhaps 50mph down a side hallway.
Watch the reversed hand change of Maul's saber grip so that he doesn't look like he's cutting them both in half as he flails and falls back.
Watch Quigon leap down ontop of Maul (he ain't a bird, if Maul lights that saber or gets a good kick going, Jinn has just Vlad The Impalered himself, testicles first.) 'drive the baddy back' with a never ending repetition of high left, down right and 'never an alternating cut or jab inbetween'. Boy that's not at all predictable, boring and incompetent looking. No, not at all.
Look at Obiwan and Maul do their fancy schmancy pirouhettes and again NEVER PRESS THE ATTACK so that one's saber would cross into the other's body space. Instead prefering a system of 'batting practice' against each others blades like sticking it into your opponent and giving a twist wasn't the 'general idea'.
Watch the same lack of impact effect again when Maul stiff arms Obiwan (still no shattered nose, jaw, upper lip bone, teeth or cervical vertebra) and AGAIN the hand is reversed from one camera frame to the next.
Watch a scene where a man who has just jumped 40ft _straight up_ so fast it was almost invisible not only cannot catch up with his partner but takes a full second and a half (2-3 'melee rounds' anyway) as he comes overtop a 'surprised' (where are those Force enhanced reflexes now bucko?) Sith out of the pit.
I mean come ON people, that kind of physical agility is NOT at all out of the ordinary for a Jedi. And if Obiwan can hold the 'high ground' later on, surely Maul can. And that means that a REAL display of nascent Knightly concentration as much as raw power would have been to catch or teek your own saber as it fell. Leap BACKWARDS in the same fluid motion to the opposite side of the pit. And as Maul tossed his own saber in pursuit, draw and light your own for the blocking move while _simultaneously_ pulling Quigon's from across the room while Maul stood there looking stupid.
"Ha ha! Thought you were so damn smart didn'tcha boy!"
The entire Arena scene and indeed most of the battlefield ones were so pixellated on anything but a digital screen as to render them like unto puppet show theatrics. Specifically the shots with Padme playing Sheeba Queen Of The Beasts atop the 'cart horse' were ludicrous (we aren't in enough danger just standing there, we're now going to ride /thru/ the firestorm creating a MASSIVE moving target signature while our deflector screen protector is nine feet behind us. Riiiiiight.)
As I have stated elsewhere the ships were stupid bordering on moronic looking. And the scenes where they were stuck into the shot were all TOO FAR AWAY for anything like 'the feel' of either of the dynamic motion and high impact camera crossing angles that even ANH (and certainly the SEs) managed.
Specifically above Naboo, young Anakin twists the control spade grips one way and I swear the ship rolls opposite. And all his little boy glee makes Jar Jar look positively sedate.
Speaking of which, DEATH TO JAR JAR! But keep the animated motions so that the Jedi can _move_ with the same fluid motion that he displayed by the lake (another reason not to have dumba$$ burlap bathrobes billowing out in all directions, IMO).
Obiwan is a fine pilot who hates to fly. Yes, I'm sure. So is every Blue Angels team member. You have to WANT to do something before you can build the skill to do so. Not only are they putting the aged-putz syndrome into overdrive as a slanting bias towards 'oh joyous youth' but they are denying the actor any /hope/ of 'both of them are nearly wild' character development once he himself is out from under Quigon's thumb.
Did I mention the 'lava pit' scene where the very air itself is probably saturated with Sulfur Dioxide and about 400` such that the Jedi would not even be able to MOVE without having their clothing catch on fire while their lungs pitted with acid burns in seconds? What about the fact that the entire Mustafar scene looks like it was shot atop a giant IMAX projector and is _utterly_ 2 Dimensional??!?
Gah.
I could go on but the general lack of attention to detail (rolling wheels with missile tubes, what, are we in B.C. now?!) and inescapably boring, visually ugly or flat out dumb combat scenes just do not merit the wear and tear on my fingers.

>>
but when you say "is it Star Wars? yes", beyond the surface stuff, how so? I understand there are lightsabers and Jedi and Obi-Wan and R2 and so-on, of course, but what actually makes Star Wars... well, "Star Wars", and how do the prequels apply? To me, Star Wars is the classic myths and character archetypes told in a pulp serial sci-fi setting with some of the greatest cinematic presence, giving it that "magical" juice, and none of that seems to apply to the prequels for me, so that is where my confusion stems from.
>>

Only youth is too stupid to realize that a story which does not both entertain AND provide a moral perspective point of view is worthless. Usually because the plot diverges from the the believable to the 'IITS' (It's In The Script) level of banality within three or four scenic minutes of the opening crawl.

The reason why they despise being told such a story is because it is too often the subject of religious or parentally 'invoked' (forceably, pedantically, imparted without do-as-I-show example) mandate.

Yet ethics is not about heaven and hell or right and wrong.

It is about survival through graceful efficiency of intent thru action to end effect (purpose, process, outcome). Fail to impress ethical ideals as a function of the difference between _what is just eye candy_ and what is /good storytelling/ and you fail to instill that sense of careful conservatism that is efficient living. A warrior who is GOOD at what he does, is successful until the odds get incredibly long. Is both entertaining AND a moral lesson in and of himself. Anything less than that merely makes it seem like the story is about the stuckup adults and their preconceived ideals 'putting upon' the poor little innocent kids with their 'wondrous minds'.

Bah. Humbug. Instinct is innocent only until it get's it's teeth knocked in by a complex problem requiring a carefully reasoned approach.

>>
Now there's something I can really get behind! That's part of what bugged me about ROTS in particular, it felt to me like a litany of OT riffs Lucas wanted to touch upon while paying only lip-service to them, "here's another OT element to 'bridge the gap'" without enough contextual reason to be there beyond surface elements. I can accept the new ESB scene where Vader leaves Bespin, it's not quite to my liking but I can accept it, and one of my favorite scenes from ANH is now the Falcon taking off from the docking bay, but shoehorning A into B or B into A is still just shoehorning to me.
>>

Actually, while I like the full-model pan and scan views of the Falcon leaving Docking Bay 94, I /appreciated/ the stunning acceleration of the X-Wings (which after all had to counter orbit a gas giant at incredible velocity to meet the Death Star with even 15 minutes to spare) from the original movie more than the simple (slowmo) repetition of said effect on Yavin IV.

Similarly, I liked the CGI improvements to the models (the large gap-toothed blackness between the closed S-Foils for instance was a real turn off) but the constant switch between old and new footage as a function of 'do they have running boards or don't they' was a bit of a travesty as the light source shading often did not support the 3D slope change yet the full scale hangar models all had them. And so did a lot of the trench-run versions (i.e. the old film work showed better relief and lighting than the new stuff).

>>
I definitely feel this way about ROTS as well, though to be fair, Lucas admitted as much recently in Entertainment Weekly (http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?p=399446#post399446) when he says "60% of the prequel plot takes place in E3. (So Eps 1+2 are) jazz riffs…things I enjoy…just doodle around a lot." I doubt Lucas sees this as much of a negative as you and I (and Thrawn who brought that quote to my attention) do though.
>>

The problem is that at least a decent murder mystery gives you the satisfaction of saying that the /writer/ knew what was happening, even if he didn't have the moxy (or guts) to give you a chance at beating him to the finish line. Lucas adds things like the Quigon Becomes Teacher and Droid Wiping scenes for no particular reason. In /fact/ I think it diminishes Yoda to be 900 years old and no wiser than his worst apprentice.

I see a _happy_ woman (who cannot bear children) **smiling** at the dark eyes of a future Leia and I wonder why she thinks mom is sad.

I also question, deeply, the notion that nobody objects to the likelihood of an OFFSPRING OF SKYWALKER not being noticed in a such a publically exposed family as the Organa's? I mean how does Bail expect to cover up his 'sudden acquisition'? Indeed, if you cannot afford to have /any/ latent (Midichlorian test at birth or even prenatally as a blood chemistry sample) Force Adepts out there such that you murder every child in the Temple, surely the mere presence of Leia if not her annual physical would trigger nine kinds of alarm bells in both Palpatine and Vader to whom she was personally known as a very outspoken Senator?

I swear it makes me think Lucas is deliberately chauvinistic in his beliefs about women-warriors despite the (few) Jedi females we see. All's they are good for is politics (where they do nothing), dying 'from a broken heart' (rather than a crushed trachea) in childbirth, or 'disappearing' as Leia's stepmom and Schmi BOTH must have done, from their respective families and stations, to get the plot where it needs to go by I and VI respectively.

I see Anakin go down the wrong path /because/ he was 'too old' (to be what, mindless sheep? That's what ALL the Jedi act like...) yet I see the very little green horn toad who made that proclamation repeating the ill-considered path with Luke sweating out his childhood on that hellhole of a planet Tatooine until he is even FURTHER into the hardened reasoning of adulthood. Boy there's a thought, make him work a plow until he has a mind like a drey beast and then open up the world to his stunted reasoning and closed will.

Again, given that Anakin is the son of Schmi would you run the risk that Owen was not also a potentially incredible Jedi? If so, then you have no business putting Luke /anywhere's close/ to his familial roots. Or am I supposed to believe that Plageuis did the 'invitro immaculacy' trick as an alternative to The Force really just being that utterly sadistic in avoiding entropic decay at the cost of all those lives?

This is not even at the level of 60%. Because it shows that the author himself doesn't 'really know' like the mystery writer must and so the answers are just trite and thrown in to fill airtime (IITS) as much as to explain anything. And THAT sir, is bad writing. Because whatever came at the end (as Thrawn states) is indeed 2 dollars short and 2 days late.

GL completely lost his edge in the two decades he needed to 'think about it' as, from what I can see, none of his ideas gelled into a cohesive whole during said cogitation.


KPl.

basschick
06-13-2005, 03:54 AM
good thread! people are entitled to their own likes and dislikes, and i see a lot of bashing of the people who didn't love the prequels, mostly by people who loved the prequels, and felt somehow attacked that their fellow fans didn't.

it's too bad that since everyone here loved the OT, that this can't be something that creates a feeling of community, instead of allowing the prequels to cause rifts. everyone here has something in common, something a lot of people felt changed or enriched their lives. that's not a feeling you get to share with too many people in life.

for me, the OT had something i don't see in the prequels - intimacy. maybe it was just 'cause GL had no money. but whatever it was, you felt really close to all the main characters, like they were friends of yours having adventures. the character development was classic myth development, plus some modern touches that made everyone more real to us. the prequels are very grand, very busy, and VERY big. is that bad? no. is that the feeling the OT gave me? absolutely no!

Devo
06-13-2005, 11:52 AM
The supposed idea behind the prequels in Lucas's eyes was that when you watched them in order they would enhance the original trilogy by introducing us to these characters we have cared about for ages and cast them in an appealing and sympathetic light.Well been there done that and guess what - they don't - there is no enhanced emotional resonance, not for me anyway.


My first issue is that Anakin is portrayed throughout the prequel trilogy in turn as an abnoxious kid, a whiney teen, and a schizophrenic adult(I really respect you Obi-Wan 10 minutes later I hate you ) so then when it comes to watching the original trilogy you end up thinking you got what you deserved Anakin you wanker - surely the opposite of what was intended.


My second issue is with the portrayal of the Jedi in the prequels. Cast your mind back to the days of your youth before the bad times, before the prequels ....... didn't you just think being a jedi would have been the coolest thing ever? Well not anymore - in the prequels they are portrayed as thick, emotionally retarded Philosophizers who must meditate on everything(MMmmh meditate on this I shall). I mean Dooku bloody tells them a Sith Lord is running the Republic - this information plus their own suspicions about Palpatine should have been enough for them to act far earlier then they did.


The third issue is an issue on which I have already posted in another thread - how the omission of certain dialogue from the Prequel trilogy ie. something like "I want my son to have my lightsaber when I'm gone" casts Obi-Wan in a brand new and somewhat darker light with a view to his exchanges with Luke in an ANH. As Anakin never confides in Obi-Wan that he even has a baby let alone wants to give him his lightsaber the newbie starwars viewer (ie. a person who has grown up with the prequel trilogy and has only ever seen them in that order) is forced to assume that Obi-Wan is just making it all up to bend Luke to his will - again, surely not what was intended and certainly not the Jedi way.

Some people might say just ignore them (the PT) but thats bloody hard when he seems bent on altering the originals to be more in keeping with them at every opportunity.

stillakid
06-13-2005, 12:56 PM
Ultimately, with this thread I do not want to impact YOUR enjoyment of the prequels in any way, consider that if you feel these comments have done so it could be because Lucas's words and intentions have changed your mind, that the change comes from within you.

Gee, how many times have I said the same thing about myself and only received snide comments and outright personal attacks in return? :rolleyes:





Sometimes when I come to this site I feel talked down to, as if I'm a fool for being a fan (for the most part) of the new films.

...

It pains me to see Prequel Fans dismissed as "video game junkies" or "ignorant of a good story" or "apologists for Lucas" or any other such jabs because I do not fit any of those descriptions. What can I say, I love . . . . probably 90% . . . of the Prequel stuff. Shoot me.
How is that any different from those of us who have specific problems with the films but are written off as being "too old" or "too jaded" or merely "nitpickers"? How 'bout those "jabs"? You think it's a cakewalk on this side of the aisle where our well-drawn conclusions backed up by quotes and such are written off as irrelevant whining? I don't fit any of those descriptions but all too often am personally attacked as exhibiting those qualities.

And again, as I mentioned numerous times in other parts of this forest, the choice to like or dislike something has never been part of the discussion, at least not from me. I don't believe that anyone is "talking down" to anyone else when they merely express a like/dislike opinion (except for that time I said I liked Rollerball :) ). If there is any "talking down to" it would be in regard to arguments about the credibility of "evidence" and someone's inability or unwillingness to consider it. I believe that oftentimes, our desire to enjoy (or not) something on an emotional level impedes our ability to see with truly objective eyes. We are all guilty of that in one form or another at some point in our lives.



But, if I may, what I take from JT's thread is that it is countering one of the most oft-used defenses in favor of the Prequels, that being that George had this stuff all thought up from the beginning and any changes to the OT are just being done now because he has the ability. We can surmise from George's own comments that this is categorically untrue. He had the thinnest of outlines regarding story and pulled together enough elements to crank out A New Hope. It took help from Huyck and Katz to turn that mess (try reading those intial drafts sometime...yikes!) into the Star Wars we all know and love. He then enlisted help (Kasdan) to help round out the next two acts using the elements he had left (and we see that he had little choice but to repeat some of them).

Jump 20 years, past Lucas's divorce, and we have an older guy who is principally interested in pushing the technology more than telling stories. Out of ego, he writes off the help of Frank Darabont, and decides to do it all by himself, reluctant to give up control ever again. He pulls out his old notes in between tech sessions with Sony and Panavision. A few lazy "riffs" later, Lucas has a 2 hour screenplay which includes 2 major set pieces that he was most interested in seeing: A Nascar race of sorts and watching a good Jedi fight. All else in between was that boring "story" stuff which could be done with a few unskilled flicks of the pen. Whalla! The Phantom Menace.

Now how many people here REALLY went into TPM, AOTC, or ROTS LOOKING for problems? To be fair, I would say exactly ZERO. Having grown up with the OT (most of us), it would have been insanity to enter the theatre on any occasion and actively seek out things to whine about. I know that it makes Defenders feel better about their own choice to enjoy the films (to think that we're just inventing problems to whine about), but it's a ludicrous assertion to make...and highly insulting at that as I spoke to above. And it seems we have Lucas's own words confirming what many of us have said all along, that the PT is ill-conceived thereby making it decidedly "un Star Wars."

So nobody is "talking down" to anyone else here by saying such a thing. I (we're?) just expressing the situation as it stands for better or worse. How a person feels about it (depending upon which side of the fence they feel they're on) is their own choice to make.



I agree with a lot of what JT says, except I like the PT. Are they different, yes. But where was GL to go with a new set of films? Rehash the OT? Maybe, but he didn't and I'm OK with that, I always have been.
"Rehash" was one option, yes. But not the only other one. I don't know, I suppose he could have written a storyline that was consistent with the established continuity of the OT for starters? Call me crazy! :crazed:

Seriously, nobody was looking for a "rehash," although I'll admit, I don't know what you mean by that really. I don't know anyone (apart from a few here) who had any deep seated desire to see origin stories of all our favorite characters from the OT. I also don't know anyone who expected the Prequels to be "better" in some way than the OT, save perhaps for the fx (which were 90% spot on in the OT anyway, so there wasn't a lot to improve upon). But if we want to examine this concept of "rehash," take a gander at the "climax" for TPM. How much more rehash can you get by having the "classic" 3-pronged battle stolen from ROTJ? So were the Prequels truly original? Or because they utilized so many elements from the classic trilogy, were they really "rehashes"?



Lucas also says something which may suggest the prequels are about Obi-Wan, which I have often felt should be the case, but I may be reading too much into that - it's interesting though.
I have been unwavering in my assertion that the Original films were ABOUT the REPUBLIC. Not about any one character or situation, but ABOUT the Republic and the fight to wrest control of it back from the bad guys. There are so many characters running around doing different things that to pin the responsibility of "about" to any one of the them needlessly diminishes the roles of everyone else in this galactic scale tragedy.

And this is where the Prequels go terribly awry. While the OT had the Darth Vader story as one element of the story, it was not ABOUT Anakin/Darth Vader. So to shift gears in the middle and suddenly try to conform the entire saga into a story ABOUT one guy in the midst of this galactic conflict can only result in disaster. I love Vader as much as anyone, but his story was just a cog in a much bigger and more interesting wheel. In the same way, this is not a story about Luke, Leia, Obi Wan, or the droids. They all play important roles in the much grander and more epic story that is the downfall and struggle for the Republic. This is where Lucas lost his way...his focus. He took what he thought were the "Top Ten Things Fans Want To See" and built a trilogy out of them, neglecting what was the actual story of the saga.

2-1B
06-13-2005, 02:31 PM
Writing off fans of the prequels as Apologists and Defenders is indeed "talking down" to an entire group of people. :)

As for your problems with being accused of whatever you are accused of, well, I have not personally called you a nitpicker or anything like that so I don't feel the need to answer for that. However, I will say that I don't see those terms being applied to every single poster who doesn't like the prequels. Maybe there's something telling about that ? :confused:

stillakid
06-13-2005, 05:44 PM
Writing off fans of the prequels as Apologists and Defenders is indeed "talking down" to an entire group of people. :)
If one "defends" something about the Prequels or the films in their entirety, does that not make them a "defender"? :confused: I'm a little lost on this one and why that is "talking down" to someone when it merely describes what they are doing.

As far as the term "Apologist" goes, I'll admit that I never fully understood its use in reference to most people who enjoy the Prequels. While a "Defender" defends what he/she believes to be the case, an "Apologist" will accept the errors of the films but defend Lucas and the films anyway. This type of audience member is usually armed with the phrase: "Enjoy it for what it is." There is definitely some of that, but certainly not everyone falls into that category.


As for your problems with being accused of whatever you are accused of, well, I have not personally called you a nitpicker or anything like that so I don't feel the need to answer for that. However, I will say that I don't see those terms being applied to every single poster who doesn't like the prequels. Maybe there's something telling about that ? :confused:It means that I get labeled with that because I am simply more vocal about the numerous problems. But by no means, am I the only one discussing the problems. There are many times when someone else initiates a discussion about something that I may not have thought about before. Or what about everyone that agrees with an assertion I've made? Just because they didn't initiate the topic, do they not also technically fall under that accusation?

The implication of being called a "nitpicker" is that none of the arguments being made have any validity whatsoever, which is false of course, because if it were, there wouldn't be numerous others supporting such claims and there would be evidence to support the claims. If just one person has a problem, then you'd have to look at the motivations of that person. However if a number of people have the same problem, then the onus moves from the "complainers" and fully onto the topic at hand.


What "divides" the audience is this: That on one side is a group of people who have watched the films and found error and evidence to back up the claims. On the other side are a group of people who refuse to acknowledge the problems as accused by the first group because they truly do not (or refuse to believe) that the problems are really there. For the first group to be 100% wrong in their assertions would mean either that we're all talking about 2 entirely different movies or that the first group is suffering from a mass delusion.

And again, this has NOTHING to do with the topic of someone enjoying the films or not. That is an entirely separate issue from discussion of whether there are genuine problems. Frequently, members of group 2 try to bind these concepts together and erroneously take offense as they think that an attack on the film equates with an attack on themselves. Discussion of a topic regarding Star Wars is nothing to take personally, in my opinion. Though as others maintain, there is no such thing as an absolute so somebody will always find cause to get bunged up as a result of being challenged on their opinions. :ermm:

Mad Slanted Powers
06-14-2005, 12:33 AM
Now how many people here REALLY went into TPM, AOTC, or ROTS LOOKING for problems? To be fair, I would say exactly ZERO.

It seems to me there were a lot of people that were already criticizing the film before it was even released. They had already decided that they hated Jar Jar and that Anakin should have been older and that Qui-Gon had no place in the story.

I think you and others have also said that you truly want to like the prequels. I think if that were so, you would be more willing to accept some of the explanations for the apparent contradictions between the two trilogies. Instead, you dismiss them and say that the OT clearly meant something else. Thus, it seems there is no way you can reconcile the two.

To me, it doesn't seem like a coincidence that Lucas used the line "you assume too much" more than once in TPM. It may not have been his intention, but it seemed like it was his way of saying what you thought was going to happen may be wrong. As Yoda would say, you must unlearn what you have learned. Perhaps, misinterpreted the OT dialogue you have. I'll stop here and spare you the ROTJ Obi-Wan cliché.

DarthAngel
06-14-2005, 12:45 AM
I can't remember if it is on the audio comentary for TPM or ATOC or both, or if I read it in a magazine somewhere, but George Lucas has been on record as saying that there were certain "scenario's" from the OT that he wanted to portray in the PT that way when you watch the saga in episode order and you get to a "scenario" in lets say ESB, all of the sudden you are reminded of something that happened in lets say ROTS. That is why the final battle in TPM looks like a rehash of the final battle in ROTJ. I really don't see that as a flaw. Remember the saying 'The actions of the father reflect back on the son' (or something to that effect). So it is only natural that some of the key events that take place in the OT are rehashed in the PT. If you watch it in episode order, in the final space battle of TPM you have Anakin destroying the droid control ship. It is quite clear that Anakin has never flown the naboo star fighter before, but he figures it out (you could say with a little help from the force). Now fast foward to the final attack run from ANH, what happens? Luke gets into a star fighter that he knows very little about, and destroys the Death Star. Like father like son...ring a bell?

Now I like the PT just as much as I like the OT, I grew up watching the OT on tape, and I always like the OT because of Darth Vader. But I like the PT just as much because I was always interested in seeing what happened to Anakin that made him become Darth Vader. Now I know, and its funny because what happens to Anakin happens to Luke as well, but Luke doesn't take it to that extreme measure that Anakin did.

I think that is what the saga is all about. Not about the loss of innocence, not the loss of a republic. It's simply about a family, and how what the father does when he is a young man, has a serious affect on his children.

KPl
06-14-2005, 01:28 AM
>>
It seems to me there were a lot of people that were already criticizing the film before it was even released. They had already decided that they hated Jar Jar and that Anakin should have been older and that Qui-Gon had no place in the story.
>>

Most 'we get it, it sucks' people had long since realized the obvious and thus had no specific hopes that Lucas could pull a 2-epi Orbital Plunge out for a landing. Especially as he has /continually/ proven himself to be nothing if not a resounding hackmeister.

They 'wondered' if they might get at least a decent shoot'em-up action fest in the mold of ANH and the old-thyme serial epics it mimicked. But even this was rendered untenable thanks to the mindless action scenes which had too few characters, too litle dynamacy and too much interval-between to be worth the effort.

IOW: Don't confuse disappointment with ROTS with disappointment with the PT. The difference is that, once your expectations are down to zero already, anything else that is disgusting is almost a joy to noodle-whip mercilessly on an MST3K basis of jeers from the peanut gallery.

>>
I think you and others have also said that you truly want to like the prequels. I think if that were so, you would be more willing to accept some of the explanations for the apparent contradictions between the two trilogies. Instead, you dismiss them and say that the OT clearly meant something else. Thus, it seems there is no way you can reconcile the two.
>>

I wanted to see what Jedi were /really like/, at the height of the Old Republic. Strong, wise, and -oh so lethal-. I wanted to see ships as they were before they became the SWU vehicles (and NOT as if from an entirely different milieu!). I wanted to find a man that I could at least understand the reasoning of his emotions and motivations -prior- to the fall that made a mass murderer out of a hero.

I found none of that and thus had no empathy with the series as a whole.

Sue Me For My Name Is Turnip.

>>
To me, it doesn't seem like a coincidence that Lucas used the line "you assume too much" more than once in TPM. It may not have been his intention, but it seemed like it was his way of saying what you thought was going to happen may be wrong. As Yoda would say, you must unlearn what you have learned. Perhaps, misinterpreted the OT dialogue you have. I'll stop here and spare you the ROTJ Obi-Wan cliché.
>>

I assume he cannot tell a story worth a damn. That he has no skill whatsoever at crafting a psychologically paced thriller that actually /involves/ it's characters (heck that /casts/ it's characters) in a way that draws them into the role. I've known this since the "Faster, More Intense!" docu-daze warnings of Hammil's and Fisher's and Ford's commentary.

OTOH, before 1999, I _hoped_ that, with 15 odd years to think it over, he could at least reach the same conclusion that I did: USE SOMEONE ELSE.

ROTJ and ANH were the averaged best efforts of GL's talent. ESB was the BEST ACHIEVED VISION of the entire epic. Don't be greedy, it's your universe, nobody doubts or denies that. Just let somebody else flesh in the words and moods and scenery. Somebody with CREATIVE VISION and the discipline to achieve it.

That is the chief asset of ANY corporate bigwig. To recognize and exploit the talents of people under him before setting his/her John Hancock on the results.

I _would rather_ someone without a single clue take all the credit for a given work (paying very well for the privelege mind you) that is BEYOND EXCEPTIONAL. Than have an honest man claim entitlement to a subpar B-movie with 50 million dollar CGI effects "As my very own best effort!"

The sadness is that NOBODY has yet explained the three chief contradictions of the entire PT debacle:

1. If it's a good graphical presentation of an excellent story, the kids will like it 'for what it is' regardless (though they may well grow into appreciating it for more than that as they mature).
2. But the ADULTS (who are the 'bonus demographic' of most marketers) will /continue/ their standing admiration for what memory has rightly or wrongly enshrined as 'superlative' only IF the adjective still applies at least equally as well to the sum-package of the drama as underlined by the effects.
3. 1+2 are the same when you consider that adults BUY the tickets AND the merchandise for BOTH the kids -and- their own 'cool-ectible' fancy. No kid is going to spend 20 bucks for a ticket and popcorn and a coke. No kid is going to spend 2-5 dollars for gasoline to drive to the theater. Only an adult _can_ do those things. Nor will a kid buy the 20-30 dollar DVD. Or the 50-100 dollars in toys or or or.

The sooner the PT dies the death of vacant-vision neglected sales it deserves, the better. THAT will be the argument that proves beyond any doubt 'OT vs. PT' debate over whether Lucas was wrong to (re)start something he had no artistic commitment to or creative intuit for.

At which point all The Flanneled One's snide or subtle "I told'ya so's!" of different expectation from achievement will mean all of zip-squat as the masses will have outvoted his opinion and the OT will live on, albeit sadly diminished, as the victor by default.

God knows I will /never/ touch a single piece of PT merchandise as particularly the vehicles (always my favorite) are absolute TRASH for appearance or functional believability. Thanks so /very much/ Mr. Lucas.


Baaaah, I need a drink. KPl.

stillakid
06-14-2005, 02:13 AM
It seems to me there were a lot of people that were already criticizing the film before it was even released. They had already decided that they hated Jar Jar and that Anakin should have been older and that Qui-Gon had no place in the story.
:confused: I can only speak for myself here, but I certainly had no prior knowledge of any of those characters before seeing TPM. I actually don't know anyone who did. As I recall, Episode I security was pretty high, unlike the next two films. So I have no idea how you could make such a statement. Please elaborate.

However, if you are alluding to our critique after seeing those elements from TPM and then in AOTC, then those are critiques about those elements only, and not a direct pre-indictment of ROTS. Having said that, however, it seemed more than reasonable to guess at the impending quality of ROTS by the precedent that I and II established. While we do have 3 two hour parts, they are all part of one whole so indicting an unseen episode III based on critiques of I and II was not out of the question.



I think you and others have also said that you truly want to like the prequels. I think if that were so, you would be more willing to accept some of the explanations for the apparent contradictions between the two trilogies. Instead, you dismiss them and say that the OT clearly meant something else. Thus, it seems there is no way you can reconcile the two.
What you're suggesting is that we MAKE ourselves like the Prequels despite all the problems that appeared before our eyes. I shouldn't have to put that kind of work into it. It's the filmmaker's responsibility to draw me in...not my responsibility to give him slack just because I have some deep-seated need to apologize for his subpar work.


To me, it doesn't seem like a coincidence that Lucas used the line "you assume too much" more than once in TPM. It may not have been his intention, but it seemed like it was his way of saying what you thought was going to happen may be wrong. As Yoda would say, you must unlearn what you have learned.
You're suggesting that we should completely disregard the established continuity of the original trilogy in order that we can find enjoyment in its sequels? Really? :confused: Wow. That reasoning opens up a whole new world of possibilities, doesn't it? I mean, by that token, The Empire Strikes Back could have been done in Anime style, ROTJ in place-card Haiku, and the prequels with shadow finger puppets...and that all would have been fine with you because what is established just gets in the way of "enjoying it for what it is."



Perhaps, misinterpreted the OT dialogue you have.
Perhaps, but I sincerely doubt it. :ermm:

2-1B
06-14-2005, 02:25 AM
First of all stillakid, when I made that comment about feeling "talked down to" I didn't mention you by name, so I don't know why you got so defensive ? lol lol lol


It means that I get labeled with that because I am simply more vocal about the numerous problems. But by no means, am I the only one discussing the problems. There are many times when someone else initiates a discussion about something that I may not have thought about before.

Of course there are others discussing the problems ! :) Just because you find many people that agree with your argument, that doesn't mean it is automatically True because there could be a number of defenders people who feel another way. :)


Or what about everyone that agrees with an assertion I've made? Just because they didn't initiate the topic, do they not also technically fall under that accusation?

Oh, most definitely not. I don't see too many of the prequel-Non-fans saying stuff like this:

I only speak from the point of view of the truth derived from an objective critique of the films.

I don't know why I'm repeating this since I said it years ago and again now :D but Good Luck trying to convince everybody that you are completely objective in your critiques.

An example, I might argue that you aren't "objective" in your approach to the Ben-Found-Yoda thing. Oh, I know that's what the original dialogue sounded like and I don't think it was the wrong conclusion to make. But your objectivity ended right there. :)

Whereas, from my 'objective' point of view, I looked at what we got in the prequels and concluded that yes, what was shown in the PT about that DOES fit. You're free to disagree with me, that's fine, but after discussing the issues and dialogue I am unconvinced that your Completely Objective Critique of the scene is Absolute Truth because I can counter with "evidence" to the contrary. :) Now you'll write me off with "well, any of this can work if you really want it to" but I promise you I do not make these conclusions based on some kind of desire for everything to fit. :)

Anyway that was just an example, a VALID example :D and not some extraordinary 'example' of Leia really being a man in drag.

Besides, Obi-Wan saw the twins naked so if She were a He, I don't think he would have called her Luke's sister. :crazed: :crazed: :crazed:

2-1B
06-14-2005, 02:29 AM
And in defense of those who went into Episode 3 not expecting too much from it, I don't blame them. :) Really, if you didn't like the last two then I figure it had to be pretty hard to really enjoy the 3rd one since it is based on the previous two.

In fact, I posted pretty much that same theory BEFORE the movie and got called out on it, why I'm not sure, but JT took offense to it. :(

A credit to stillakid though, stillakid came around and realized that what I was saying was not a slam against people who had some kind of "vendetta" going into the movie, just that it would be a tough sell with the 3rd one if the last 2 sucked.

Can we drink to that ? :)

basschick
06-14-2005, 02:38 AM
i liked parts of ep1, i liked more parts of ep2, and i went to ep3 expecting to get a lot out of it. i didn't, but i went back hoping to find more there for me.

to me, it's hollow and has no character integrity. that doesn't mean i'm criticizing the people who love it - and i see a lot of people did. i wish i had - i felt let down and left out. but that doesn't mean i'm going to lie and tell people i liked it. i'm entitled to my own opinion without being attacked for it, and everyone else is also entitled to their opinions.

mabudonicus
06-14-2005, 10:17 AM
I mean, by that token, The Empire Strikes Back could have been done in Anime style, ROTJ in place-card Haiku, and the prequels with shadow finger puppets
okay, reading that made me laugh pretty hard as I have had a similar thought-
If GL is going to do the SE treatment to the PT, I think TPM should be re-released as a Soft Drink and AOTC should be either a Fragrance or an automobile
ROTS can still be a film, but cut together with the decent bits of the first 2

Seriously though, I avoid this kind of thread like the plague but after reading all the posts to this point I had to respond- I think JT set it up perfectly in the original post, and it pretty much sums up how I feel- I'm still leaning towards "SW begins with ROTS" but I'll have to see it a few more times when it comes out on DVD
Fun stuff either way, Carry On :beard:!

2-1B
06-14-2005, 12:20 PM
Carry On :beard:!

Carrying on, Mr. :beard: !

\m/ :Ogre: \m/

stillakid
06-14-2005, 12:39 PM
First of all stillakid, when I made that comment about feeling "talked down to" I didn't mention you by name, so I don't know why you got so defensive ? lol lol lol
Nice try. :)


Besides, Obi-Wan saw the twins naked so if She were a He, I don't think he would have called her Luke's sister. :crazed: :crazed: :crazed:

I'm not so sure. Didn't that "Oompa" droid with the :crazed: eyes put the kids into blankies before Obi got his mitts on them?



Can we drink to that ?
clink

2-1B
06-14-2005, 01:16 PM
I'm not so sure. Didn't that "Oompa" droid with the :crazed: eyes put the kids into blankies before Obi got his mitts on them?


He peeked. :)

KPl
06-14-2005, 03:42 PM
>>

I liked parts of ep1, i liked more parts of ep2, and i went to ep3 expecting to get a lot out of it. i didn't, but i went back hoping to find more there for me.

>>

To me, Ep.1 deserved to show the Jedi /winning/ as a kind of ubermenchen superforce. But a humble one that worked as a perfect team (like Obiwan and Anakin were later supposed to be). When something started to 'seem wrong' they should have got on the comms and told the crew to evacuate. When they came out of the poison _nerve gas_ (contact poison) mist, it should have been in 'force bubbles' of shielded atmosphere rather than with little rebreathers. /At the same time/ they should have been able to SLAM the entire force of droids sent to 'make sure' through as much as into a wall as they zipped by. With a total contempt of engagement, 'this is not our fight, you can't keep us from the one we are intending to win'.

When they got to the blast door, Obiwan should have said (or telepathically whispered) "Master, Destroyers!" at the /same time/ as he celerically jerked back down the hall way. And attacked the big-wheels as they came around the corner /before/ they got their shields up. Alternatively Quigon might have reached -beyond- the shields and 'jiggled' their innards so that they fell apart. So much for the obvious. Quigon furthermore should have been a HUGELY powerful Master with the ability to 'suck blaster bolts out of this plane of existence' (not like a deflector shield, rather like opening a crack in the sidewalk and watching your worst enemy slip out of reality). Something which would have helped a great deal when the Jedi later had to fight few-vs.-many.

When a veritable company of B-Droids came around the bend, and the Nemoidians 'lost sensor contact' with the Jedi (another Force power in action as the ability to disrupt electronic objects and comms with an effect like EMP) and then "Sir, there is a hyperpulse message going out! Shut It Down! Sir, a whole bunch of lifepods have been jettisoned sir, but we can't find any life signs!" "Destroy them all, Jedi can go dormant!" (a satyrical stab at the stupidity of Vader's command crew) Except they haven't. Because THE PLACE where the Jedi can effect the outcome of the war is on the command deck of the leading battleship. That's where the droid control consoles are. That's where the hostageable Nemoidians are. That's where the JEDI NEVER LEFT FROM.

And so as the crew commences the launch of the invasion fleet (which the Jedi have 'foreseen' and arrived to disrupt. Being the surprisers rather than the surprised.) The locking mechanism on the blast door slooooowly begins to turn. And when it withdraws and then 'catches' on the slagged element of a saber melted section, Quigon looses patience and /shoves/ the remaining door inwards. Bending it like 'there is no spoon'. As out of the corners of the opening twist inwards two beings out of nightmare (for the Nemoidians anyway) on a spurt of levitated so-fast-it's-slow leap. You haven't seen /how/ they won the battle (because that's good drama) but it is enough to realize that loop-inside-a-loop the Jedi are the masters of operational deception.

Yet they are not without mercy or selfcontrol as Quigon whispers, levelly but with Command Presence (Force): "The aggression will cease, NOW, Viceroy!"

Raising his finger to point at the Jedi, about to snap out an 'attack!' command to his crew, the Viceroy looks, stunned, by Quigon's mental domination tactic. But then surprise turns to shock, betrayal and a last seeming awareness of 'disappointment at knowing why' as surrender turns to death, when a Sith memory implant acts like cyanide to shut him down and maintain the secret of Darth Sidious'. The effect on the rest of the Nemoidians is of course abject terror as their faces reflect a sense of "I thought the Jedi were good guys, he wasn't even armed!" "Don't screw with them, they mean business!" which gives the Jedi the total submission (even though the Nemoidians should be much bigger, overall, than the human Jedi) they need to gain command of the situation.

Yet for Quigon there is a definite sense of "Damn it!, I can't interrogate a corpse!" frustration that only adds to the fell expression on his previously calm face as he snaps a look at Obiwan and sees the same feeling reflected back. Later on (from Yoda) we will learn that, for them, this but part of a larger hunt for the 'center rot in a bad barrelful of apples'. And they have just lost another lead.

Still, there is a battle at hand to be won, and the Chancellor wants peace, not war. And so the Jedi 'take charge' (showing an immense multispecies technical knowledge quite beyond their Force Training) and deactivate the surface battle droids, and upon doing so, their ship begins to take a pounding from the other Battleships in the fleet as the Droids (/of course/) come right back online with an 'EEPROM back up command list', just like Robocop.

And Obiwan (who is himself a GREAT pilot, not a scaredy cat!) sees this coming and jettisons and selfdestructs the outer drive ring to take out a swarm of attack fighters as he flies the coreship down into the atmosphere to both avoid the rest of the Nemoidian fleet and to provide blistering NGS suppression assist to the utterly outclassed Naboo Defense Forces.

Of course the odds are against them. And they have no hope. And the battleship centercore is eventually obliterated by both ground fire coming up (a REASON to have the heavy tanks, droid bikes and landing craft. More Action!) and the enemy capital ships firing down from orbit. BOOOM! There is a tremendous explosion as a shield fails and impacts start to score on the hull. Obiwan twists the ship away but looks at Quigon 'thoughtfully sad'. Quigon nods and the ship staggers away (as the Naboo again start to lose to the droids) from the city before slamming down as a meteoric husk into the giant lake at the base of the Victory Falls type cliff that borders it. BA-BOOOOM! And only the rock face saves the Capital from the effects of an _planetary atmosphere_ fusion core destruction (another VFX we haven't seen before).

Because Jedi do NOT kill innocents or allies with massive seismic shock waves as Yoda (foolishly) does in AOTC.

Booo hooo hooo. The good guys lost. As the camera switches to the Royal Palace where Darth Maul has 'secured' the King and Queen and indeed may have already executed them, we begin to see the mopup phase (yet /another/ reference to ANH with the humans marching away 'hands on head').

Except, the audience must learn NEVER to underestimate what _BEING A JEDI_ means. As these precognitive warriors were again simply 'not there' when the fatal blow fell.

Something Maul is about to discover as he marches his captives down the length of the great hall in the center of a HUGE formation of battle droids in 'parade march' grand visual imagery that is a metaphor for the victory of machine over man.

Except the Sith stops short and squints menacingly. As a second or three later, the 40ft tall doors at the far end swing open, seemingly of their own accord.

(Another takeoff on the ANH 'awards ceremony theme'.)

And there, 'blocking the way' are two old fashioned swordsmen. Utterly outclassed by the LEGION of mechanized firepower might facing them. And though you cannot see them, clearly, 'you know who the silouhettes are' as without flourish or great show (no damn burlap bathrobes to ditch!) twin sparks of light ignite like stars before the clouds of war as two sabers come to life.

Two small forms, holding back the tide of destiny. "For it matters not who was right or wrong, only that two stood against many..."

And for a moment the scene is one of an Old West shoot out as the Droids battle logic doesn't support the notion of such a assymetric force engagement. SURELY there are more?! Looking around for backup or ambush, they literally 'can't believe' these two puny humans are going to go up against them. But then, within a second, command protocols take over and like the perfectly coordinated machine-intelligence they are, battle rifles lower with the lock-CHUK! of precision lathed weapon armatures. And in the same instant, with no warning or hesitation, the far wall behind where the Jedi stood just /explodes/ with the impact of _hundreds_ of blaster bolts ripping out 50 to 300lb chunks of ferrocrete. And you see how no man, no matter how 'gifted' a saberist, could possibly withstand such raw destructive release.

NOW you get to see why the Jedi do not lose. NOW you understand why the director chose not to /show you/ the original fight. For now you get to see /great drama/.

As, within a single frame, the Jedi have just...vanished. And as the camera rotates up to the ceiling you see them already at the apex of a leap which 'don't be there' has taken them beyond the MUZZLE INDEX of these 'superior' killing machines.

And as the camera rotates to follow the Jedi's line of sight in a roller coaster ride of inverting perspective that almost makes the audience sick with it's virtual speed, you see that they can also accelerate /down/ so that there is no prolonged 'hangtime' as gravity slowly takes over. Just a blur of We're Here! arrival that stops with two Jedi standing in the of the lead ranks. Thus it is that, within an eyeblink, as confusion reins in electronic brains, the droids get to see what REAL SPEED is about. Again using Teek based ('letting go' the local planetary inertial effects on mass and acceleration) the two Great Warriors basically grab hold of their weapon hafts like bicycle handlebars and 'push' the sharpest cutting blade in the known universe sticking out each side as they meet in he middle of two bisected ranks of enemy. No dueling. No fair fights. No fancy-schmancy unbelievable CRAP. Just raw destructive, instantaneous, effects driven, attack. That wins almost before it begins.

But 'Don't worry, there are more, little brother...' as at least two more droid ranks close up to before them. At least until Master Quigon raises his hands, seemingly in supplication, as his younger companion _protects his front_ (**Teamwork In Action**) and, as was seen in LOTR's opening battle scene with Sauron, another two phalanxes of droids rise up in the air in a swirl of slow tornado'd levitation only to /crunch/ together (two hands clapping with hard echo) so hard that their bodies intermingle (Jedi do _not_ like battledroids because they kill without being alive, destroy The Force without really being a part of it.).

And again, the Jedi glide-step forward. Slow in their measured control of the battlespace. But inevitable like the tide changing. And Maul is ****ed. And scared. But he is also on top of his game as saber takes the head of the first royal. "Go ahead, make my day!" And a bunch of Super Battle Droids come around the pillars.

Aha! No. Ahahaha!

As his silent arrogance proclaims "I saw deeper into the misty future than you, save the Royals and die. Save yourselves and the Royals die! Either way, there is no victory for you here!"

But the Jedi are past masters of manipulating the moment through the future's grace. And at least for now they also have the support of the common folk. As the Naboo Defense Force (the 'everyman minutemen') make THEIR presence known.

Ahahahahah! Fooled you!

Coming in on handheld repulsor lifts not unlike a small barbell with rockets for tipweights. SMASH-CRASH! Go the huge windows (incredible SFX moment, not unlike Young Sherlock Holmes duel with the 2D knight). And now it's the Jedi's turn to make the maximum of the distraction. And Maul to fight for his life as the NDF drop ion-grenades and blaster bolts fly /everywhere/ with Jedi sometimes dealing with 2-3 ricochets at a time (showing you how the saber vs. blaster technique is -supposed- to be used, since even a Master can only black-hole bolts from ONE direction).

And Maul dies like a dog. Or escapes as a cripple (i.e. the reverse of the ESB Bespin moment and an indicator of the difference between Jedi KNIGHTS who have trained their families for uncounted /millenia/ in the arts of 'combat diplomacy'. As well as proof that the Darkside is NOT 'stronger'. Only more fluid in it's willingness to exploit weakness.).

And, yet, for whatever chaos-of-battle reason, the Jedi are only able to save half the Royal Family as they get them out of the charnal house of the Great Hall. And then, in the 300yd dash across the open center square to the Hangar Building, the Jedi can only take two more. The rest go with the NDF on their scooters but are flak'd out of the sky by the competent-but-not-magical Battle Droids using criss-cross and box-fire tactics. And then, in the hangar, Obiwan saves Quigon and another Royal dies. And so they get to the REPUBLIC CRUISER (which escaped the Naboo battleship as they went through the sensor null of ionization that was a forced reentry and has been hiding from the battleships overhead here) and the two Jedi lift with only the youngest daughter of the Royal House still in their care. As again, Obiwan proves why Jedi are the best pilots, dodging a hail of blasterfire (think Slave 1 X10) with the grace of precognition and a small, fast, agile, ship.

WHEW! Five minutes into the movie, the audience is limp in their seats with the adrenal rush of 'Old Republic Times' warfare.

You see? In _my_ Prequels, Jedi are /incredible/ warriors. Stepping into and out of a whirlwind that others sew but only THEY can survive. Yet they are not invincible beyond their own selves. And so it becomes harder and harder for them to both effect the outcome of their battles and to hold the Republic together as a very /limited/ group of 'advisor' type Special Forces on whom the galaxy has become dependent even as society itself seemingly begins to melt down under the influence of the Sith who whisper nasty words into bored political ears and destroy everything that is 'good, bad OR indifferent' about this static civilization.

That is what Lucas missed. That is what made his stories BORING AS HELL. In compressing the sense of perilous fates being met by _competent_ warriors, the fast and furious sense of pacing was lost. While, starting from a position of making the Jedi look like complete /putzes/ led to a situation where 'things could only get worse' as a function of believable human drama with casted characters not smart enough to wise up to the obvious while holding such positions of immense power. So that (ultimately, for me) you get the feeling that the Jedi could NEVER have functioned as 'Guardians of Galactic Peace' for 20,000 years with such limited common-sense perception as much as weak Force insight and strength.

>>

To me, it's hollow and has no character integrity. that doesn't mean i'm criticizing the people who love it - and i see a lot of people did. i wish i had - i felt let down and left out. but that doesn't mean i'm going to lie and tell people i liked it. i'm entitled to my own opinion without being attacked for it, and everyone else is also entitled to their opinions.[/QUOTE]

>>

You and me both sister.



KPl

Mad Slanted Powers
06-14-2005, 09:19 PM
:confused: I can only speak for myself here, but I certainly had no prior knowledge of any of those characters before seeing TPM. I actually don't know anyone who did. As I recall, Episode I security was pretty high, unlike the next two films. So I have no idea how you could make such a statement. Please elaborate.
Well, I can't recall exactly. I know I didn't see TPM until the first Saturday, so many had already seen it, but I am pretty sure I had heard bad stuff about Jar Jar before then. Some of it may have been from reviewers and others who had seen advanced screenings. Also, there are plenty of people who read all the spoilers they can. I recall reading stuff decrying the use of an all CGI character. I definitely remember going into the movie determined to not let Jar Jar ruin the movie for me. I didn't need to worry, because I didn't find him to be that much of a problem.


What you're suggesting is that we MAKE ourselves like the Prequels despite all the problems that appeared before our eyes. I shouldn't have to put that kind of work into it. It's the filmmaker's responsibility to draw me in...not my responsibility to give him slack just because I have some deep-seated need to apologize for his subpar work. That's the thing. The first time through, I really didn't notice many problems. I was drawn in from the start, especially once the Jedi got into action.

You're suggesting that we should completely disregard the established continuity of the original trilogy in order that we can find enjoyment in its sequels? Really? :confused: Wow.
I'm not suggesting we disregard the continuity. The continuity is only disregarded in your mind because it doesn't match your strict interpretation of things in the OT. The Yoda teaching Ben thing is a prime example. You insist that the OT implies that Yoda and only Yoda taught Ben and that having Qui-Gon in TPM destroys the continuity. Yet the OT does not say that Qui-Gon doesn't teach him, and the prequels show that Yoda teaches younglings. I and many others feel this is a perfectly logical explanation that does not ruin the continuity, while you insist that it is obviously not what was intended.

That reasoning opens up a whole new world of possibilities, doesn't it? I mean, by that token, The Empire Strikes Back could have been done in Anime style, ROTJ in place-card Haiku, and the prequels with shadow finger puppets...and that all would have been fine with you because what is established just gets in the way of "enjoying it for what it is." I don't see how that follows at all. Now you're just talking crazy talk. Leave the "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd" to Rush Limbaugh.

stillakid
06-14-2005, 11:09 PM
Yet the OT does not say that Qui-Gon doesn't teach him...
The OT does not say a lot of things...like that J. Edgar Hoover should be in the Prequels for one. I don't see J. Edgar Hoover in the films. Do you? And why not? Because he wasn't established as a plausible element in the saga. And neither was a whole new unestablished teacher for Obi Wan. That's how trying to prove a negative works.

But the OT doesn't just imply that Yoda was Obi Wan's teacher...it states it outright. Therein lies the difference between PT Defenders and someone like myself. I don't conveniently twist logic in order to get the two trilogies to fit together. A well written story wouldn't require such a strategy.

Moreover, the character of Qui Gon was entirely unnecessary from a plot standpoint anyway. He added absolutely nothing whatsoever aside from being a character which Obi Wan could watch die. Qui did nothing that Obi Wan could have (should have) been doing. To this day, I still see no logical reason for Lucas to muck up the storyline by including this character. He was a tremendous waste of time.

From a personal opinion standpoint, I was also entirely disappointed by Liam as well. I've seen much better acting from him and Qui Gon is probably a low point in his career. I have yet to see BATMAN BEGINS, but just from the scant few seconds of Liam in the previews, I'm already more impressed with his "mentor" character there than what we were subjected to in 2 hours of The Phantom Menace.

KPl
06-14-2005, 11:38 PM
>>
But the OT doesn't just imply that Yoda was Obi Wan's teacher...it states it outright. Therein lies the difference between PT Defenders and someone like myself. I don't conveniently twist logic in order to get the two trilogies to fit together. A well written story wouldn't require such a strategy.
>>

>
When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot. But I was amazed how strongly the Force was with him. I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong. My pride has had terrible consequences for the galaxy.
>

http://www.bus.miami.edu/~jdavis/Starwars/jedi.html


Just to underline how /vastly/ far off course Lucas went. Ignoring the fact that Ewan, on his _best day_ will likely never be half as good as Guiness.

1. We have no explanation for why Jedi are fighter pilots. They don't fight in wars. They are in fact _forbidden_ from engaging in war. So what good is the skill which must undoubtely be maintained by both R&D, acquisition and training costs at an -extraordinary- level? Because the Galaxy hasn't known war in a 20 millenia.

2. Obiwan /wasn't even there/ when Anakin raced so how the hell would he know what kind of a pilot he was or was not? He certainly didn't impress me in that ludicrously silly bit of flubbery that was _R2 Autopiloting_ Anakin to the Space Cruiser.

3. Obiwan most assuredly _did no such thing_ as request Anakin's training. He merely succumbed to the stupidity of the Council in 'assigning him the embarrassment' of failing with him. Which he undoubtedly did. But which they did little to "Arrogant, even the experienced Jedi have become!" to alter the course of. Such a blatantly politically motivated CYA move on the part of the Masters.

4. The ONLY time I say Yoda give Anakin advice it was during the bit with his WIFE. Given that he 'sat in' on Skywalker's slaughter of the Tuskens (which personally never bothered me as I saw no real alternative if he wanted to escape and know well the 'cruel mercy' of leaving children and women alive but helpless in a desert environment) yet never asked what had happened when the two returned from Geonosis. Given that he never 'sensed' Anakin's betrayal of the Jedi Code. Given that he never _gave a reason_ (that I could believe) for the lack of attachments clause. HOW can you say Yoda was a great teacher?! Certainly every top level manager from the Admiral leading a carrier battle group to Midway, to the General commanding D-Day to Iococa trying to turn Ford around to the U.S. president 'apologizing' for an EP-3's flight crews' collective stupidity, KNOWS that _he_ is responsible for every man and woman in his/her organization. And acts to preserve _his_ reputation through setting a set of standards which THEY MUST HONOR, accordingly. Did Yoda do any of this while he was busy contemplating his navel?!?

Obiwan specifically asked for help from both Mace and Yoda. (In the novelizations especially) did everything possible to make it clear he thought he was losing control of a dangerous individual who equated loyalty with truth rather than expediency. HOW does that match up to what Alec Guinness later stated? I mean it's one thing to fall on your sword for the good of all. But humility for self-flagellation's sake is STUPID.

>>
Moreover, the character of Qui Gon was entirely unnecessary from a plot standpoint anyway. He added absolutely nothing whatsoever aside from being a character which Obi Wan could watch die. Qui did nothing that Obi Wan could have (should have) been doing. To this day, I still see no logical reason for Lucas to muck up the storyline by including this character. He was a tremendous waste of time.
>>

His purpose was to import 'something special' to the act of coming back from the dead and give a root cause to the necromantic possession of individual Jedi as a function of talking to their past teachers and thus 'learning the will of The Force' in it's seeming sadism.

That was just a decoy action to cover up a lack of quality in the rest of the storyline is obvious from the way it was endgame handled as but a snippet of dialogue between Yoda and Obiwan: "Here is your homework..." (why didn't Quigon appear to Obiwan or even Anakin -when it could have helped-? Is there some 'chain of command' in the afterlife that Quigon must cowtow before a clearly inferior, close-minded, little green toad?)

>>
From a personal opinion standpoint, I was also entirely disappointed by Liam as well. I've seen much better acting from him and Qui Gon is probably a low point in his career. I have yet to see BATMAN BEGINS, but just from the scant few seconds of Liam in the previews, I'm already more impressed with his "mentor" character there than what we were subjected to in 2 hours of The Phantom Menace.
>>

Beyond the fact that his quixotic philosophy (again going from the novelizations) led directly to the deaths of TRILLIONS of beings despite his 'higher understanding' of the Living Force's (another largely unexplained element) so called will?

Or because his teaching of Obiwan to 'ignore your feelings!' was going to lead the latter to do the opposite with Luke /only after/ the disaster that was Anakin?

Crikey, I get /so tired/ of 'reverse moral lessons' (do not what I do) trying to purvey some kind of subtley as the 'intentional outcome' of what is simply _BAD STORY TELLING_.


KPl.

Mad Slanted Powers
06-15-2005, 01:19 AM
The OT does not say a lot of things...like that J. Edgar Hoover should be in the Prequels for one. I don't see J. Edgar Hoover in the films. Do you? And why not? Because he wasn't established as a plausible element in the saga. And neither was a whole new unestablished teacher for Obi Wan. That's how trying to prove a negative works. You're missing my point. I'm trying to say that the PT doesn't contradict on this issue. Qui-Gon is already in the prequels. We can't change that. My statement was merely to say that nothing in the OT said he couldn't be there. If J. Edgar Hoover was in the PT, then there would be something in the OT to contradict that - "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." So unless J. Edgar Hoover is beyond ancient or learned to travel through time and the vastness of space, then it would not make sense for him to be in the PT.


But the OT doesn't just imply that Yoda was Obi Wan's teacher...it states it outright. Therein lies the difference between PT Defenders and someone like myself. I don't conveniently twist logic in order to get the two trilogies to fit together. A well written story wouldn't require such a strategy. The PT doesn't say Yoda didn't train him. Yoda instructs younglings, so he would have instructed Obi-Wan then. Who instructs Obi-Wan after Qui-Gon's death? Just because he is not a padawan of Yoda, or a padawan of anyone anymore for that matter, does not mean he doesn't continue to learn. Yoda, being perhaps the wisest Jedi in the order, would be someone Obi-Wan would continue to go to for guidance. How is this a contradiction of the OT? Considering (with a little help from EU sources) that Obi-Wan was Qui-Gon's apprentice for about 12 years or so, Yoda would have been the main instructor to Obi-Wan for about 2/3 of his life at the end of ROTS.


From a personal opinion standpoint, I was also entirely disappointed by Liam as well. I've seen much better acting from him and Qui Gon is probably a low point in his career.He may have done better elsewhere, but I thought he did quite well here. I'm not sure if I had any preconceived notions of what a Jedi would be like in the prequels, but the character of Qui-Gon seemed to be just right, and Liam simply was Qui-Gon in TPM.

2-1B
06-15-2005, 02:24 AM
And don't forget that Yoda Taught Ben how to commune with Qui-Gon. lol

KPl
06-15-2005, 02:39 AM
>>
The PT doesn't say Yoda didn't train him. Yoda instructs younglings, so he would have instructed Obi-Wan then.
>>

Which is like saying your elementary school teacher is more important than your college professor. You may 'learn all you need to know in kindergarten' in terms of socialization skills and the power tree dynamics among grade ages, teachers and genders etc.

But you will /never/ gain more technical skills from that period than you do from your post graduate education in _either_ the real world /or/ academia.

You simply won't even -remember- most of it.

Given this common sense approach, as well as the certainty that it was QUIGON who /asked/ Obiwan to teach Anakin (against Obiwan's wishes) you cannot assume that Yoda is the primary educator or the principle reason Obiwan taught Anakin (against Yoda's wishes) as ROTJ implies.

OTOH, if Yoda confines himself to the world of 'wondrous is the child mind' Michael Jackson fantasies; then perhaps he truly is a senile old lizard because _surely_ he owes it to The Order to train their up and comers to duel with some of those supposedly so-great saber and Force skills that Obiwan blah-blah-blah sets him up with?

I myself would find it /terribly/ difficult to talk politics and diplomacy at an ADULT level in the morning, only to reset my mind to deal with the immature perceptions and skillsets of kiddies in the afternoon. Perhaps -that- is why Yoda is such a pathetic creature throughout the PT.

>>
Who instructs Obi-Wan after Qui-Gon's death? Just because he is not a padawan of Yoda, or a padawan of anyone anymore for that matter, does not mean he doesn't continue to learn. Yoda, being perhaps the wisest Jedi in the order, would be someone Obi-Wan would continue to go to for guidance. How is this a contradiction of the OT? Considering (with a little help from EU sources) that Obi-Wan was Qui-Gon's apprentice for about 12 years or so, Yoda would have been the main instructor to Obi-Wan for about 2/3 of his life at the end of ROTS.
>>

So now we branch out into the utter speciousness of the 'only two' rule which SURELY doesn't support the notion of a society of Jedi /thousands/ strong. If only because, even with elderly gits like Yoda able to do 3-4 per century, the Sith would be vastly better off trying to out number their enemy than out-slink them.

As for wisdom and guidance, Obiwan DID go to him.

And got snubbed, every time he mentioned Anakin's name.

That is pride and pique at being overruled perhaps. It most certainly is NOT wisdom.

If Yoda was 'all that' he would /sense/ that Obiwan had deep misgivings about his FIRST pupil and NOT blame him for Quigon's idiocy. Rather, realizing the obvious (a studious, non-innovative, man, who would rather 'meditate in a cave', completely out of his depth in teaching someone as brilliant and stuckup aware of it as 'The Chosen One'), Yoda would help Obiwan 'as my student of not so long ago' to help Anakin.

Since the latter is 'so dangerous'.

Indeed, let's /look at Anakin/ shall we? He's what, NINE, when this circus begins? He has spent his entire life a self taught SLAVE which means that his literacy and other basic skills may not even pass the pre-entry qualifications.

Now you are going to tell me that Obiwan hauls him around the galaxy teaching BOTH grade-school level aptitudes AND the 'Ways Of The Jedi' while himself engaged on dangerous missions?

_No_ _Freakin'_ _Way_.

Where is Yoda in the period between 9 and say 12-13 when most Jedi are selected by a Master for Padawan training? Is Anakin not undergoing an intensive candidate training regimen at Dantooine or The Temple in the Jedi creche` organization and thus YODA'S RESPONSIBILITY?

Bahh.

You can be drug around by the ears all day long and the only thing it proves beyond doubt is that LUCAS is a $elf$erving profiteer with no story to tell, only needless angst to sell.

>>
He may have done better elsewhere, but I thought he did quite well here. I'm not sure if I had any preconceived notions of what a Jedi would be like in the prequels, but the character of Qui-Gon seemed to be just right, and Liam simply was Qui-Gon in TPM.
>>

Given his shy warmth and quiet (almost 'antique') dignity comes off misplaced (as an abstinent monk) in the presence of Schmi and his abandonment of her and exploitation of Anakin is nothing if not cruel, I find little purpose in the /role/ of the character. Except to make an incredibly poor decision and be cannonized for it.

In this, it is less Liam Neeson than his ability to do much with nothing much. Good Actors can talk up a trash part but in the end, it's still my-name-on-garbage. And my guess is that this may be part of why Liam is nothing more than a licensed voice in the followons.


KPl.

KPl
06-15-2005, 02:45 AM
And don't forget that Yoda Taught Ben how to commune with Qui-Gon. lol

But who 'taught' Luke?

If it's 'all because of his superior bloodline' then /WHY/ (oh why) did not _Quigon_ speak to **Anakin**? Another untrained but powerful youth?

Force knows the little twerp needed a sergeant not a woman to talk to after the whole Tusken bloodbath event.

In the end, it's all just scripted convenience of a broke-down plot by an amateur writer gone pro-hack.

IOW: Pure 'IITS' which rhymes with...


KPl.

The Whills
06-15-2005, 07:41 AM
First off I will say I am a prequel, as well as OT lover, I love them both.
I respect and even enjoy reading your opinion but there are several arguments against it.
First off Episode four was meant to have a stand alone feeling.
That doesn't mean that further stories would contradict it.
Episode 4 was merely the best starting point to get people interested in somthing that is strange. The only thing I could maybe agree with you on, is that star wars is so familiar to our culture now that it can no longer shock people as much as episode 4...but nonetheless it still holds true to itself.
Of course future events would naturally influence the writing of the PT, but a writer's rule is to never reinvent the wheel, so why not use the ot as reference when you have already written it?
Your argument that the PT has no mythological archetype is way off, because it would be impossible for movies like the prequels not to have archetypes even if the filmmaker tried to make them archetype free.
Jar Jar-The idiot.
Obi-wan/qui-gon-The mentor/hero/wizard/knight.
Amidala/shmi-The mother.
Anakin-The father, the demigod, the boy who cried wolf, the fallen hero the sinner-saint (anakin is probably the most complicated, self contradicting mix of archetypes possible, but still the most human of them all probably.)
Palpatine-The deciever, the tyrant.
Clones/stormtroopers-The henchman.
Sith lords-black knights.
Jedi-white knights.
The force-god

Midichorians-the holy spirit.
R2 and threepio-the cronichlers, the story tellers, the narrator's, the witnesses...despite threepio's claim that he wasn't a very good story teller, I think that is what lucas intended him and r2 to be.

Plus you could even count alot of the situations that the characters arrive in as archetypal.

Anakin's immaculate birth.
Obi-wan being bound by all 4 limbs in dooku's chamber on geonosis.
The prophecy of the chosen one.

I need not go on, there are maybe even more archetypes in the PT than the OT.


The lists of archetypes go on and on.

PT-The rise and fall of the father.
OT-Confronting or coming to terms with the father.

But really, the point is if you choose to see negative in somthing you will, you could even see it in the OT if you tried hard enough. It's easy enough to see the OT in a negative light if you are viewing it with people who are cynical. It's all about what you choose to focus on.

stillakid
06-15-2005, 08:20 AM
You're missing my point. I'm trying to say that the PT doesn't contradict on this issue.
No, I'm getting your point just fine and I'm disagreeing with and offering evidence to back up my assertion. :)


Qui-Gon is already in the prequels. We can't change that. My statement was merely to say that nothing in the OT said he couldn't be there.
True, he can certainly be there somewhere, but not as Obi Wan's teacher.



If J. Edgar Hoover was in the PT, then there would be something in the OT to contradict that - "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." So unless J. Edgar Hoover is beyond ancient or learned to travel through time and the vastness of space, then it would not make sense for him to be in the PT.
Right, and in the same way, the OT describes Yoda as Obi Wan's teacher, therefore in the PT, Yoda should be Obi Wan's teacher.



The PT doesn't say Yoda didn't train him. Yoda instructs younglings, so he would have instructed Obi-Wan then. Who instructs Obi-Wan after Qui-Gon's death? Just because he is not a padawan of Yoda, or a padawan of anyone anymore for that matter, does not mean he doesn't continue to learn.
And therein lies the "twisting" of logic that I described earlier in order to make the two trilogies fit together.

Mad Slanted Powers
06-15-2005, 07:32 PM
And therein lies the "twisting" of logic that I described earlier in order to make the two trilogies fit together.There is no twisting. Yoda did instruct Obi-Wan.

JediTricks
06-15-2005, 08:29 PM
good thread! people are entitled to their own likes and dislikes, and i see a lot of bashing of the people who didn't love the prequels, mostly by people who loved the prequels, and felt somehow attacked that their fellow fans didn't. Yeah, I saw that a lot, especially the day it came out when there were nothing but positive comments on the forums, I guess the stages of positive in the responses were an affront to some people's tastes or egos or something.


for me, the OT had something i don't see in the prequels - intimacy. maybe it was just 'cause GL had no money. but whatever it was, you felt really close to all the main characters, like they were friends of yours having adventures. the character development was classic myth development, plus some modern touches that made everyone more real to us. the prequels are very grand, very busy, and VERY big. is that bad? no. is that the feeling the OT gave me? absolutely no!That's how I feel, especially the character interactions in the OT which are so strong and have so much closeness without any of it being forced, I have always felt from Ep 1 that the prequels didn't have this for the most part, so the characters seemed isolated and I as an audience member felt isolated from them.


The supposed idea behind the prequels in Lucas's eyes was that when you watched them in order they would enhance the original trilogy by introducing us to these characters we have cared about for ages and cast them in an appealing and sympathetic light. That's what Lucas has been saying for almost a decade now, but when you look at what he said in this thread, I can only see contrast there because Star Wars was partially about NOT ever having those prequel stories. And I totally agree with you that the prequels' intention to enhance does not do so, to me so much of the prequels does the opposite in that they make the OT lesser than it was.


Some people might say just ignore them (the PT) but thats bloody hard when he seems bent on altering the originals to be more in keeping with them at every opportunity. For me, exploring this thread's original meaning is part of me trying to figure out if I can now ignore them, separate them in my mind as "Star Wars" and "Something Else", but so far it's been very difficult for me to do, can't put a cup of water in a pond and then get that specific cup back out.
[/QUOTE]



How is that any different from those of us who have specific problems with the films but are written off as being "too old" or "too jaded" or merely "nitpickers"? How 'bout those "jabs"? You think it's a cakewalk on this side of the aisle where our well-drawn conclusions backed up by quotes and such are written off as irrelevant whining? You and Caesar are both right to a degree, it's become this endless cycle where one side thinks of the entire other side in a negative way and it eventually comes out in what they post which just leads to more from the other side and so on.


Jump 20 years, past Lucas's divorce, and we have an older guy who is principally interested in pushing the technology more than telling stories. I am not really sure what Lucas was trying to get at by doing the prequels, obviously "enhancing the originals" makes no sense when the intention was specifically to NOT tell these stories, part of me suspects it's his idea of a "reward" for a mainly loyal audience, part of me suspects he got caught up in his own post-ANH hype and did it only to justify his after-the-fact claims that the saga was about Vader, and part of me suspects he just got bored with no projects for a long while and really doesn't know why he's doing it; but all of me seems to feel that he never had this story to tell within him, these prequels weren't another epic brewing inside his mind, and his own words seem to agree - he says in a way it's fun for him, but it's been the task of taking these tiny elements he already had and turning out 6 hours of movie around them.


While the OT had the Darth Vader story as one element of the story, it was not ABOUT Anakin/Darth Vader. So to shift gears in the middle and suddenly try to conform the entire saga into a story ABOUT one guy in the midst of this galactic conflict can only result in disaster. I love Vader as much as anyone, but his story was just a cog in a much bigger and more interesting wheel. Yeah, I must admit, every time Lucas tries to pin down the OT on a single character, it feels like he's trying to put blinders on the audience so it'll fit his current opinion rather than how it already played out, and the prequels feel like the ultimate set of blinders there. The OT wasn't just about Vader or Luke or Obi-Wan, we got focus on them much of the time but they aren't the only core players. The OT is supposed to be a retelling of "the hero's journey" which makes it about Luke, but once we set up that there are several core heroes working together in the same goal, isn't it really telling "the heroes' journey"?



It seems to me there were a lot of people that were already criticizing the film before it was even released. They had already decided that they hated Jar Jar and that Anakin should have been older and that Qui-Gon had no place in the story. They were criticizing what they had just seen, not the movie in its entirety but those specific elements, I think that is valid even when they apply it to what the trailers and other studio-based hype has already implied about the movie.


I think you and others have also said that you truly want to like the prequels. I think if that were so, you would be more willing to accept some of the explanations for the apparent contradictions between the two trilogies. I cannot accept what does not feel right to me, it is not possible. I also can't accept someone else's inferrence of how it should of played, that is how that person wrote it in their head, if they cannot back it up with sufficent evidence to show how they got there then I can't follow them there - I see a lot of prequel-likers getting frustrated there because they feel what they wrote in their heads is sufficient when I see it as too subjective for an outside party such as myself to follow.


Instead, you dismiss them and say that the OT clearly meant something else. Thus, it seems there is no way you can reconcile the two. Maybe there is no way to reconcile the 2, look at what Lucas says about Star Wars in this thread, how can the prequels reconcile with the OT when they are shown to exist out of step with the meaning of the originals? I don't know if they can, there may not be a way.



I can't remember if it is on the audio comentary for TPM or ATOC or both, or if I read it in a magazine somewhere, but George Lucas has been on record as saying that there were certain "scenario's" from the OT that he wanted to portray in the PT that way when you watch the saga in episode order and you get to a "scenario" in lets say ESB, all of the sudden you are reminded of something that happened in lets say ROTS. That is why the final battle in TPM looks like a rehash of the final battle in ROTJ. I really don't see that as a flaw. I don't remember that from AOTC and haven't watched TPM's, but Lucas talks about recycling riffs during the ESB commentary, he likes putting different characters in similar situations to see how they deal with it differently as well as give the audience a sense of familiarity. That's ok in linear fashion, but the prequels are supposed to claim they came first yet they are the one recycling the riff, so if you think of them "in order" the prequel's recycled riff seems hollow. Also, the larger the riff you recycle, the more empty of new ideas it begins to feel, like Luke's encounters in the Cantina vs Jabba's Palace, or Death Star battles 1 and 2, the latter has elements that aren't fresh anymore. So when you have the TPM battle riffing off ROTJ's it seems doubly hollow.

Remember the saying 'The actions of the father reflect back on the son' (or something to that effect). There are a lot more subtleties and path variations in that scenario though, and more importantly, here it is the son pretending to be the father and pretending to shape the real father's character.



I can only speak for myself here, but I certainly had no prior knowledge of any of those characters before seeing TPM. I actually don't know anyone who did. As I recall, Episode I security was pretty high, unlike the next two films. So I have no idea how you could make such a statement. Please elaborate. For me, I had some prior knowledge of TPM and made comments about such in the old forums, one specific example was when TFN put up an audio clip of Qui-Gon and Jar Jar in danger and trying to get out of something - I didn't know it was the Gungan Sub at the time, I thought it was a Hutt's jail cell or something - and I commented that Jar Jar's voice sounded weird and kinda goofy to me, and it still does. That wasn't a statement that the movie was going to be garbage or that the characters were going to be flat, only that Jar Jar's voice sounded weird and it was based on solid information, that's how my stuff was.



I respect and even enjoy reading your opinion but there are several arguments against it.
First off Episode four was meant to have a stand alone feeling.
That doesn't mean that further stories would contradict it.
Episode 4 was merely the best starting point to get people interested in somthing that is strange. I've heard that argument a lot, and it used to be something that troubled me, "how could THESE stories have actually always been in there?", but Lucas himself says it's not true, Ep 4 was always meant to be THE starting point and Eps 5 and 6 were meant to be the rest of that story since once he realized they couldn't have been included with Ep 4. Therefore, the answer is that "THESE (prequel) stories almost entirely weren't there".


Your argument that the PT has no mythological archetype is way off, because it would be impossible for movies like the prequels not to have archetypes even if the filmmaker tried to make them archetype free. My argument was that the OT characters used mythological archetypes as their cores where the prequels do not. The characters do fit within archetypes in the prequels as well, true, but I don't believe the prequels call upon those archetypes at anywhere near the level they should, especially in comparison to how much they reference the OT.

Anakin-The father, the demigod, the boy who cried wolf, the fallen hero the sinner-saint (anakin is probably the most complicated, self contradicting mix of archetypes possible, but still the most human of them all probably.) Anakin is the core of the prequels, and it seems to me he's stretched across so many archetypes to the point of obliqueness for the audience, that is the point I was making. For the audience, is it simple for them to figure out what is at the core of this guy? I don't think so. The other elements of the prequels are just as decentralized, like you say, lots of archetypes, but my contention is that the intent behind the prequels was never to focus on a central mythos, it's not "the hero's journey", it's Anakin's birth and rise, the rise of an Empire, the rise of Obi-Wan, the prophecy of the Chosen One, the Force being corrupted, the fall of the Jedi, and on and on like that, all based on a litany of things that Lucas wanted to explain from the OT even though part of the original intention of the OT was that these things were NOT supposed to be explained to us.



You're missing my point. I'm trying to say that the PT doesn't contradict on this issue. Qui-Gon is already in the prequels. We can't change that. This is true, only Lucas could change that now and he won't. So what does that leave us who see it as a problem in the overall scheme of the saga? Well, it further separates the prequels from the OT, which with this thread I believe is now ok for us to do - the hard parts are actually doing so, and then learning to navigate our community with those who do not.

sith_killer_99
06-15-2005, 09:19 PM
I will agree that the PT had lots of action and some top-drawer visual effects, but when you say "is it Star Wars? yes", beyond the surface stuff, how so? I understand there are lightsabers and Jedi and Obi-Wan and R2 and so-on, of course, but what actually makes Star Wars... well, "Star Wars", and how do the prequels apply? To me, Star Wars is the classic myths and character archetypes told in a pulp serial sci-fi setting with some of the greatest cinematic presence, giving it that "magical" juice, and none of that seems to apply to the prequels for me, so that is where my confusion stems from

IMO, yes, it is Star Wars. It has a different look and feel than the OT, but it is still the same SW universe, as you say, the superficial stuff is all there, but it is told in a different style, it has less mystery but it is still told in a pulp serial sci-fi setting. It incorporates more cultures and different elements and eliminates others but it still has mythological elements that apply, we may not like them, we may downright loath them, but they are there none the less. They do not appear to have the universal appeal of the OT, certainly. Plus we see more human elements and less mythological elements.

I often wonder if those who do not like the EU (novels, comics, etc) are the same who dislike the PT? I love the EU stuff, and I view the PT along those lines, it is different and new and it often takes away much of the mystery of the OT, but it is fun all the same and to me it is all Star Wars.

JediTricks
06-15-2005, 09:36 PM
Here's my response to something from another thread which I think illustrates some of the things I have been trying to get at...

--- --- ---


After seeing the movie a second time and having discussed it, it's not hard to buy jjreason's explanation {about why Anakin says he hates Obi-Wan}. But it shouldn't take an in-depth analysis to come to that conclusion. In a movie such as this, the reaction and understanding of a character's actions and emotions should be immediate, and dialogue and on-screen events should be support that. This is one of my greatest contentions about the prequels, that if we have to talk it out to figure something out, if we have to fill in a lot of blanks to get there, the movie's plot isn't doing its job - I find that infinitely frustrating.


Why? Think of the target audience - the majority of it is children, who don't think this deep, and fans who already know the outcome of such actions, and want to see an appropriate course of supportive storytelling. There's another reason which fits kids and adults and every demographic, one that is at the core of the original Star Wars, Lucas says it himself...

The thing about making a movie like this is you have to create a whole world - in this particular case I guess it's a whole universe - but all the customs, all the politics, all the history, all the character motivations, everything has to be created... I was able to use archetypes which helped develop the characters and put them in a context where they could be easily-grasped, because they are traditional characters that are easy to understand, I felt that was important in a movie like this because if you're in a really bizarre, strange environment, if the lead characters have emotions and motivations that are very very familiar to you, then it's very easy for you to grab onto something in the movie and make sense out of it.... when I would get thrown into something like 'Seven Samurai' or 'Yojimbo' or 'Ikiru' or any of the movies, it was like, I had no idea what was going on, but I could follow the human story, but the culture was completely complex and oblique - and I liked that! I liked that feeling of being thrown into an environment, you know, trying to get my bearings, and still be able to tell a story in that environment that made sense, that you weren't so confused that you just couldn't follow it.

--- --- ---

That says it for me, we ARE in a confusing alien environment and the use of simplicity and easily-grasped archetypes is key to get the connection across to us, the audience, I don't think the prequels even try to do this, which makes them different.

KPl
06-15-2005, 09:59 PM
>>

First off I will say I am a prequel, as well as OT lover, I love them both.

I respect and even enjoy reading your opinion but there are several arguments against it.

First off Episode four was meant to have a stand alone feeling.

>>

As is often the case with a 'prelude' episode which must tell a tale in and of itself while /creating/ the backstory that nobody has heard before. It also has obviously commercial justifications as, despite what Lucas said about wanting to create a 'Saturday Matinee Serial' effect (halfway done, whose preceeding elements you had already missed) there was no doubt that ANH, for all it's clumsiness is THE 'Star Wars' point of reference and so if it fails, they all do.

i.e. it HAS TO be good, despite the clumsy acting and brief effects. Because it is both the ancestral establisher of a mythic dynasty. And it's own make or break justification for further films in the series.

Having said that, Lucas read Campbell's books and indeed, took Campbell to see the film, before doing the final editing. I believe Campbell's response was "I thought modern art was restricted to Picasso...". Which says that while a hack, at least Lucas tried to impress 'the master' and got grudging approval for his inclusion of all the basic story elements.

>>

That doesn't mean that further stories would contradict it.

Episode 4 was merely the best starting point to get people interested in somthing that is strange. The only thing I could maybe agree with you on, is that star wars is so familiar to our culture now that it can no longer shock people as much as episode 4...but nonetheless it still holds true to itself.

>>

No. A story may twist and wend it's way through multiple iterations that changes _It's_ (not IITS) form without changing the production values or 'intent' that wraps up the whole series. The PT has lousy production values brought on by Lucas' HIGHLY questionable obsession with digital media and poor choices of what I will call 'environmentalists' (for want of a better word) in fleshing out the background of his films. i.e. He is NOT trying to restamp the feel of Star Wars into a completely new mold, he is simply using very poor creative theory /overall/. And so his apples+buckyballs attempt to link an existing milieu with a new concept falls FLAT ON IT'S FACE. Not least because those 'points of familiarity' which he DID choose are among the least popular and visually interesting of all the storyscapes.

Tatooine was never a place to return to, only to LEAVE FROM (and we'd BTDT'd that approach anyway). In this Campbell's typical return from the Special World to the Ordinary One /after/ the climactic encounter and reward _could not_ happen because the Desert Husk was the forgotten creche` of birth, not a catalytic chrysalis in and of itself. So much for the pathetic Pod Race.

OTOH, Naboo was a needless edition that could just as readily been _Alderaan_ a 'lost Atlantean Kingdom' whose coming doom we knew of but not /why/ it was so dear to Leia's future heart. And indeed, something which the characters of her parent's generation would -never- know and so exploit in a carefree sense (enjoy paradise today for tomorrow -it- dies). Coruscant deserved to be the principle 'moral swamp' by which we defined the nature of the Republic's ills at both the grand and the common levels (contrasting corruption and it's effects). Yet we NEVER got to see the underworld described in the EU, only the 'Shining 1st Estate' above it. A world of (yawns with bored contempt as much as a moral one) dysfunctional leadership in a Galaxy of a million settled worlds. Oh surprise me. You can't keep your own hovel in order so /of course/ you cannot keep your hegemony. EXCEPT we don't get to see any of that!

And then we go to the 'purely icing' elements of creatures and engineering. Which had NO feel of Star Wars and NO artistic merit of it's own. Ships which are uniformly /boring/ because they are not 'working vessels' as the SWU ships were, only carved soap blocks of uniformity. Creatures which are just short of holographic in the way they render the human actors into participants in a cartoon. And worse, as blatantly physical-inferior warriors (watch Jar Jar do flips, there is _real power_ in that motion that shouldn't be, because it makes the Jedi look like tired idiots running around in housecoats and underwear by comparison). All this for 'atmosphere' when you DENY the CGI enhancement of _their combat_ fluidity?!?!?

>>

Of course future events would naturally influence the writing of the PT, but a writer's rule is to never reinvent the wheel, so why not use the ot as reference when you have already written it?

>>

There is a marked difference between reinventing the wheel and pasting the spokes of the existing one on a square block of concrete, expecting the same sense of _functional_ (the Great Wheel /turns/ to bring Z into A) character development.

Indeed, in this, Joseph Campbell himself has been often accused in his later works (_The Masks Of God_ IIRR...) of being a 'simplificationist' in his attempts to create a universal omnimyth by creatively 'deleting' all elements of storytelling -except- those which he could cook into a stew of rearranged commonality. A better source for (modern) comparison would be Chris Vogler's _The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure For Storytellers and Screenwriters_ as he doesn't confuse Jungian attempts to create a common consciousness of our imaginative beliefs (as a philosophical perspective exercise) with the needs to truly /structure/ (X comes as a function of NEEDING Y, not simply as a square-peg-round-hole attempt to use generic forms to occupy screentime) the tale, properly.

>>

Your argument that the PT has no mythological archetype is way off, because it would be impossible for movies like the prequels not to have archetypes even if the filmmaker tried to make them archetype free.

>>

No. My argument is that you have already /told/ the Mythic Journey. And ended it badly with an attempt to save a man who is a slaughterer on a scale that makes Hitler look like a saint. What I wanted to was review a _period_ which was "A more civilized time..." in /the dream/ of a better world. Not merely to me but _to the Star Wars milieu (and Obiwan in particular) inhabitants_.

You have to have a working uniiversal system of governance and prosperity to make that happen. And the Jedi as the 'Guardians of a 1,000 Generation Republic' were obviously the clockwork mechanism around which that would unfold. Whatever monkey wrench you subsequently toss into the works, they MUST be strong enough to be worthy of 'until then, their 20,000 year demi-rule had been without hiccup'.

Unfortunately, who needs a wrench when your guardians are already monkeys?

>>

Jar Jar-The idiot.

>>

Get your names right.

>

Trickster

The Trickster is a clown, a mischief maker. He provides the comedy relief that a story often needs to offset heavy dramatic tension. The trickster keeps things in proportion.

The trickster can be an ally or companion of the hero, or may work for the villain. In some instances the trickster may even be the hero or villain. In any role, the trickster usually represents the force of cunning, and is pitted against opponents who are stronger or more powerful.


Note that, beyond comic relief (which /all/ characters will supply 'laughing at myself' humor for their rueful acknowledgement of a situation which was 'less than stellar' in either it's self creation or their own direct response to. It then being the WRITER'S job to make that response as sophisticated as the character arc allows) the trickster's Real Role is to 'make light of' (illuminate) the heavy drama in a way which highlight's the CENTRAL CAST'S responses. Giving weight to their words through the Everyman-In-Wonderland response of bewilderment and disbelief in their own.

>

>>

Obi-wan/qui-gon-The mentor/hero/wizard/knight.

>>

No. Obiwan plays two primary roles:

>

Threshold Guardian

The threshold guardian is the first obstacle to the hero in his journey. The threshold is the gateway to the new world the hero must enter to change and grow.

The threshold guardian is usually not the story's antagonist. Only after this initial test has been surpassed will the hero face the true contest and the arch-villain. Frequently the threshold guardian is a henchman or employee of the antagonist.

But the threshold guardian can also be an otherwise neutral character, or even a potential ally such as the police lieutenant who warns the hero private detective off the case, or the Cowardly Lion who first frightens and then joins Dorothy on her journey to Oz.

The role of the threshold guardian is to test the hero's mettle and worthiness to begin the story's journey, and to show that the journey will not be easy. The hero will encounter the guardian early in the story, usually right after he starts his quest.

Herald

The role of the herald is to announce the challenge which begins the hero on his story journey. The herald is the person or piece of information which upsets the sleepy equilibrium in which the hero has lived and starts the adventure.

The herald need not be a person. It can be an event or force: the start of a war, a drought or famine, or even an ad in a newspaper.
>

In that, his premature death in the OT and his inability to tame Anakin in the PT defines his INABILITY to be the mentor. But his exposition in the face of a 'curious boy' sets the stage for making the initial choices that will take him down the road to being a man. And 'announces', to the audience, what /kind/ of a proactive rather than 'responsive' hero he will eventually be. In this, you cannot make him a valid Mentor character OR a hero (because the hero's journey is that of LEARNING from his mistakes) because Obiwan does neither. He is an absolute archon. Of wisdom in the 'second' series. And blind stupidity in the first. The contradiction between the two defines WHY Lucas is an abject failure at storytelling. Because, as I illustrated with the Quigon "Live in the present or you'll have no future" and Obiwan's "But Master Yoda says I should be mindful..." casepoint, Obiwan shoud be A#1 on the list of making Anakin a _balanced_ warrior. Since it's clear that Quigon's philosophy was the faulty one (not waiting for his 'assistant' before again engaging Maul is only the tip of the iceberg but a potent image if you see it for what it is...). And Obiwan's own precognition was what deserved 'further exploration'. If only to define the Shroud Effect which I find to be so utterly ludicrous.

>>

Amidala/shmi-The mother.

>>

No. Padme is The Temptation. The Goddess Encounter.

Though not specifically a 'character' in JC's list, indicating his lack of mental ability to define a female value other than misogynistically, the female role is that of broadening the hero's mind by offering him an alternative to the Heroic Path. In some ways she is therefore a Shadow of what the /audience/ wants to 'just get past' as needless boy-gets-girl romance on the way to the 'Inmost Cave' and the 'Drawing of the Sword' (hey, they're his words) of heroic transformation. Yet _properly done_ they are also the means by which the Female dual-mind teaches the male linear-reasoned conscience to see MORE THAN the immediate moment OR the final destiny as direct causal links of action and objectivism. In so doing, the female role is less nurturer than _Shapeshifter_ granting an ability to the male to do something which he normally would not. While often preserving that which is his innermost spirit or soul from the very corruption of purpose she mythically represents (i.e. you will always be a man, remember that when you are given an absolute choice of destinies). Luke's response to the threat to Leia by his Father after their talk in the Ewok Grove is an example, albeit poorly scripted for purpose and incredibly gender-dated for motivation, of what the female function is. To show by vulnerability, the means of evading an enemy's strength in a typical male "Unstoppable force meets immutable object" fashion.

And again, given we are NEVER told /why/ it is forbidden for a Jedi to _breed_ (trillion beings, only a few thousand Jedi, that makes Force Endowment one of the most rare genetic traits known on a population ratio). Nor why a Senator cannot have a husband and family, it smacks of Lucas' 'making a statement' about his own personal life, in the aftermath of divorce and single parenthood, more than any realworld arguable (thus ultimately understandable) 'fault of the system'.

To which I would add (again) one last comment: Portmann and Christensen are about the FLATTEST of 'star crossed lovers' I have /ever/ seen.

Schmi is even less impressive for all Pernilla August's nominal acting skills in doing the most with a minimalist role identity. For here is a 'nurturer' who would send her son into a life of indenture to the State after first letting him engage in a blood sport which THE CHILD Anakin clearly (in his manipulations of the pod racer) lacks the physique to handle. Even Anakin's "I guess so..." response and delayed reaction to her kidnap and torture only serves to WEAKEN the bond-ties of an apparently critical relationship of which we know NONE OF THE DETAILS to otherwise attribute a suspension of disbelief in.

>>

Anakin-The father, the demigod, the boy who cried wolf, the fallen hero the sinner-saint (anakin is probably the most complicated, self contradicting mix of archetypes possible, but still the most human of them all probably.)

>>

As you outline him, an entirely too muddy a character. One beset by an unbridgeably schizoid separation of casting (NEVER replace 'The Hero' with a NEW PERSON in a movie setting!) and yet no separation of selfish (unaware) and selfish (clumsily aware) and evil (unable to let go of selfishness) moments by which to create even a moment of believable "I should care about this person's coming descent because he COULD overcome his shortfalls...". There was NOTHING about Vader that was worthy of recovery as a man from the shell of the monster. Not even his final act to destroy the Emperor and save his 'father figure' role (it would have been more effective, in a primitive way, if it had been Leia at direct risk and Luke who gave him a save her and die or just die momentary reprieve.) could change the nature of a man who had caused BILLIONS to suffer at his hand. Yet, nominally, Anakin is NOT Vader. But a man with the potential to be more, a /dark/ hero struggling to find the light. I never found Lil Orphan Annie to be anything but insufferable. And that does not beget the sense of a vile-but-strong villain. Nor or a hero who once was not the man he is today.

IF THERE IS NO CHANGE. No cathartic moment when angst can become greater than we dream possible or less than we ever dream of falling to, as a function of all that has come before. Then the author hasn't the courage to make the Hero teeter on the edge of the cliff. And so doesn't know the value of tragedy as the emphasis of all that came before. And now can never be.

Such is the difference between 'real life' in which Hitler may well have always been a physically brutalized, spoiled, brat. And the literary where we see the opposite of evil, at least as a momentary glimmering of potential.



>>

Palpatine-The deciever, the tyrant.

>>

No. The Dragon. Mixed with the Shapeshifter and Shadow. But whereas the Shadow acts a midpoint obstacle to be removed on the trip to the final confrontation, (rather like the Threshold Guardian in a way) it is not the main antagonist. In this, Palpatine was ill served because we never got to see him BEING HIM and saying and acting in a way that gave you a sense of 'who I am' without direct effect on the others in the story but amplifying what we KNOW is the hidden evil. Lucas is simply a clutz with Palpatine and though he really can't help it, given the stupid rendition of The Emperor in ROTJ (which is where a properly developed Sidious would have been shown at the height of his cunning and reach before the 'surprising fall' of his own), it is yet another case of the gorilla and the Samsonite commercial coming together through a series of stock-situational encounters that do NOTHING to say "Here I am, this is my POV" (character motivation). In a way that slooooowly winds the two threads of Anakin's and Palpatine's characters together.

If you've read the ROTS novelization, there is a moment wherein Palpy offers Anakin 'anything' and Anakin just takes it, beyond the safety of his wife, beyond his oaths as a Jedi and the contradiction of 'attachments' that goes with it. THAT is what should have been Anakin's developmental arc of degradation throughout the PT. But again, you cannot do this with a child. Because that is when Annie is supposedly 'innocent' (as an accusation of good). Rather you MUST do it with someone who is darkened by a mother long dead. Living in a world which has (for instance) traded real poverty for enforced religious abstention from worldly goods. Ba-BAM! In walks Padme, the Temptation which is actually -better for Anakin- because she can MAKE HIM GOOD. By not being blinded by his obsesssion with her as yet another object he cannot have but rather wise in her ability to see past his cheapness into a greater man. Even if it is only, initially, brought on by hormones and shared loss (both from Naboo for instance).

In this, I will give Lucas one kudo. Palpie using Anakin's love for Amidala was perfectly in line with a male-seducer trying to exploit the wiles of a female whose functional (biologic) role he could never fulfill. But he hamhanded it /so badly/ _so late in the game_ as to make it an "Ainnnh..." moment rather than (say) making it clear that the Tuskens were PAID to take and torture or rape Schmi and descending further from there.

>>

Clones/stormtroopers-The henchman.

>>

No. Because these are more the heroes than Annie ever is. And yet again, Lucas makes the JEDI look like /idiots/ (Beware Greeks) for being nominally in charge of something for the better part of four years without checking, in depth, the psychologic makeup and indoctrination training of a weapon under their care. Jedi _do not_ like warfare. Therefore it stands to reason that they would not -trust- warriors who stood to replace their form of guardianship with out and out combattive response.

At least not without looking at that damn horse rather closely.

>>

Sith lords-black knights.

>>

Incompetent Youth and Aged Impostors. Make the Sith _real_ for their motivation. And you will create the basis of ALLIANCE by which any threat is made real rather than boogeyman monstrous. In this, Maul especially strikes me as being almost a farcical illustration of Lucas' own disbelief in what he was doing. For who would think a horned-human dressed in clown paint is anything but a 'Phantom Menace' of uproariously laughable proportions. Again, this is not some attempt to generate an omni-mind sense of higher conscience /from myth/. It is an attempt to create such a legend _as a working piece of fiction_ in which the psychological archetypes must be refined and exposited within a limited time period of development. Everytime you kill a bad guy you have to start over introducing a new one. Everytime a bad guy dies like a chump instead of a hard-fought kill or escape (and really the same goes for designated-morte good guys too) you depreciate the sense of foreboding that these _really are_ dangerous people. At the immediate-physical as well as secondary political/relgious/philosophical levels.

BOTH mistakes are crucial because we are Well Past the period of notionalistic (if not nationalistic) rendering of enemies as purely 2Dimensional associations with evil 'because they are not on our team'.

Which of course brings me to the notion of a 1,000 year vendetta in which your most lethal adversary is the man who will use and kill you if you do not assassinate him first. While the 'original sin' of those who oppressed you, becomes an ever vaguer ideal. For a demigod, there is no point in holding onto such past hurts. Not when the ultimate expression of Passion is YOUR DESIRES. In the present.

>>

Jedi-white knights.

>>

Chumps, one and all. They can't fight, they have only a pablumized philosophy of personal existence and their ability to contribute usefully to society, as 'Guardians' or otherwise is non-existent. This is not Lucas arguing against the Jedi hero worship becoming a mistaken religion (though he should have known better if he didn't think it would happen in a world sick to death of god-facades). It is Lucas afraid to create an ubermenche of eliteness. Even if the ultimate purpose of his drama is to illustrate how dangerous the reliance upon such a caste system is.

HAVE SOME BALLS. And make your heroes strong before you undercut them.

>>

The force-god

>>

Nope. The Force is the true storyteller. Because only through exotic (usually detrimental) manipulations of awareness and moral fiber can it influence the outcomes to the endgame we have seen. And in this, I have nothing but contempt for a 'narrator' that would put value in the descent and redemption of a single man at the cost of BILLIONS of other lives. When the obvious alternatives are that The Force _keep_ Anakin a slave. Or better yet, never have allowed his existence.

Sidious may destroy hundreds, maybe thousands, in his lifetime. And whoever replaces him thousands more. But it takes organization and mechanization to slaughter at a genocidal level characterized by Death Stars and the like. And there is NEVER a need for that kind of depredation solely to extinguish the 'Dark Flame' of one psychotic avatar. At least not one who dies flying down a mine shaft.

>>

Midichorians-the holy spirit.

>>

Hey, just because I can use holy roller analogues of imagery such as the Divine Trinity DOES NOT mean I believe in them! ;-) I much prefer a real world with real-not-reel scientifically achievable if not quantifiable magic. And so the illustration of Midis as a miniature equivalent of the VLA-cum-tuning-fork for a NON sentient energy field reality shift resonance makes more sense to me. If only because it allows godhead as an efficiency optimization vector we call morals and ethics, to be firmly fixed _in us_.

You wanna talk to god? You look in a mirror and ask if what you are doing is efficient in the long run son.

OTOH, you wanna /be/ god, you learn to sense the muteable form but unmitigateable VALUE of all things all around you, all the time.

Such is the nature of expanding one's awareness into a greater reality. That YOU must always be point of observation. But the /flow/ of things around you defines your ability to understand what that position is.

>>

R2 and threepio-the cronichlers, the story tellers, the narrator's, the witnesses...despite threepio's claim that he wasn't a very good story teller, I think that is what lucas intended him and r2 to be.

>>

Sorry, but you head into a landscape of slapstick, even on the part of the nominally wise beepity-beep fire hydrant, and you diminish the story value. The Trickster is not a force in and of himself, he is what shapes the more polaric views of others. That cannot happen when you are talking about the value of life and living as being better than the machine. While telling the tale from the machine's perspective.

I would further state that one of the many reasons people didn't like Jar Jar was that there was already a fool on the payroll in 3P0. I myself have often wondered at the wisdom of Lucas rendering the animated garbage can the 'wise child'. While giving 3P0, nominally the communications and protocol intermediary between the machines and man, such limited depth of reasoning. IMO, _if_ you want their presence to be the one which defines the linkage of awareness of the grand story from PT thru OT, then 3P0 needed to be the exact opposite. The one who made carefully _calculated_ rather than random standup comments that let the audience see HIS inner-humour at what 'generations may change, but the bloodline and boyish moments of the Skywalker clan are still the same' he observes.

Lastly, 3P0 is clearly not something a young boy could fabricate (any more than a he could build and fly a pod racer). But nor is he as advanced as many of the droids shown _in the Prequels_ to be slim and relatively agile anthropomorphic mimics of bipedal articulation. This furthers the disconnect between OT and PT as descendant and ancestor 'only in reverse' and makes it clear that the two droids have even less of a historical relevance as a _technical_ yardstick.

I get the same feeling looking at Naboo fighters and unshielded TIE.

>>

Plus you could even count alot of the situations that the characters arrive in as archetypal.

Anakin's immaculate birth.

>>

Only if it serves a purpose to define what it is to be Jedi. And this is never done because they never make a clear and causal link between developing in an aggressively competitive sibling/filial expectation environment and the 'pure' life of The Academy. And it's effects on the para-psyche abilities of it's Adepts.

Claiming to be a Messiah on a street corner is not the same as BEING a Messiah 'on call to the President and UN Secretary General'.

A fact which is further diminished by the poor physiologic comparitors of Lloyd and Christensen. One is the precursor, the other is the postlog. But there is no wow-what-a-neat-toy! emphasis of difference character development /from other Jedi/ beyond Annie's continual "I really am, in a lot of ways, better you know..."

What a wah-wah-wah let down then the ROTS last battle outcome. Not least because Obiwan himself has leapt upwards of 20-30ft straight up in the air.

>>

Obi-wan being bound by all 4 limbs in dooku's chamber on geonosis.

>>

Only if you believe in both the mechanization by which he got there (let's get OFF the planet and /then/ send a commo alert!) and the nature of a Promethian sacrifice which is inappropriate at this point for Obiwan has not been seen to craft Anakin from mud. Nor to have any special feelings of 'heroic intensity' that could be said to put the good of all above his own. He is merely doing a job, as a Spy, having failed laughably, as a Federal Marshal to achieve the same goal through apprehension of Jango and his son (if you are fighting a fugitive, the first thing you do is secure his transportation, -especially- if it is armed or otherwise capable itself of synergistically adding to his personal threat level).

If you want the crucification/victim theme, you probably need to go with a female and thus render either an addition to Amidala or Padme herself _into_ a Jedi for whom Anakin can 'dream the forbidden' with all the ardor-for-the-victimized mating psychology thrown in.

>>

The prophecy of the chosen one.

>>

Don't even go there. Or heck, let's...

Vader doesn't need to exist to kill such a pathetically weak old fool as Palpatine.

REAL Jedi, who had ensured order in a galaxy for 20,000 years, would pick the latter up in a second, regardless of his Force Masking abilities.

If only becasue this cannot possibly have been the 'first time' someone with a latent or developed Force Gift got into the Senate 'and then strange things started happening'.

Given how we vet our own leadership, I also find it ridiculous to see Palpatine as a Sith-with-residency OR a native of Naboo.

Or that the HUGE money trail inherent to creating a fleet of ships and an army of soldiers would not be backtrailed rather quickly.

i.e. if Vader doesn't need to exist to kill Palpatine then either The Force is itself evil or Anakin's 'intended' role as messiah is never explored in the fashion it should have been, which bespeaks active neglect given that the Jedi appear to be nothing more than militant thugs and should never have found him.

Either way, the PT is about what the Audience CAN see. And in it's progression there is never any purpose for the slaughter that is to come or the outcome of it's ultimate ending.

>>

I need not go on, there are maybe even more archetypes in the PT than the OT.

>>

A hack combines and reiterates the symbolic metaphors of others. Whether he specifically uses (or believes in) JC's _Hero Of A Thousand Faces_ definitions of what those symbols are matters not. Lack of talent in presenting _uniquely defined_ themes and ideals is what makes storytelling both entertaining as a technical exercise in composition. And morally rewarding for what it gives the viewer in reflection upon his own beliefs (surprise ending or otherwise). In this case, I was bored from the get go and had no sympathy with any of the characters or ideals expressed because the mishmash of meaning was not a montage but a morass.

>>

The lists of archetypes go on and on.

PT-The rise and fall of the father.

OT-Confronting or coming to terms with the father.

>>

You be my guest. The father falls only because good took pity on an 'innocent' and /let/ him become evil through an utterly unbelievable set of circumstantial miracles.

Coming to terms with one's father only happens, as a psychologic process, when you are, say, Hitler's grandson and have no awareness of the man, only his created image in the eyes of history.

Vader was a living menace whose -continuing- actions not only crippled his son but put everything he had every learned to hold dear at risk. You don't worry over the hidden goodness of such creature, you put a stake in it's heart before it kills you for sure.

In this, I think an effeminized societal view of the male-protector psyche limits of 'understanding' (behavioral constrictors which are _there for a purpose_ in keeping the violence focussed upon a goal rather than the act or it's 'motivations') greatly compromise the real-people/exotic-world empathy with which we approach the SWU as a whole.

IMO, much better themic exploration could have been achieved through the the realignment of what was then an incestuously impossible relationship between a hero who is now denied the lover's alternative to his 'fated destinty'. And his Sister who has yet to make her own choice between securing the lineage and becoming a hero herself.

The development of strategic ruthlessness _as restraint upon actual violence_ in a 'hero' who would return the Jedi to their former position of mediators of Galactic Peace.

Even the simple (or not) resolution of The Struggle Itself that was ROTJ's poor choice of fixating upon the individual's failings rather than amplifying the Greater Need through personal sacrifice. i.e. REAL LOSS rather than threatened corruption as the driving compression which forges the final heroic form.

All these things were ignored by a juvenile mind hiding in a rich man's body. A man who could demand that end of the OT reflect the beginning of the PT's descent into self-aggrandizing ("Ooooh, luke-at-me and my digital media Empire of Dreams!) but ultimately pointless precursorism.

>>

But really, the point is if you choose to see negative in somthing you will, you could even see it in the OT if you tried hard enough. It's easy enough to see the OT in a negative light if you are viewing it with people who are cynical. It's all about what you choose to focus on.[/QUOTE]

>>

I have never been unable to find fault in the OT. I simply find more basically -good- material potential to work with than I do in the utterly meatless banality of the PT. For you I would state that the difference between a conformist and an optimist is that the optimist KNOWS that there are 'bad things out there'. And works past or towards reparing them, based on the confidence that the 'good things' allow him to harbor close within his/her heart. A conformist tries for guilt-by-association on a 'greatest weight' bias of absolute belief. Particularly given the way the Lucas filmed them, that is impossible when comparing the OT and PT. For while the one nominally came before the other, it's production technology was better yet less well employed. And storywise, NO AMOUNT OF REVISIONIST POLISHING will put sufficient shine on the escutcheon of the OT to save it from the pitted tarnish that is the PT's 'moral motivation' for all that 'came after yet before'.

Such deficiency in turn reflecting nothing if not an impossibly messy moebian loop of inverted chronological vs. mental age group commercialistic exploitation on the part of none other than George Lucas. The 'father and son and holy spirit' creator of both series. The man who inflicted his dementia on the second as a function of besmirching all that was good in the first.

Gee, Thanks, GL!!



KPl.

JediTricks
06-15-2005, 10:19 PM
it is still told in a pulp serial sci-fi setting. I didn't really feel that much of the time, could you elaborate on why you did?

it still has mythological elements that apply, we may not like them, we may downright loath them, but they are there none the less. Again, I didn't see a core mythological story going on, could you elaborate on what you saw there? I'm not trying to be a jerk SK, but most of that whole post of yours is more why it's NOT like Star Wars than is from what I saw.


I often wonder if those who do not like the EU (novels, comics, etc) are the same who dislike the PT? I love the EU stuff, and I view the PT along those lines, it is different and new and it often takes away much of the mystery of the OT, but it is fun all the same and to me it is all Star Wars.I don't care about the bulk of the EU, I love some of the reference materials stuff like the Incredible Cross-Sections, I did enjoy SOTE and the Thrawn trilogy and a few others, and I love the Illustrated Star Wars Universe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553374842/qid=1118888341/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-0811804-9343264?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) book both for its inspired Ralph McQuarrie artwork and imaginative Kevin Anderson writing, but that's about it. I wish I could just compartmentalize the PT into EU material in my mind, I've often said that's what I do but the truth is it's become difficult for me to actually think of it that way since they are on the big screen and they are accepted by canon by so many of my fellow SW fans.

The Whills
06-16-2005, 12:54 AM
Yeah, I saw that a lot, especially the day it came out when there were nothing but positive comments on the forums, I guess the stages of positive in the responses were an affront to some people's tastes or egos or something.

That's how I feel, especially the character interactions in the OT which are so strong and have so much closeness without any of it being forced, I have always felt from Ep 1 that the prequels didn't have this for the most part, so the characters seemed isolated and I as an audience member felt isolated from them.

That's what Lucas has been saying for almost a decade now, but when you look at what he said in this thread, I can only see contrast there because Star Wars was partially about NOT ever having those prequel stories. And I totally agree with you that the prequels' intention to enhance does not do so, to me so much of the prequels does the opposite in that they make the OT lesser than it was.

For me, exploring this thread's original meaning is part of me trying to figure out if I can now ignore them, separate them in my mind as "Star Wars" and "Something Else", but so far it's been very difficult for me to do, can't put a cup of water in a pond and then get that specific cup back out.



You and Caesar are both right to a degree, it's become this endless cycle where one side thinks of the entire other side in a negative way and it eventually comes out in what they post which just leads to more from the other side and so on.


I am not really sure what Lucas was trying to get at by doing the prequels, obviously "enhancing the originals" makes no sense when the intention was specifically to NOT tell these stories, part of me suspects it's his idea of a "reward" for a mainly loyal audience, part of me suspects he got caught up in his own post-ANH hype and did it only to justify his after-the-fact claims that the saga was about Vader, and part of me suspects he just got bored with no projects for a long while and really doesn't know why he's doing it; but all of me seems to feel that he never had this story to tell within him, these prequels weren't another epic brewing inside his mind, and his own words seem to agree - he says in a way it's fun for him, but it's been the task of taking these tiny elements he already had and turning out 6 hours of movie around them.

Yeah, I must admit, every time Lucas tries to pin down the OT on a single character, it feels like he's trying to put blinders on the audience so it'll fit his current opinion rather than how it already played out, and the prequels feel like the ultimate set of blinders there. The OT wasn't just about Vader or Luke or Obi-Wan, we got focus on them much of the time but they aren't the only core players. The OT is supposed to be a retelling of "the hero's journey" which makes it about Luke, but once we set up that there are several core heroes working together in the same goal, isn't it really telling "the heroes' journey"?


They were criticizing what they had just seen, not the movie in its entirety but those specific elements, I think that is valid even when they apply it to what the trailers and other studio-based hype has already implied about the movie.

I cannot accept what does not feel right to me, it is not possible. I also can't accept someone else's inferrence of how it should of played, that is how that person wrote it in their head, if they cannot back it up with sufficent evidence to show how they got there then I can't follow them there - I see a lot of prequel-likers getting frustrated there because they feel what they wrote in their heads is sufficient when I see it as too subjective for an outside party such as myself to follow.

Maybe there is no way to reconcile the 2, look at what Lucas says about Star Wars in this thread, how can the prequels reconcile with the OT when they are shown to exist out of step with the meaning of the originals? I don't know if they can, there may not be a way.


I don't remember that from AOTC and haven't watched TPM's, but Lucas talks about recycling riffs during the ESB commentary, he likes putting different characters in similar situations to see how they deal with it differently as well as give the audience a sense of familiarity. That's ok in linear fashion, but the prequels are supposed to claim they came first yet they are the one recycling the riff, so if you think of them "in order" the prequel's recycled riff seems hollow. Also, the larger the riff you recycle, the more empty of new ideas it begins to feel, like Luke's encounters in the Cantina vs Jabba's Palace, or Death Star battles 1 and 2, the latter has elements that aren't fresh anymore. So when you have the TPM battle riffing off ROTJ's it seems doubly hollow.
There are a lot more subtleties and path variations in that scenario though, and more importantly, here it is the son pretending to be the father and pretending to shape the real father's character.


For me, I had some prior knowledge of TPM and made comments about such in the old forums, one specific example was when TFN put up an audio clip of Qui-Gon and Jar Jar in danger and trying to get out of something - I didn't know it was the Gungan Sub at the time, I thought it was a Hutt's jail cell or something - and I commented that Jar Jar's voice sounded weird and kinda goofy to me, and it still does. That wasn't a statement that the movie was going to be garbage or that the characters were going to be flat, only that Jar Jar's voice sounded weird and it was based on solid information, that's how my stuff was.


I've heard that argument a lot, and it used to be something that troubled me, "how could THESE stories have actually always been in there?", but Lucas himself says it's not true, Ep 4 was always meant to be THE starting point and Eps 5 and 6 were meant to be the rest of that story since once he realized they couldn't have been included with Ep 4. Therefore, the answer is that "THESE (prequel) stories almost entirely weren't there".

My argument was that the OT characters used mythological archetypes as their cores where the prequels do not. The characters do fit within archetypes in the prequels as well, true, but I don't believe the prequels call upon those archetypes at anywhere near the level they should, especially in comparison to how much they reference the OT.
Anakin is the core of the prequels, and it seems to me he's stretched across so many archetypes to the point of obliqueness for the audience, that is the point I was making. For the audience, is it simple for them to figure out what is at the core of this guy? I don't think so. The other elements of the prequels are just as decentralized, like you say, lots of archetypes, but my contention is that the intent behind the prequels was never to focus on a central mythos, it's not "the hero's journey", it's Anakin's birth and rise, the rise of an Empire, the rise of Obi-Wan, the prophecy of the Chosen One, the Force being corrupted, the fall of the Jedi, and on and on like that, all based on a litany of things that Lucas wanted to explain from the OT even though part of the original intention of the OT was that these things were NOT supposed to be explained to us.


This is true, only Lucas could change that now and he won't. So what does that leave us who see it as a problem in the overall scheme of the saga? Well, it further separates the prequels from the OT, which with this thread I believe is now ok for us to do - the hard parts are actually doing so, and then learning to navigate our community with those who do not.


But see, that's the point of archetypes, they are somthing that the audience can easily recognize and feel drawn to. You are acting like archetypes are hidden little easter eggs, and they aren't. Thats why they call them archetypes.

stillakid
06-16-2005, 01:00 AM
There is no twisting. Yoda did instruct Obi-Wan.

Uh, yes, you are twisting...




SPIRIT BEN
You will go to the Dagobah system. There you will learn from Yoda, the Jedi Master who instructed me.




YODA
Hmmm. Much anger in him, like his father.

BEN'S VOICE
Was I any different when you taught me?

Quote one clearly indicates that Yoda was THE (one, not many...just one) teacher of Obi Wan.

Quote two indicates the age at which Obi Wan was taught by Yoda, which is directly comparable to Luke's age at the time of Empire.

Neither specific indication is backed up in any way by the Prequels as they exist presently. In order to get them to "match up," it takes some twisting of the facts to make it happen, which is precisely what you and others have done. Have a pleasant day. Come again. :)

JediTricks
06-17-2005, 04:00 AM
But see, that's the point of archetypes, they are somthing that the audience can easily recognize and feel drawn to. You are acting like archetypes are hidden little easter eggs, and they aren't. Thats why they call them archetypes.I'm a little confused, you didn't have the starting {quote} tag at the second segment of my comments so I had to figure out where it all started and ended (and I'm absolutely unsure if I got it right, so PLEASE tell me if I messed up your post when I put that quote tag in). I thought I was acting like the OT had archetypes as their core and that the prequels do not, the prequels seem to have the archetypes as easter eggs (in fact, I was intending to make that comparison earlier today during a discussion I was having with a friend), so am I the "you" which your post is referring to here?

Mad Slanted Powers
06-21-2005, 05:48 PM
Quote one clearly indicates that Yoda was THE (one, not many...just one) teacher of Obi Wan. Even if Yoda isn't the only one to teach Obi-Wan, it wouldn't have sounded right if he had just said "you will learn from Yoda, a Jedi Master who instructed me." He's not just a Jedi Master, he is theJedi Master, the only one still alive (as far as Ben knows or the films show, the EU seems to indicate others survived). If you were watching the movies for the first time in order from 1 through 6, you probably wouldn't think much of this line.

Quote two indicates the age at which Obi Wan was taught by Yoda, which is directly comparable to Luke's age at the time of Empire. I see nothing in the quote that indicates age. Seems like you are the one doing the twisting on that one.

Have a pleasant day. Come again. :)Thank you. I just got back after being away for a few days. After a long day of travel, I check my e-mail and this is the first message in my inbox. Well, second. The first one was spam.

JediTricks
06-22-2005, 01:25 AM
Let's not get this far off-topic please, we already have the "Yoda the only teacher" thread on the forums - probably more than once over. The end result is that ESB suggests but does not directly SAY that Yoda was Ben's main and only teacher while TPM and the later prequels use the wiggle room from that SUGGESTION in ESB to add a new teacher to the mix at the last minute (Qui-Gon not being added to the script until very late in the development stage and all) and change the SUGGESTED meaning from ESB. The prequels take advantage of the wiggle room to say that Yoda taught Obi-Wan how to add and subtract and play on the monkey bars while Qui-Gon Jinn taught Obi-Wan how to compile taxes.

Jayspawn
06-22-2005, 01:55 AM
Prequels-Original Trilogy. Its ALL Star Wars, I love Star Wars!

JediTricks
06-22-2005, 03:16 AM
But it's still alright to be a Star Wars fan who doesn't like the prequels and/or feels that the prequels AREN'T Star Wars (that's the point of the thread). :)

stillakid
06-22-2005, 03:38 AM
Even if Yoda isn't the only one to teach Obi-Wan, it wouldn't have sounded right if he had just said "you will learn from Yoda, a Jedi Master who instructed me." He's not just a Jedi Master, he is theJedi Master, the only one still alive (as far as Ben knows or the films show, the EU seems to indicate others survived). If you were watching the movies for the first time in order from 1 through 6, you probably wouldn't think much of this line.
Personal feelings regarding how a line "seems" has no bearing on what is actually there.


I see nothing in the quote that indicates age. Seems like you are the one doing the twisting on that one.
Hardly, you're just not acknowledging what is being said. Obi Wan clearly indicates without "twisting" that Yoda was his teacher at an age which is similar to the age Luke is during ESB.


The first one was spam.
This one wasn't much better then, eh? :D

Mad Slanted Powers
06-22-2005, 08:38 PM
Hardly, you're just not acknowledging what is being said. Obi Wan clearly indicates without "twisting" that Yoda was his teacher at an age which is similar to the age Luke is during ESB. This is exactly what I am talking about. You say 'clearly' about something when it is not clear. There is nothing in that line that says anything about when Obi-Wan was like Luke or when Yoda instructed Obi-Wan. You assume too much.


This one wasn't much better then, eh? :D
Indeed. :D

stillakid
06-22-2005, 11:49 PM
This is exactly what I am talking about. You say 'clearly' about something when it is not clear. There is nothing in that line that says anything about when Obi-Wan was like Luke or when Yoda instructed Obi-Wan. You assume too much.


I said "clearly" because it is clear. Simple as that. :) If you choose to not accept it, your denial does not undo the fact anymore than denying that the world is round would make it flat.

darko666
06-23-2005, 12:04 AM
by GL adding Qui-Gon in the PT at the last minute, it just goes to show you that Yoda was the only jedi instructor Obi-Wan had. he was taught by Yoda and only Yoda. but now that the PT has arrived into the saga, it has done nothing but completly mess up a lot of connections to tie up the OT.

maybe GL will add some more dialouge to ESB and have Yoda tell Obi-Wan that he was a stubborn youngling. that will clear up this whole mess...or maybe it won't. but anyway you look at it, Yoda was Obi-Wans master(according to the OT).

Mad Slanted Powers
06-23-2005, 12:49 AM
I said "clearly" because it is clear. Simple as that. :) If you choose to not accept it, your denial does not undo the fact anymore than denying that the world is round would make it flat.Well, if I thought the world was flat, you could prove to me that the world is round with scientific data, or by putting me on the next space shuttle if necessary. What empirical evidence would you give to prove that this line clearly states what you believe it to say?

Jayspawn
06-23-2005, 09:49 AM
Actually darko666, Obi-Wan doesnt say that Yoda was the only Jedi Master who instructed him. He doesnt bring up Qui-Gon because that would further confuse the heck out of Luke. The only thing Luke needs to know is the whereabouts of Yoda. Thats the next step in his training.

Its doesnt completely mess up anything.

stillakid
06-23-2005, 11:05 AM
Well, if I thought the world was flat, you could prove to me that the world is round with scientific data, or by putting me on the next space shuttle if necessary. What empirical evidence would you give to prove that this line clearly states what you believe it to say?

I'm fairly certain I already did that and as JT mentioned, there is a least one entire thread devoted to proving this point, not that an entire thread should have been necessary. But just ONE of the proofs is this (again):




BEN
Luke...Luke.

LUKE
(weakly)
Ben?

BEN
You will go to the Dagobah system.

LUKE
Dagobah system?

BEN
There you will learn from Yoda, the Jedi Master who instructed
me.

The image of Ben fades, revealing a lone Tauntaun rider approaching from the windswept horizon.

Jayspawn
06-23-2005, 11:40 AM
This is the version stillakad prefers...

BEN:Qui-Gon Jinn was also my instructor, but since he is dead and you will never ever meet him -it doesnt really make any difference. I have to tell you about him too Luke because people will take what I'm saying out of context. Just remember Yoda.

LUKE:What? Yoda? Qui-Gon? Ben.........

stillakid
06-23-2005, 12:41 PM
This is the version stillakad prefers...

BEN:Qui-Gon Jinn was also my instructor, but since he is dead and you will never ever meet him -it doesnt really make any difference. I have to tell you about him too Luke because people will take what I'm saying out of context. Just remember Yoda.

LUKE:What? Yoda? Qui-Gon? Ben.........


LOL! :D EXACTLY! See how ridiculous this mess is now? What I prefer is a version of the Prequels that follows the continuity that the OT laid out, in which Obi Wan was taught by Yoda and Obi Wan was the one to find, decide to teach, and fail to teach Anakin. What we got is not even close. Thanks for helping to prove my point that the Prequels are eternally and inherently f'd up. :)

darko666
06-23-2005, 01:11 PM
Actually darko666, Obi-Wan doesnt say that Yoda was the only Jedi Master who instructed him. He doesnt bring up Qui-Gon because that would further confuse the heck out of Luke. The only thing Luke needs to know is the whereabouts of Yoda. Thats the next step in his training.

Its doesnt completely mess up anything.

yes it does. Obi is telling Luke about Yoda, becuase Yoda was Obi-Wans master. Qui-Gon didn't even exist, hell he wasn't a main character in the PT only until he was added in a the last minute. so by the words Obi says to Luke about Yoda, he was the jedi master to teach Obi. i can see your point in not telling Luke about Qui-Gon, but as for the OT goes, it is intended that Yoda taught Ben. but for GL to add Qui-Gon into the whole mix and having Yoda teach younglings in AOTC, is completly f'n up the whole point of Luke being trained by Yoda. he is learning from the "one" jedi that has taught his friend Ben. it is more meaningful to have Luke taught by one of the greatest jedis.

to have every jedi or most of them taught by Yoda just takes away the context of him being a great master. hell, Dooku was taught by Yoda. Yoda himself even calls Dooku is old padawan, not youngling. so therfore, Yoda did take on apprentices, which means he did teach Obi-Wan. but that all went to hell, when GL added a new jedi to the mix. but this is getting all confusing, i just interpet as Ben being taught by Yoda and no one else. i will disregard the whole Qui-Gon incident.

stillakid
06-23-2005, 04:50 PM
because people will take what I'm saying out of context.[/I]



But the important part of your silliness above is suggesting that the proof I offered is somehow out of context. :confused: Seriously, how much more in context can it possibly get? Spirit Ben needs to get Luke some learnin' and tells him about the teacher that taught him...it just so happens that his own teacher (Yoda) is still alive so he tells Luke to drop by when he gets the chance.

Mad Slanted Powers
06-23-2005, 08:25 PM
I'm fairly certain I already did that and as JT mentioned, there is a least one entire thread devoted to proving this point, not that an entire thread should have been necessary. Okay, clearly you aren't paying attention. I was asking for proof that Obi-Wan was the same age as Luke. You have offered none. If Obi-Wan was the same age as Luke, then how did he managed to be trained, when Yoda clearly says that Luke is too old?

stillakid
06-23-2005, 10:01 PM
Okay, clearly you aren't paying attention. I was asking for proof that Obi-Wan was the same age as Luke. You have offered none. If Obi-Wan was the same age as Luke, then how did he managed to be trained, when Yoda clearly says that Luke is too old?
Clearly, you weren't very clear about what you were asking about.

And I already gave you all the proof that is necessary, so clearly you aren't paying attention. Look back a few posts to find it. I don't have time to be repeating myself over and over again.

As to your second question about being too old, that is in reference to how Obi Wan acted at Luke's age, not in reference to when Obi Wan began his training. The way the OT tells the story, Obi Wan began his training at a young age with Yoda and continued with that same teacher until he became a Jedi himself. Sometime in there, Obi Wan ran into a random guy named Anakin who was a great pilot and who showed potential as a Force user. Obi Wan more or less bypassed the normal procedures and decided to train Anakin himself out of pride. Obi Wan didn't keep control over his student and Anakin fell prey to the seduction of Palpatine thus eventually becoming Darth Vader.

That's the OT story in a nutshell, a story which bears little to no resemblence to the Prequel version.

JediTricks
06-24-2005, 12:29 AM
Actually darko666, Obi-Wan doesnt say that Yoda was the only Jedi Master who instructed him. He doesnt bring up Qui-Gon because that would further confuse the heck out of Luke.He doesn't bring up Qui-Gon because the character wasn't created until 25 years later, in the mid-'90s. You might argue that the meaning is changed by the prequels, and surely the prequels do affect the storyline but not the REAL WORLD events, which furthers the original point of this thread, that the prequels were never supposed to exist when Star Wars was made and this stuff wasn't there and it's ok not to accept it.


This is the version stillakad prefers...

BEN:Qui-Gon Jinn was also my instructor, but since he is dead and you will never ever meet him -it doesnt really make any difference. I have to tell you about him too Luke because people will take what I'm saying out of context. Just remember Yoda.

LUKE:What? Yoda? Qui-Gon? Ben......... Didn't Tycho do something like this recently with a bunch of different points, calling it "apologistic" or something? Anyway, I'd counter your claim with this:
BEN: You will go to the Dagobah system.

LUKE: Dagobah system?

BEN: There you will meet Yoda, the Jedi master who instructed me. And since certain Force-spirits such as myself can commune with you, you will also learn from the Jedi who instructed me when I was an apprentice, Qui-Gon Jinn.
Ah, but therein lies the rub, even though Qui-Gon is able to communicate from beyond the firey grave and has unique wisdom he could impart to Luke, this does not happen because Qui-Gon is not a part of the saga, only a late addition to the prequels. That may be acceptable to the prequels as a stand-alone since they were basically being created as they went, but the OT really did come first and so Qui-Gon had to be squeezed into the wiggle room that the OT left to play it the way Lucas wrote Ep 1.


(If you guys hadn't noticed, I am desparately trying to tie in this "Yoda instructor" debate that you guys won't take to their own threads into this thread's topic because I want to salvage the thread, not endlessly debate this Yoda thing.)

stillakid
06-24-2005, 07:54 AM
(If you guys hadn't noticed, I am desparately trying to tie in this "Yoda instructor" debate that you guys won't take to their own threads into this thread's topic because I want to salvage the thread, not endlessly debate this Yoda thing.)
I wouldn't say "desperately." I think you're doing a fine job. :) The devil is in the details and it takes discussion of some to prove the larger point that you are making. Carry on! :)

nash
06-24-2005, 10:18 AM
theres a lot of reading to be done in here. hehe.

Mad Slanted Powers
06-24-2005, 07:47 PM
He doesn't bring up Qui-Gon because the character wasn't created until 25 years later, in the mid-'90s. You might argue that the meaning is changed by the prequels, and surely the prequels do affect the storyline but not the REAL WORLD events, which furthers the original point of this thread, that the prequels were never supposed to exist when Star Wars was made and this stuff wasn't there and it's ok not to accept it.

Didn't Tycho do something like this recently with a bunch of different points, calling it "apologistic" or something? Anyway, I'd counter your claim with this:
BEN: You will go to the Dagobah system.

LUKE: Dagobah system?

BEN: There you will meet Yoda, the Jedi master who instructed me. And since certain Force-spirits such as myself can commune with you, you will also learn from the Jedi who instructed me when I was an apprentice, Qui-Gon Jinn.
Ah, but therein lies the rub, even though Qui-Gon is able to communicate from beyond the firey grave and has unique wisdom he could impart to Luke, this does not happen because Qui-Gon is not a part of the saga, only a late addition to the prequels. That may be acceptable to the prequels as a stand-alone since they were basically being created as they went, but the OT really did come first and so Qui-Gon had to be squeezed into the wiggle room that the OT left to play it the way Lucas wrote Ep 1.


(If you guys hadn't noticed, I am desparately trying to tie in this "Yoda instructor" debate that you guys won't take to their own threads into this thread's topic because I want to salvage the thread, not endlessly debate this Yoda thing.)
If you want to go by the EU, in Heir to the Empire, Ben tells Luke he can no longer communicate with him. This is only 9 years after ANH. ROTS is 12 or 13 years after TPM. Qui-Gon had probably faded away long before the OT.

JediTricks
06-26-2005, 06:30 PM
If you want to go by the EU, Ben says that Owen is his brother. The EU isn't canon, and it too wasn't dreamed up when the original Star Wars was created. It's alright for *you* to accept that reasoning about the ghosts fading out after 9 years, but in this light it's also just as ok for anybody else to not accept it as well. I suppose it's sorta what I'm getting at with the prequels in this thread in a way.

Mad Slanted Powers
06-26-2005, 10:08 PM
If you want to go by the EU, Ben says that Owen is his brother. The EU isn't canon, and it too wasn't dreamed up when the original Star Wars was created. It's alright for *you* to accept that reasoning about the ghosts fading out after 9 years, but in this light it's also just as ok for anybody else to not accept it as well. I suppose it's sorta what I'm getting at with the prequels in this thread in a way.
This is true. Thus, of course it is okay to feel however you want about Star Wars, prequels or OT. Stillakid and I can argue until the cows come home about the Obi-Wan/Yoda thing and it won't change either of our opinions. I enjoyed the prequels. Others did not.

I like to look at it this way. If instead of being a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, imagine if Star Wars was a real event. Now consider all of the movies that are made here on Earth about real world events. How often are they 100% historically accurate? Still, since the Star Wars movies are supposedly canon, I will accept them as such. If there is something that does not seem to match up between the PT and OT, I will be open to an explanation. This may require something from the EU. However, the EU I will tend to think of more like a real world historical fiction. The events may more or less be historically accurate, but there may be some creative license taken with some of the details. Also, the further we get from a historical event, the harder it is to be accurate. For example, I can use this idea to explain some of the discrepancies between the PT and the Zahn novels regarding the Clone Wars.

In the end, it is just a movie. I've enjoyed Star Wars for a long time and continue to do so. Thus, even if I have to work to reconcile apparent continuity issues, I don't mind. I am a Star Wars fan and enjoy doing this, but I don't lose any sleep over it if I can't come up with an explanation.

stillakid
06-26-2005, 10:24 PM
This is true. Thus, of course it is okay to feel however you want about Star Wars, prequels or OT. Stillakid and I can argue until the cows come home about the Obi-Wan/Yoda thing and it won't change either of our opinions. I enjoyed the prequels. Others did not.
.

Um, except that my opinion is that we should follow the facts as presented by the established continuity...which means that Obi was taught only by Yoda.


Mooo! :D

Mad Slanted Powers
06-27-2005, 02:05 AM
Um, except that my opinion is that we should follow the facts as presented by the established continuity...which means that Obi was taught only by Yoda.


Mooo! :D
Cows are so stupid. Yet they stand there, chewing, and looking at me like I am stupid.

I had a hamburger today.

The Whills
06-27-2005, 06:24 AM
I just noticed that you wrote this, so I am responding throughout your message.


>>

First off I will say I am a prequel, as well as OT lover, I love them both.

I respect and even enjoy reading your opinion but there are several arguments against it.

First off Episode four was meant to have a stand alone feeling.

>>

As is often the case with a 'prelude' episode which must tell a tale in and of itself while /creating/ the backstory that nobody has heard before. It also has obviously commercial justifications as, despite what Lucas said about wanting to create a 'Saturday Matinee Serial' effect (halfway done, whose preceeding elements you had already missed) there was no doubt that ANH, for all it's clumsiness is THE 'Star Wars' point of reference and so if it fails, they all do.

i.e. it HAS TO be good, despite the clumsy acting and brief effects. Because it is both the ancestral establisher of a mythic dynasty. And it's own make or break justification for further films in the series.

Having said that, Lucas read Campbell's books and indeed, took Campbell to see the film, before doing the final editing. I believe Campbell's response was "I thought modern art was restricted to Picasso...". Which says that while a hack, at least Lucas tried to impress 'the master' and got grudging approval for his inclusion of all the basic story elements.

I respect joseph campbell, and I have read some of his books, but really he is just a hack too because he writes books about his opinion in his own words about mythology and basically puts everything into a box that makes it easy for the masses to understand. Thus people like you use his work to try and sound like a psuedo intellectual that is too uptight to enjoy star wars.
>>
I
That doesn't mean that further stories would contradict it.

Episode 4 was merely the best starting point to get people interested in somthing that is strange. The only thing I could maybe agree with you on, is that star wars is so familiar to our culture now that it can no longer shock people as much as episode 4...but nonetheless it still holds true to itself.

>>

No. A story may twist and wend it's way through multiple iterations that changes _It's_ (not IITS) form without changing the production values or 'intent' that wraps up the whole series. The PT has lousy production values brought on by Lucas' HIGHLY questionable obsession with digital media and poor choices of what I will call 'environmentalists' (for want of a better word) in fleshing out the background of his films. i.e. He is NOT trying to restamp the feel of Star Wars into a completely new mold, he is simply using very poor creative theory /overall/. And so his apples+buckyballs attempt to link an existing milieu with a new concept falls FLAT ON IT'S FACE. Not least because those 'points of familiarity' which he DID choose are among the least popular and visually interesting of all the storyscapes.

Tatooine was never a place to return to, only to LEAVE FROM (and we'd BTDT'd that approach anyway). In this Campbell's typical return from the Special World to the Ordinary One /after/ the climactic encounter and reward _could not_ happen because the Desert Husk was the forgotten creche` of birth, not a catalytic chrysalis in and of itself. So much for the pathetic Pod Race.

(Yes, star wars may have not been written in the cheap mold of the way to "write a s story" by some scholary standard. But that's not the point, george wanted to write it his way, and thats all a writer can do. The return to tatooine can merely be looked upon as the end of one journey, and the beginning of a new, rather than just one journey. I don't know what mythological hero did'nt care about his mother enough to go back for her, unless they were an *******. but whatever your boxes that you put things in doesn't stop the fact that ulysses went back to ithaca.)

OTOH, Naboo was a needless edition that could just as readily been _Alderaan_ a 'lost Atlantean Kingdom' whose coming doom we knew of but not /why/ it was so dear to Leia's future heart. And indeed, something which the characters of her parent's generation would -never- know and so exploit in a carefree sense (enjoy paradise today for tomorrow -it- dies). Coruscant deserved to be the principle 'moral swamp' by which we defined the nature of the Republic's ills at both the grand and the common levels (contrasting corruption and it's effects). Yet we NEVER got to see the underworld described in the EU, only the 'Shining 1st Estate' above it. A world of (yawns with bored contempt as much as a moral one) dysfunctional leadership in a Galaxy of a million settled worlds. Oh surprise me. You can't keep your own hovel in order so /of course/ you cannot keep your hegemony. EXCEPT we don't get to see any of that!

And then we go to the 'purely icing' elements of creatures and engineering. Which had NO feel of Star Wars and NO artistic merit of it's own. Ships which are uniformly /boring/ because they are not 'working vessels' as the SWU ships were, only carved soap blocks of uniformity. Creatures which are just short of holographic in the way they render the human actors into participants in a cartoon. And worse, as blatantly physical-inferior warriors (watch Jar Jar do flips, there is _real power_ in that motion that shouldn't be, because it makes the Jedi look like tired idiots running around in housecoats and underwear by comparison). All this for 'atmosphere' when you DENY the CGI enhancement of _their combat_ fluidity?!?!?

(Well, I am not a big fan of CGI, but I like the clone wars cartoon, so I guess I can dig the prequel as a cartoon rather.)
>>

Of course future events would naturally influence the writing of the PT, but a writer's rule is to never reinvent the wheel, so why not use the ot as reference when you have already written it?

>>

There is a marked difference between reinventing the wheel and pasting the spokes of the existing one on a square block of concrete, expecting the same sense of _functional_ (the Great Wheel /turns/ to bring Z into A) character development.

Indeed, in this, Joseph Campbell himself has been often accused in his later works (_The Masks Of God_ IIRR...) of being a 'simplificationist' in his attempts to create a universal omnimyth by creatively 'deleting' all elements of storytelling -except- those which he could cook into a stew of rearranged commonality. A better source for (modern) comparison would be Chris Vogler's _The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure For Storytellers and Screenwriters_ as he doesn't confuse Jungian attempts to create a common consciousness of our imaginative beliefs (as a philosophical perspective exercise) with the needs to truly /structure/ (X comes as a function of NEEDING Y, not simply as a square-peg-round-hole attempt to use generic forms to occupy screentime) the tale, properly.

(That's because you and people who over anylize things don't get the point that setting out to write a myth isn't to write it properly, but to just write it with no attention to properness. I am sure that the greeks simply wrote what appealed to them as a culture, and I think lucas has obviously done the same seeing as how star wars is POPULAR myth.)
>>

Your argument that the PT has no mythological archetype is way off, because it would be impossible for movies like the prequels not to have archetypes even if the filmmaker tried to make them archetype free.

>>

No. My argument is that you have already /told/ the Mythic Journey. And ended it badly with an attempt to save a man who is a slaughterer on a scale that makes Hitler look like a saint. What I wanted to was review a _period_ which was "A more civilized time..." in /the dream/ of a better world. Not merely to me but _to the Star Wars milieu (and Obiwan in particular) inhabitants_.

You have to have a working uniiversal system of governance and prosperity to make that happen. And the Jedi as the 'Guardians of a 1,000 Generation Republic' were obviously the clockwork mechanism around which that would unfold. Whatever monkey wrench you subsequently toss into the works, they MUST be strong enough to be worthy of 'until then, their 20,000 year demi-rule had been without hiccup'.

Unfortunately, who needs a wrench when your guardians are already monkeys?

>>

Jar Jar-The idiot.

>>

Get your names right.
(Just because I use my own words instead of joseph campbell's doesn't mean they are wrong! Thanks teach!)
>

Trickster

The Trickster is a clown, a mischief maker. He provides the comedy relief that a story often needs to offset heavy dramatic tension. The trickster keeps things in proportion.

The trickster can be an ally or companion of the hero, or may work for the villain. In some instances the trickster may even be the hero or villain. In any role, the trickster usually represents the force of cunning, and is pitted against opponents who are stronger or more powerful.


Note that, beyond comic relief (which /all/ characters will supply 'laughing at myself' humor for their rueful acknowledgement of a situation which was 'less than stellar' in either it's self creation or their own direct response to. It then being the WRITER'S job to make that response as sophisticated as the character arc allows) the trickster's Real Role is to 'make light of' (illuminate) the heavy drama in a way which highlight's the CENTRAL CAST'S responses. Giving weight to their words through the Everyman-In-Wonderland response of bewilderment and disbelief in their own.

(I have recognized that jar jar really tricks no one and has very little cunning at all. While tricksters usually trick someone while ALSO being comedic.)
>

>>

Obi-wan/qui-gon-The mentor/hero/wizard/knight.

>>

No. Obiwan plays two primary roles:

>

Threshold Guardian

The threshold guardian is the first obstacle to the hero in his journey. The threshold is the gateway to the new world the hero must enter to change and grow.

The threshold guardian is usually not the story's antagonist. Only after this initial test has been surpassed will the hero face the true contest and the arch-villain. Frequently the threshold guardian is a henchman or employee of the antagonist.

But the threshold guardian can also be an otherwise neutral character, or even a potential ally such as the police lieutenant who warns the hero private detective off the case, or the Cowardly Lion who first frightens and then joins Dorothy on her journey to Oz.

The role of the threshold guardian is to test the hero's mettle and worthiness to begin the story's journey, and to show that the journey will not be easy. The hero will encounter the guardian early in the story, usually right after he starts his quest.

(While its true that his role in the OT was of a threshold guardian. I really doubt that is his role in the PT. If anything, he plays the part of the han solo like rebel in the PT just like qui-gon did, they just happened to be more wise and calculated than solo, for they were jedi.)

Herald

The role of the herald is to announce the challenge which begins the hero on his story journey. The herald is the person or piece of information which upsets the sleepy equilibrium in which the hero has lived and starts the adventure.

The herald need not be a person. It can be an event or force: the start of a war, a drought or famine, or even an ad in a newspaper.

(Or the death of anakin's mother for one?)
>

In that, his premature death in the OT and his inability to tame Anakin in the PT defines his INABILITY to be the mentor. But his exposition in the face of a 'curious boy' sets the stage for making the initial choices that will take him down the road to being a man. And 'announces', to the audience, what /kind/ of a proactive rather than 'responsive' hero he will eventually be. In this, you cannot make him a valid Mentor character OR a hero (because the hero's journey is that of LEARNING from his mistakes) because Obiwan does neither. He is an absolute archon. Of wisdom in the 'second' series. And blind stupidity in the first. The contradiction between the two defines WHY Lucas is an abject failure at storytelling. Because, as I illustrated with the Quigon "Live in the present or you'll have no future" and Obiwan's "But Master Yoda says I should be mindful..." casepoint, Obiwan shoud be A#1 on the list of making Anakin a _balanced_ warrior. Since it's clear that Quigon's philosophy was the faulty one (not waiting for his 'assistant' before again engaging Maul is only the tip of the iceberg but a potent image if you see it for what it is...). And Obiwan's own precognition was what deserved 'further exploration'. If only to define the Shroud Effect which I find to be so utterly ludicrous.

(Calling Obi-wan a failure is ridiculous. He did his job as a mentor. You can't blame obi-wan for anakin's failure. You can't compare obi-wan slaying maul to anakin murdering children. Obi-wan did his job by killing maul and yoda or windu would have done the same. But I guess by your point of view it could have been the result of a long line of failures starting with QUI-GON too?)

>>

Amidala/shmi-The mother.

>>

No. Padme is The Temptation. The Goddess Encounter.

Though not specifically a 'character' in JC's list, indicating his lack of mental ability to define a female value other than misogynistically, the female role is that of broadening the hero's mind by offering him an alternative to the Heroic Path. In some ways she is therefore a Shadow of what the /audience/ wants to 'just get past' as needless boy-gets-girl romance on the way to the 'Inmost Cave' and the 'Drawing of the Sword' (hey, they're his words) of heroic transformation. Yet _properly done_ they are also the means by which the Female dual-mind teaches the male linear-reasoned conscience to see MORE THAN the immediate moment OR the final destiny as direct causal links of action and objectivism. In so doing, the female role is less nurturer than _Shapeshifter_ granting an ability to the male to do something which he normally would not. While often preserving that which is his innermost spirit or soul from the very corruption of purpose she mythically represents (i.e. you will always be a man, remember that when you are given an absolute choice of destinies). Luke's response to the threat to Leia by his Father after their talk in the Ewok Grove is an example, albeit poorly scripted for purpose and incredibly gender-dated for motivation, of what the female function is. To show by vulnerability, the means of evading an enemy's strength in a typical male "Unstoppable force meets immutable object" fashion.

And again, given we are NEVER told /why/ it is forbidden for a Jedi to _breed_ (trillion beings, only a few thousand Jedi, that makes Force Endowment one of the most rare genetic traits known on a population ratio). Nor why a Senator cannot have a husband and family, it smacks of Lucas' 'making a statement' about his own personal life, in the aftermath of divorce and single parenthood, more than any realworld arguable (thus ultimately understandable) 'fault of the system'.

To which I would add (again) one last comment: Portmann and Christensen are about the FLATTEST of 'star crossed lovers' I have /ever/ seen.

(Your opinion on the acting is your own, but star wars isn't supposed to be a romantic comedy. Your assumption that amidala is a "temptress" is kind of mysoginistic, because Anakin initiated it all to begin with AFTER palpatine had purposefully put them both together. By that token anakin could have been just as much the tempter. You can't place temptation on the shoulders of one character, when the characters were more or less tempting each other, ONLY after anakin had initiated it himself with his strange and obvious behaviour.)

Schmi is even less impressive for all Pernilla August's nominal acting skills in doing the most with a minimalist role identity. For here is a 'nurturer' who would send her son into a life of indenture to the State after first letting him engage in a blood sport which THE CHILD Anakin clearly (in his manipulations of the pod racer) lacks the physique to handle. Even Anakin's "I guess so..." response and delayed reaction to her kidnap and torture only serves to WEAKEN the bond-ties of an apparently critical relationship of which we know NONE OF THE DETAILS to otherwise attribute a suspension of disbelief in.

>>

Anakin-The father, the demigod, the boy who cried wolf, the fallen hero the sinner-saint (anakin is probably the most complicated, self contradicting mix of archetypes possible, but still the most human of them all probably.)

>>

As you outline him, an entirely too muddy a character. One beset by an unbridgeably schizoid separation of casting (NEVER replace 'The Hero' with a NEW PERSON in a movie setting!) and yet no separation of selfish (unaware) and selfish (clumsily aware) and evil (unable to let go of selfishness) moments by which to create even a moment of believable "I should care about this person's coming descent because he COULD overcome his shortfalls...". There was NOTHING about Vader that was worthy of recovery as a man from the shell of the monster. Not even his final act to destroy the Emperor and save his 'father figure' role (it would have been more effective, in a primitive way, if it had been Leia at direct risk and Luke who gave him a save her and die or just die momentary reprieve.) could change the nature of a man who had caused BILLIONS to suffer at his hand. Yet, nominally, Anakin is NOT Vader. But a man with the potential to be more, a /dark/ hero struggling to find the light. I never found Lil Orphan Annie to be anything but insufferable. And that does not beget the sense of a vile-but-strong villain. Nor or a hero who once was not the man he is today.

IF THERE IS NO CHANGE. No cathartic moment when angst can become greater than we dream possible or less than we ever dream of falling to, as a function of all that has come before. Then the author hasn't the courage to make the Hero teeter on the edge of the cliff. And so doesn't know the value of tragedy as the emphasis of all that came before. And now can never be.

Such is the difference between 'real life' in which Hitler may well have always been a physically brutalized, spoiled, brat. And the literary where we see the opposite of evil, at least as a momentary glimmering of potential.



>>

Palpatine-The deciever, the tyrant.

>>

No. The Dragon. Mixed with the Shapeshifter and Shadow. But whereas the Shadow acts a midpoint obstacle to be removed on the trip to the final confrontation, (rather like the Threshold Guardian in a way) it is not the main antagonist. In this, Palpatine was ill served because we never got to see him BEING HIM and saying and acting in a way that gave you a sense of 'who I am' without direct effect on the others in the story but amplifying what we KNOW is the hidden evil. Lucas is simply a clutz with Palpatine and though he really can't help it, given the stupid rendition of The Emperor in ROTJ (which is where a properly developed Sidious would have been shown at the height of his cunning and reach before the 'surprising fall' of his own), it is yet another case of the gorilla and the Samsonite commercial coming together through a series of stock-situational encounters that do NOTHING to say "Here I am, this is my POV" (character motivation). In a way that slooooowly winds the two threads of Anakin's and Palpatine's characters together.

If you've read the ROTS novelization, there is a moment wherein Palpy offers Anakin 'anything' and Anakin just takes it, beyond the safety of his wife, beyond his oaths as a Jedi and the contradiction of 'attachments' that goes with it. THAT is what should have been Anakin's developmental arc of degradation throughout the PT. But again, you cannot do this with a child. Because that is when Annie is supposedly 'innocent' (as an accusation of good). Rather you MUST do it with someone who is darkened by a mother long dead. Living in a world which has (for instance) traded real poverty for enforced religious abstention from worldly goods. Ba-BAM! In walks Padme, the Temptation which is actually -better for Anakin- because she can MAKE HIM GOOD. By not being blinded by his obsesssion with her as yet another object he cannot have but rather wise in her ability to see past his cheapness into a greater man. Even if it is only, initially, brought on by hormones and shared loss (both from Naboo for instance).

In this, I will give Lucas one kudo. Palpie using Anakin's love for Amidala was perfectly in line with a male-seducer trying to exploit the wiles of a female whose functional (biologic) role he could never fulfill. But he hamhanded it /so badly/ _so late in the game_ as to make it an "Ainnnh..." moment rather than (say) making it clear that the Tuskens were PAID to take and torture or rape Schmi and descending further from there.


(Well the way I see it palpatine manipulated the whole romance into effect.)
>>

Clones/stormtroopers-The henchman.

>>

No. Because these are more the heroes than Annie ever is. And yet again, Lucas makes the JEDI look like /idiots/ (Beware Greeks) for being nominally in charge of something for the better part of four years without checking, in depth, the psychologic makeup and indoctrination training of a weapon under their care. Jedi _do not_ like warfare. Therefore it stands to reason that they would not -trust- warriors who stood to replace their form of guardianship with out and out combattive response.

At least not without looking at that damn horse rather closely.

>>

Sith lords-black knights.

>>

Incompetent Youth and Aged Impostors. Make the Sith _real_ for their motivation. And you will create the basis of ALLIANCE by which any threat is made real rather than boogeyman monstrous. In this, Maul especially strikes me as being almost a farcical illustration of Lucas' own disbelief in what he was doing. For who would think a horned-human dressed in clown paint is anything but a 'Phantom Menace' of uproariously laughable proportions. Again, this is not some attempt to generate an omni-mind sense of higher conscience /from myth/. It is an attempt to create such a legend _as a working piece of fiction_ in which the psychological archetypes must be refined and exposited within a limited time period of development. Everytime you kill a bad guy you have to start over introducing a new one. Everytime a bad guy dies like a chump instead of a hard-fought kill or escape (and really the same goes for designated-morte good guys too) you depreciate the sense of foreboding that these _really are_ dangerous people. At the immediate-physical as well as secondary political/relgious/philosophical levels.

BOTH mistakes are crucial because we are Well Past the period of notionalistic (if not nationalistic) rendering of enemies as purely 2Dimensional associations with evil 'because they are not on our team'.

Which of course brings me to the notion of a 1,000 year vendetta in which your most lethal adversary is the man who will use and kill you if you do not assassinate him first. While the 'original sin' of those who oppressed you, becomes an ever vaguer ideal. For a demigod, there is no point in holding onto such past hurts. Not when the ultimate expression of Passion is YOUR DESIRES. In the present.

>>

Jedi-white knights.

>>

Chumps, one and all. They can't fight, they have only a pablumized philosophy of personal existence and their ability to contribute usefully to society, as 'Guardians' or otherwise is non-existent. This is not Lucas arguing against the Jedi hero worship becoming a mistaken religion (though he should have known better if he didn't think it would happen in a world sick to death of god-facades). It is Lucas afraid to create an ubermenche of eliteness. Even if the ultimate purpose of his drama is to illustrate how dangerous the reliance upon such a caste system is.

HAVE SOME BALLS. And make your heroes strong before you undercut them.

(Well, If they had balls, then they wouldn't be dead would they?)
>>

The force-god

>>

Nope. The Force is the true storyteller. Because only through exotic (usually detrimental) manipulations of awareness and moral fiber can it influence the outcomes to the endgame we have seen. And in this, I have nothing but contempt for a 'narrator' that would put value in the descent and redemption of a single man at the cost of BILLIONS of other lives. When the obvious alternatives are that The Force _keep_ Anakin a slave. Or better yet, never have allowed his existence.

Sidious may destroy hundreds, maybe thousands, in his lifetime. And whoever replaces him thousands more. But it takes organization and mechanization to slaughter at a genocidal level characterized by Death Stars and the like. And there is NEVER a need for that kind of depredation solely to extinguish the 'Dark Flame' of one psychotic avatar. At least not one who dies flying down a mine shaft.


(That is the way of things, good comes from bad, and they only exist because of each other. We would be spoiled children if the world was all good.)
>>

Midichorians-the holy spirit.

>>

Hey, just because I can use holy roller analogues of imagery such as the Divine Trinity DOES NOT mean I believe in them! ;-) I much prefer a real world with real-not-reel scientifically achievable if not quantifiable magic. And so the illustration of Midis as a miniature equivalent of the VLA-cum-tuning-fork for a NON sentient energy field reality shift resonance makes more sense to me. If only because it allows godhead as an efficiency optimization vector we call morals and ethics, to be firmly fixed _in us_.

You wanna talk to god? You look in a mirror and ask if what you are doing is efficient in the long run son.

(NO, you wanna be god? create a human nervous system with your chemistry set pal!)

OTOH, you wanna /be/ god, you learn to sense the muteable form but unmitigateable VALUE of all things all around you, all the time.

Such is the nature of expanding one's awareness into a greater reality. That YOU must always be point of observation. But the /flow/ of things around you defines your ability to understand what that position is.

>>

R2 and threepio-the cronichlers, the story tellers, the narrator's, the witnesses...despite threepio's claim that he wasn't a very good story teller, I think that is what lucas intended him and r2 to be.

>>

Sorry, but you head into a landscape of slapstick, even on the part of the nominally wise beepity-beep fire hydrant, and you diminish the story value. The Trickster is not a force in and of himself, he is what shapes the more polaric views of others. That cannot happen when you are talking about the value of life and living as being better than the machine. While telling the tale from the machine's perspective.

I would further state that one of the many reasons people didn't like Jar Jar was that there was already a fool on the payroll in 3P0. I myself have often wondered at the wisdom of Lucas rendering the animated garbage can the 'wise child'. While giving 3P0, nominally the communications and protocol intermediary between the machines and man, such limited depth of reasoning. IMO, _if_ you want their presence to be the one which defines the linkage of awareness of the grand story from PT thru OT, then 3P0 needed to be the exact opposite. The one who made carefully _calculated_ rather than random standup comments that let the audience see HIS inner-humour at what 'generations may change, but the bloodline and boyish moments of the Skywalker clan are still the same' he observes.

Lastly, 3P0 is clearly not something a young boy could fabricate (any more than a he could build and fly a pod racer). But nor is he as advanced as many of the droids shown _in the Prequels_ to be slim and relatively agile anthropomorphic mimics of bipedal articulation. This furthers the disconnect between OT and PT as descendant and ancestor 'only in reverse' and makes it clear that the two droids have even less of a historical relevance as a _technical_ yardstick.

I get the same feeling looking at Naboo fighters and unshielded TIE.

>>

Plus you could even count alot of the situations that the characters arrive in as archetypal.

Anakin's immaculate birth.

>>

Only if it serves a purpose to define what it is to be Jedi. And this is never done because they never make a clear and causal link between developing in an aggressively competitive sibling/filial expectation environment and the 'pure' life of The Academy. And it's effects on the para-psyche abilities of it's Adepts.

Claiming to be a Messiah on a street corner is not the same as BEING a Messiah 'on call to the President and UN Secretary General'.

A fact which is further diminished by the poor physiologic comparitors of Lloyd and Christensen. One is the precursor, the other is the postlog. But there is no wow-what-a-neat-toy! emphasis of difference character development /from other Jedi/ beyond Annie's continual "I really am, in a lot of ways, better you know..."

What a wah-wah-wah let down then the ROTS last battle outcome. Not least because Obiwan himself has leapt upwards of 20-30ft straight up in the air.

>>

Obi-wan being bound by all 4 limbs in dooku's chamber on geonosis.

>>

Only if you believe in both the mechanization by which he got there (let's get OFF the planet and /then/ send a commo alert!) and the nature of a Promethian sacrifice which is inappropriate at this point for Obiwan has not been seen to craft Anakin from mud. Nor to have any special feelings of 'heroic intensity' that could be said to put the good of all above his own. He is merely doing a job, as a Spy, having failed laughably, as a Federal Marshal to achieve the same goal through apprehension of Jango and his son (if you are fighting a fugitive, the first thing you do is secure his transportation, -especially- if it is armed or otherwise capable itself of synergistically adding to his personal threat level).

If you want the crucification/victim theme, you probably need to go with a female and thus render either an addition to Amidala or Padme herself _into_ a Jedi for whom Anakin can 'dream the forbidden' with all the ardor-for-the-victimized mating psychology thrown in.

>>

The prophecy of the chosen one.

>>

Don't even go there. Or heck, let's...

Vader doesn't need to exist to kill such a pathetically weak old fool as Palpatine.

REAL Jedi, who had ensured order in a galaxy for 20,000 years, would pick the latter up in a second, regardless of his Force Masking abilities.

If only becasue this cannot possibly have been the 'first time' someone with a latent or developed Force Gift got into the Senate 'and then strange things started happening'.

Given how we vet our own leadership, I also find it ridiculous to see Palpatine as a Sith-with-residency OR a native of Naboo.

Or that the HUGE money trail inherent to creating a fleet of ships and an army of soldiers would not be backtrailed rather quickly.

i.e. if Vader doesn't need to exist to kill Palpatine then either The Force is itself evil or Anakin's 'intended' role as messiah is never explored in the fashion it should have been, which bespeaks active neglect given that the Jedi appear to be nothing more than militant thugs and should never have found him.

Either way, the PT is about what the Audience CAN see. And in it's progression there is never any purpose for the slaughter that is to come or the outcome of it's ultimate ending.

>>

I need not go on, there are maybe even more archetypes in the PT than the OT.

>>

A hack combines and reiterates the symbolic metaphors of others. Whether he specifically uses (or believes in) JC's _Hero Of A Thousand Faces_ definitions of what those symbols are matters not. Lack of talent in presenting _uniquely defined_ themes and ideals is what makes storytelling both entertaining as a technical exercise in composition. And morally rewarding for what it gives the viewer in reflection upon his own beliefs (surprise ending or otherwise). In this case, I was bored from the get go and had no sympathy with any of the characters or ideals expressed because the mishmash of meaning was not a montage but a morass.

>>

The lists of archetypes go on and on.

PT-The rise and fall of the father.

OT-Confronting or coming to terms with the father.

>>

You be my guest. The father falls only because good took pity on an 'innocent' and /let/ him become evil through an utterly unbelievable set of circumstantial miracles.

Coming to terms with one's father only happens, as a psychologic process, when you are, say, Hitler's grandson and have no awareness of the man, only his created image in the eyes of history.

Vader was a living menace whose -continuing- actions not only crippled his son but put everything he had every learned to hold dear at risk. You don't worry over the hidden goodness of such creature, you put a stake in it's heart before it kills you for sure.

In this, I think an effeminized societal view of the male-protector psyche limits of 'understanding' (behavioral constrictors which are _there for a purpose_ in keeping the violence focussed upon a goal rather than the act or it's 'motivations') greatly compromise the real-people/exotic-world empathy with which we approach the SWU as a whole.

IMO, much better themic exploration could have been achieved through the the realignment of what was then an incestuously impossible relationship between a hero who is now denied the lover's alternative to his 'fated destinty'. And his Sister who has yet to make her own choice between securing the lineage and becoming a hero herself.

The development of strategic ruthlessness _as restraint upon actual violence_ in a 'hero' who would return the Jedi to their former position of mediators of Galactic Peace.

Even the simple (or not) resolution of The Struggle Itself that was ROTJ's poor choice of fixating upon the individual's failings rather than amplifying the Greater Need through personal sacrifice. i.e. REAL LOSS rather than threatened corruption as the driving compression which forges the final heroic form.

All these things were ignored by a juvenile mind hiding in a rich man's body. A man who could demand that end of the OT reflect the beginning of the PT's descent into self-aggrandizing ("Ooooh, luke-at-me and my digital media Empire of Dreams!) but ultimately pointless precursorism.

>>

But really, the point is if you choose to see negative in somthing you will, you could even see it in the OT if you tried hard enough. It's easy enough to see the OT in a negative light if you are viewing it with people who are cynical. It's all about what you choose to focus on.

>>

I have never been unable to find fault in the OT. I simply find more basically -good- material potential to work with than I do in the utterly meatless banality of the PT. For you I would state that the difference between a conformist and an optimist is that the optimist KNOWS that there are 'bad things out there'. And works past or towards reparing them, based on the confidence that the 'good things' allow him to harbor close within his/her heart. A conformist tries for guilt-by-association on a 'greatest weight' bias of absolute belief. Particularly given the way the Lucas filmed them, that is impossible when comparing the OT and PT. For while the one nominally came before the other, it's production technology was better yet less well employed. And storywise, NO AMOUNT OF REVISIONIST POLISHING will put sufficient shine on the escutcheon of the OT to save it from the pitted tarnish that is the PT's 'moral motivation' for all that 'came after yet before'.

Such deficiency in turn reflecting nothing if not an impossibly messy moebian loop of inverted chronological vs. mental age group commercialistic exploitation on the part of none other than George Lucas. The 'father and son and holy spirit' creator of both series. The man who inflicted his dementia on the second as a function of besmirching all that was good in the first.

Gee, Thanks, GL!!



KPl.

[/QUOTE]

2-1B
06-27-2005, 01:42 PM
Come on, there's no reason to post anything that long in the first place, let alone quote something that long.

Mad Slanted Powers
06-27-2005, 07:24 PM
Actually, it appears as if the responses are within the quoted part, and the not quoted part at the end I think actually is a quoted part. It's all so confusing.

JediTricks
12-05-2007, 01:13 AM
I can't believe it's been over 2 years since I made that post. It absolutely has reshaped how I perceive Star Wars. Since then, The Making of Star Wars has come out as well and also has done that, but it mostly just supports what I already have here.

Any new thoughts on this matter?

decadentdave
12-05-2007, 01:46 AM
I've heard all of this from Lucas since his 1980 Rolling Stone interview and it's simply no excuse. Lucas created the backstory in the early drafts of The Star Wars then had to break it all up. He had the general blueprint for the Prequels in his mind all along but when he finally got off his lazy azz to write them he realized that he had opportunities to explore different ideas and characters within the framework of the trilogy. He knew where he was going with it, just wasn't sure how to set it up. The first two films are like tent poles for ROTS, nothing more. Although Lucas is happy with them, the fans are not. Lucas wasted the first 2 films in the PT to go off on a tangent to satisfy his own personal edifications at the expense of what could have been great theatrical character drama with multiple layers of mythical subtext but ended up a two-dimensional cartoon circus for children. Bottom line; George Lucas turned Star Wars into G.I. Joe and it's prevalent in all of the militaristic romanticism with the hardware and clones. When Yoda commanded the Republic armies on the battlefield of Geonosis I was expecting to hear the Jedi battlecry of "Yo Joe!" Darth Sidious is the PT equivalent of Cobra Commander and Vader his Destro. I guess that would make Jango Fett his Major Bludd? Anyway, the OT used to be about a mythic multi-layered fantasy for audiences of all ages and cultures and religions but the PT has distilled that down into a mind-numbing assault of computer generated visual effects that are nothing more than glorified toy commercials for Hasbro.

That said, I can still appreciate the Prequels. How many here grew up with Star Wars AND G.I. Joe and still enjoy them both for what they are? Lucas and Hasbro just married the two of them together.

JediTricks
12-05-2007, 02:38 AM
You're basically saying everything he said in the opening post is wrong? That seems like a big stretch, especially taken with The Making of SW book's content and the original drafts of the story, all which suggest there wasn't much of the prequel material ever written down.


Lucas also said that the first 2 prequels are just 20% of the overall prequel story, and ROTS is 60% - I'd say he was being generous, and it's more like 15% for each of the first 2 prequels.


Wouldn't Jango be Destro? Mask. Weapons. Independent contractor. Crappy death at the hands of Sam Jackson... oops, I've said too much! :p


I dug GI Joe as a kid, but mostly for the vehicle toys.

decadentdave
12-05-2007, 02:52 AM
You're basically saying everything he said in the opening post is wrong? That seems like a big stretch, especially taken with The Making of SW book's content and the original drafts of the story, all which suggest there wasn't much of the prequel material ever written down.

He took the basic backstory elements he came up with and had to flesh them out into 3 films. He had almost 20 years to develop them but ended up doing it on the fly as an afterthought.



Lucas also said that the first 2 prequels are just 20% of the overall prequel story, and ROTS is 60% - I'd say he was being generous, and it's more like 15% for each of the first 2 prequels.

Like I said, he wasted the first 2 films going off on some tangent to satisfy his own personal whims. In other words, he basically pulled crap out of his azz to pad them out and it shows.



Wouldn't Jango be Destro? Mask. Weapons. Independent contractor. Crappy death at the hands of Sam Jackson... oops, I've said too much! :p


I can see your point about arms dealer but Bludd was also a merc besides Vader is the man in the iron mask with a brotha man's voice and isn't some clansman from Scotland.

JimJamBonds
12-05-2007, 11:36 AM
He took the basic backstory elements he came up with and had to flesh them out into 3 films. He had almost 20 years to develop them but ended up doing it on the fly as an afterthought.

Except he didn't really even think about making the prequels until Jarassic Park happened, which was far less then twenty years before TPM.

Droid
12-05-2007, 01:22 PM
He took the basic backstory elements he came up with and had to flesh them out into 3 films. He had almost 20 years to develop them but ended up doing it on the fly as an afterthought.

I think the story we were promised in the OT can easily fill three movies with a lot left over.

I - Obi-wan still as Yoda's student or a recent graduate, finds and befriends
Anakin. Anakin starts training.
II - The Clone Wars, adventures of Ben and Anakin. Anakin a full Jedi.
III - The fall of Anakin and rise of the Empire.

decadentdave
12-05-2007, 01:31 PM
Except he didn't really even think about making the prequels until Jarassic Park happened, which was far less then twenty years before TPM.

Wrong, he always intended to make the Prequels, the technology wasn't there until Jurassic Park happened. In the 1980 Rolling Stone interview he says he intended to make it a 9 part saga. After ROTJ he had just been through a divorce with Marsha and wanted to take a break and raise his adopted children. Next thing you know it's 10 years later and Jurassic Park helped spur him to get back in the game which is why he announced he was doing the Prequels and then changed his mind and said in the 2002 Rolling Stone interview that it was a 6 part saga instead of 9.

stillakid
12-05-2007, 03:08 PM
Wrong, he always intended to make the Prequels, the technology wasn't there until Jurassic Park happened. In the 1980 Rolling Stone interview he says he intended to make it a 9 part saga. After ROTJ he had just been through a divorce with Marsha and wanted to take a break and raise his adopted children. Next thing you know it's 10 years later and Jurassic Park helped spur him to get back in the game which is why he announced he was doing the Prequels and then changed his mind and said in the 2002 Rolling Stone interview that it was a 6 part saga instead of 9.
The other "rumor" is that as part of the divorce settlement, Marcia would get a share of the Prequel profits if they were made before a certain date. So George waited til after.

That's unconfirmed and could be total bunk, but you know.... :)

JimJamBonds
12-05-2007, 03:49 PM
Wrong, he always intended to make the Prequels, the technology wasn't there until Jurassic Park happened. In the 1980 Rolling Stone interview he says he intended to make it a 9 part saga. After ROTJ he had just been through a divorce with Marsha and wanted to take a break and raise his adopted children. Next thing you know it's 10 years later and Jurassic Park helped spur him to get back in the game which is why he announced he was doing the Prequels and then changed his mind and said in the 2002 Rolling Stone interview that it was a 6 part saga instead of 9.

I know Lucas said way back when he was going to make 9 films.... however as I said nothing happened and then JP came out and I-III came out.

decadentdave
12-05-2007, 04:04 PM
You said he didn't even think about making them until JP came along. He thought about making them way back when he was writing Star Wars but had to break them up because they weren't as interesting and the technology wasn't there which is why the OT became the middle trilogy at the time until he realized while making the PT that it was really Vader's story and made it a six part saga. Really, the last trilogy would be rather superfluous at this point. I'd rather he made the prequel-prequel trilogy at this point. That would be far more interesting to go back 800 years before and see the origins of Yoda and how Darth Sidious and he were "old friends" (and by friends I mean that in an adversarial way). He even said when he announced the PT after JP came out that they weren't going to be very interesting with a lot of talking and boring politics but the fans didn't belieive him and thought it was Lucas just being his modest self. When TPM came out everybody was ****ed at Lucas because, of course, he was right... they weren't as interesting. Still, I enjoy the Prequels. They were not the total loss some so-called fans here make them out to be. In fact, I find a lot of redeeming moments in AOTC and ROTS is perhaps my favorite of them all. Empire will always be the best of the OT but ROTS is the pillar upon which the entire saga hinges upon. To me, ROTS is the most dramatically satisfying of them all.

Droid
12-05-2007, 04:08 PM
He realized that the first movie was too long so he broke it up and decided to write the first act of that trilogy. He developed a back story for the characters because he wanted to give the audience the feeling of joining the story already in progress. Hence "Episode IV." When he released the first Star Wars movie the backstory was for his reference and NOT to later make as movies. His goal at the time he released Star Wars was to get his trilogy made, not to make six or nine movies. That goal came later when the money would pouring in.

decadentdave
12-05-2007, 04:12 PM
When he made Star Wars, he had no idea he was even going to finish the trilogy until it became a success so when Star Wars was re-released in 1978 he added "Episode IV: A New Hope" title to the opening crawl and declared it was the "middle trilogy" of a 9-part saga. He already had the backstory for the Prequels which was written into the early drafts of The Star Wars. The general outline was already there.

Now, whatever he had intended for the "final trilogy" is beyond me. I don't think even he knew or even knows which is another reason why he decided that it would be a 6 part saga telling Vader's story.

Droid
12-05-2007, 04:28 PM
When he made Star Wars, he had no idea he was even going to finish the trilogy until it became a success so when Star Wars was re-released in 1978 he added "Episode IV: A New Hope" title to the opening crawl and declared it was the "middle trilogy" of a 9-part saga. He already had the backstory for the Prequels which was written into the early drafts of The Star Wars. The general outline was already there.

Now, whatever he had intended for the "final trilogy" is beyond me. I don't think even he knew or even knows which is another reason why he decided that it would be a 6 part saga telling Vader's story.

No, he wanted Episode IV to be on the movie the day it was released, but the studios wouldn't let him because it was confusing. He wanted people to feel like they were coming in to the middle of a story that was already ongoing.

stillakid
12-05-2007, 05:57 PM
Like most other people, the "video game" moments are of course fun. The problem is slogging through the "story" to get to them.

Perhaps my favorite element of the Prequels is General Grievous. Inherently, that character just does NOT belong in the Star Wars Universe (don't believe me? Try imagining him anywhere in the OT then we'll talk)... but I really like that character. The wheezing, the voice, the walk, the attitude. Just a really fun character all around. I'd love to know more about him in some kind of onscreen movie or something.

decadentdave
12-05-2007, 07:10 PM
Like most other people, the "video game" moments are of course fun. The problem is slogging through the "story" to get to them.

Perhaps my favorite element of the Prequels is General Grievous. Inherently, that character just does NOT belong in the Star Wars Universe (don't believe me? Try imagining him anywhere in the OT then we'll talk)... but I really like that character. The wheezing, the voice, the walk, the attitude. Just a really fun character all around. I'd love to know more about him in some kind of onscreen movie or something.

That's hilarious because when I was in junior high I used to sketch a proto-Vader design leading the Sith into battle against the Jedi during class that's not too far off from what Grievous came to be. In fact, when Grievous came about I thought there was something very familiar about it and most appropriate for Star Wars. Grievous is one of the most interesting characters of the Prequels who should have been used to his potential instead of in a comic book way. He really could have been the shadow of Vader that foreshadowed his destiny.

2-1B
12-05-2007, 08:10 PM
The other "rumor" is that as part of the divorce settlement, Marcia would get a share of the Prequel profits if they were made before a certain date. So George waited til after.

That's unconfirmed and could be total bunk, but you know.... :)

Yeah. Just like the rumor of him dating that Playboy model. :D


When he made Star Wars, he had no idea he was even going to finish the trilogy until it became a success so when Star Wars was re-released in 1978 he added "Episode IV: A New Hope" title to the opening crawl and declared it was the "middle trilogy" of a 9-part saga. He already had the backstory for the Prequels which was written into the early drafts of The Star Wars. The general outline was already there.

Now, whatever he had intended for the "final trilogy" is beyond me. I don't think even he knew or even knows which is another reason why he decided that it would be a 6 part saga telling Vader's story.

I think he told The Ham that it would deal with Luke as an Obi-Wan type mentor of new Jedi. Could have been cool to see what would have happened...instead we got the loopy Thrawn Trilogy.

decadentdave
12-05-2007, 08:13 PM
But Lucas said that the only characters that would be in the other trilogies would be the Droids. Besides, I don't want to see old-azz Hamill playing Obi-Wan. That would be predictable and dull, but not as lame as the Thrawn trilogy. That was just dumb.

JimJamBonds
12-05-2007, 08:38 PM
But Lucas said that the only characters that would be in the other trilogies would be the Droids. Besides, I don't want to see old-azz Hamill playing Obi-Wan. That would be predictable and dull, but not as lame as the Thrawn trilogy. That was just dumb.

Didn't Hamill say he wanted to play Anakin's father??? Which is still better then Michael Jackson as Jar Jar. lol

JediTricks
12-07-2007, 11:37 PM
He took the basic backstory elements he came up with and had to flesh them out into 3 films. He had almost 20 years to develop them but ended up doing it on the fly as an afterthought. That's a really good point, I think that alone can prove how un-Star Wars the prequels really can be taken as. The man did tons of research on mythology, even contacted psychologists over concerns of how ESB's big twist would affect children, and for years went to town fleshing out ideas and backstories specifically to craft the OT. Then, with the prequels, he gets the digital effects tools he needs and slaps 'em together like a last-minute science fair entry - no drawn out backstory to flesh it out, no sense of "history" for this prequel universe, no concern to it ringing true or playing on audiences' core mythos, just "I thought it'd be fun to make some new movies so I did".


Like I said, he wasted the first 2 films going off on some tangent to satisfy his own personal whims. In other words, he basically pulled crap out of his azz to pad them out and it shows.In Ep 1, he needed to introduce Obi-Wan Kenobi, introduce Anakin Skywalker, introduce them to each other, give us a framework of who the Jedi were and the threat to the galaxy that was looming, and put Palpatine in power. Most of that could have been expressed either in the crawl or in a few lines of dialogue, but because this couldn't be done like the real Star Wars where the audience had to just "get with it as it went along" using archetypes and hints and clues that crap had to be shown, and then a story had to be woven around it. In Ep 2, he needed Anakin to fall in love with a girl and the Clone Wars to start and Anakin to start failing, and again, couldn't just do it efficiently, he had to show his work and it turned out to be sketchy and thin. And he decided he couldn't do it all in 1 film or balance out where stuff started and ended because he was, after all, tied to the way Star Wars did its episodic feel, so in this - the most superficial and least important part considering what we got - he tried to stick to the original.


I can see your point about arms dealer but Bludd was also a merc besides Vader is the man in the iron mask with a brotha man's voice and isn't some clansman from Scotland.Yeah, but CC didn't make Destro just as Palps didn't make Jango.



I think the story we were promised in the OT can easily fill three movies with a lot left over.

I - Obi-wan still as Yoda's student or a recent graduate, finds and befriends
Anakin. Anakin starts training.
II - The Clone Wars, adventures of Ben and Anakin. Anakin a full Jedi.
III - The fall of Anakin and rise of the Empire.I don't think Anakin ever had to be shown as a full Jedi. "When I left you, I was but the learner" could have left him an upstart without yet earning the trust of the council who turned to the dark side.



Wrong, he always intended to make the Prequels, the technology wasn't there until Jurassic Park happened. In the 1980 Rolling Stone interview he says he intended to make it a 9 part saga. After ROTJ he had just been through a divorce with Marsha and wanted to take a break and raise his adopted children. Next thing you know it's 10 years later and Jurassic Park helped spur him to get back in the game which is why he announced he was doing the Prequels and then changed his mind and said in the 2002 Rolling Stone interview that it was a 6 part saga instead of 9.I don't believe he intended to make the prequels, look at what he says OVER AND OVER about them in the opening post. And this is right after making the prequels, there's no reason to BS. He said a lot of misleading, contradictory silliness back in the day to get people to see the sequels (he had a lot of money tied up in ESB and ROTJ, nearly lost everything on ROTJ actually before it was finished). That "gonna make 9 films" thing always was the hot topic on the schoolyard when I was a lad, but the reality is when you look at the materials he created at the time, there was no eps 1-3 or eps 7-9 in his mind.

And he didn't stop working, he just stopped CREATING during that time. He produced Indy 2, the Ewoks movies, Labyrinth, Howard the Duck, the Captain EO disneyland attraction, Willow, Tucker, Indy 3, Young Indy series (which was a year before JP) before JP. In fact, after Young Indy started, the only thing he did between that and the SEs and Prequels was Radioland Murders - where McCallum's parasitic relationship with Lucas was cemented.

decadentdave
12-08-2007, 12:01 AM
That's a really good point, I think that alone can prove how un-Star Wars the prequels really can be taken as. The man did tons of research on mythology, even contacted psychologists over concerns of how ESB's big twist would affect children, and for years went to town fleshing out ideas and backstories specifically to craft the OT. Then, with the prequels, he gets the digital effects tools he needs and slaps 'em together like a last-minute science fair entry - no drawn out backstory to flesh it out, no sense of "history" for this prequel universe, no concern to it ringing true or playing on audiences' core mythos, just "I thought it'd be fun to make some new movies so I did".

In Ep 1, he needed to introduce Obi-Wan Kenobi, introduce Anakin Skywalker, introduce them to each other, give us a framework of who the Jedi were and the threat to the galaxy that was looming, and put Palpatine in power. Most of that could have been expressed either in the crawl or in a few lines of dialogue, but because this couldn't be done like the real Star Wars where the audience had to just "get with it as it went along" using archetypes and hints and clues that crap had to be shown, and then a story had to be woven around it. In Ep 2, he needed Anakin to fall in love with a girl and the Clone Wars to start and Anakin to start failing, and again, couldn't just do it efficiently, he had to show his work and it turned out to be sketchy and thin. And he decided he couldn't do it all in 1 film or balance out where stuff started and ended because he was, after all, tied to the way Star Wars did its episodic feel, so in this - the most superficial and least important part considering what we got - he tried to stick to the original.



If he had started with Episode II and the beginning of the Clone Wars, we would be introduced to the characters as the story began IN PROGRESS as if dropping in on this Galaxy Far, Far Away and we would learn everything we need to know as the events unfold. My point is that Episode I is completely irrelevant to the events of the PT. Pick it up with the Clone Wars and that should have been the tapestry to hang the framework of the story upon. In other words, the Clone Wars should have been epic like Gone With The Wind in space with the love story between Anakin and Padme at its core amidst the turmoil of events that have thrown the Republic into chaos.



Yeah, but CC didn't make Destro just as Palps didn't make Jango.JT, must you always take things so literally? I was being fisicious.




I don't think Anakin ever had to be shown as a full Jedi. "When I left you, I was but the learner" could have left him an upstart without yet earning the trust of the council who turned to the dark side.
He was still subordinate to Obi-Wan and the Council.



I don't believe he intended to make the prequels, look at what he says OVER AND OVER about them in the opening post. And this is right after making the prequels, there's no reason to BS. He said a lot of misleading, contradictory silliness back in the day to get people to see the sequels (he had a lot of money tied up in ESB and ROTJ, nearly lost everything on ROTJ actually before it was finished). That "gonna make 9 films" thing always was the hot topic on the schoolyard when I was a lad, but the reality is when you look at the materials he created at the time, there was no eps 1-3 or eps 7-9 in his mind.
Please... he created an entire industry out of the Star Wars films. It was a guranteed money-making machine. He had every intention after their success to complete the Saga he announced after ANH. The PT was always in his back pocket. He had the outline already there and he always made strong allusions that he would get around to making them in numerous interviews. He took time off to raise his family while keeping a watchful eye on ILM and the digital effects industry he helped found until he was confident they had reached a level where he could tell the story he wanted to tell.



And he didn't stop working, he just stopped CREATING during that time. He produced Indy 2, the Ewoks movies, Labyrinth, Howard the Duck, the Captain EO disneyland attraction, Willow, Tucker, Indy 3, Young Indy series (which was a year before JP) before JP. In fact, after Young Indy started, the only thing he did between that and the SEs and Prequels was Radioland Murders - where McCallum's parasitic relationship with Lucas was cemented.As I said, he became a family man but still oversaw his company and other film projects, most of them forgettable like the 2 Ewok movies, Willow, Tucker and Howard the Duck. Young Cindy was a turd. I've tried to watch the DVDs and they always put me to sleep within 15 minutes. They are great for insomnia. They have nothing to do with the point about the Prequels though. He intended to get to them and there's no excuse why he couldn't have developed or researched them over a period of 15-20 years. He made them to A.) Make money to expand his financial empire and B.) Placate the fans who demanded to see more. You can tell he was really bored too. We got Lazy Lucas.

JediTricks
12-08-2007, 02:56 AM
If he had started with Episode II and the beginning of the Clone Wars, we would be introduced to the characters as the story began IN PROGRESS as if dropping in on this Galaxy Far, Far Away and we would learn everything we need to know as the events unfold. My point is that Episode I is completely irrelevant to the events of the PT. Pick it up with the Clone Wars and that should have been the tapestry to hang the framework of the story upon. In other words, the Clone Wars should have been epic like Gone With The Wind in space with the love story between Anakin and Padme at its core amidst the turmoil of events that have thrown the Republic into chaos.And I'm saying that since the prequels are meant to flesh out and show what bare bones background stuff had been hinted at before, that the 2 relatively vital plotpoints had to be "shown" because that was the intention of the prequels (and thus, they stand in contrast with the OT I say, they do the opposite of the intention of the original SW). So Lucas had to show a few key plotpoints without showing them in a vacuum, so he built up all this junk movie around it, and did the same with Ep 2. He probably would have been best served to just split the dif and put 'em together, but he felt Ani should spend 10 years with Obi-Wan before the CW and Lucas doesn't time-jump that far in a single film.


JT, must you always take things so literally? I was being fisicious.I'm on an internet chat board talking about toys dedicated to a movie most people think is "just for kids", so I'm not going to draw the line anywhere. :p



He was still subordinate to Obi-Wan and the Council.Yes, that makes him a learner, I totally see that. :confused:


Please... he created an entire industry out of the Star Wars films. It was a guranteed money-making machine. A guaranteed industry that just 32 theaters were willing to play at first, and most of them only because Fox threatened to pull another, higher-profile film if they didn't take SW as well, and their other fantasy film that was supposed to open that weekend was suddenly pushed back? And then, around 3/4ths into shooting ROTJ, Lucas ran out of money and couldn't payroll the cast and crew, he had to sell interest in it to investors, including Bank of America, I believe, who barely pulled his bacon out of the fire. He was not a master of business at that time, and he was nowhere near as rich then either - that's what taught him to be more careful.


He had every intention after their success to complete the Saga he announced after ANH.A saga which began with the Luke farmboy rescuing a princess and ended with him destroying the Death Star and defeating the rebellion. That was the story in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ - that was his saga, the whole saga was intended to be Ep 4, not Ep 4, 5, and 6.


The PT was always in his back pocket. He had the outline already thereThe PT was never intended to be made as a film, the very notion stands DIRECTLY in contrast with the intentions of Star Wars as he envisioned it. That vague outline was specifically to make it easier to write what became the OT, nothing more.


and he always made strong allusions that he would get around to making them in numerous interviews. He took time off to raise his family while keeping a watchful eye on ILM and the digital effects industry he helped found until he was confident they had reached a level where he could tell the story he wanted to tell.I think you're padding those claims with what you wanted to be true, not what was actually there. I don't remember heaps of evidence claiming what you're saying is accurate, there are interviews with Lucas from just before and after ANH came out refuting what you're saying and the materials he wrote at that time confirm it. I've given you ample evidence saying otherwise from both then and now when it doesn't suit his needs or the prequel argument. Just because he said he wanted to stick a banana in his ear during an interview doesn't mean he really was going to stick a banana in his ear.


As I said, he became a family man but still oversaw his company and other film projects, most of them forgettable like the 2 Ewok movies, Willow, Tucker and Howard the Duck. Young Cindy was a turd. I've tried to watch the DVDs and they always put me to sleep within 15 minutes. They are great for insomnia. They have nothing to do with the point about the Prequels though. He intended to get to them and there's no excuse why he couldn't have developed or researched them over a period of 15-20 years. He made them to A.) Make money to expand his financial empire and B.) Placate the fans who demanded to see more. You can tell he was really bored too. We got Lazy Lucas.That is pure conjecture on your part and refuted by all the evidence. All I can give you is his projects after Star Wars all sucked to 1 degree or another and that he was lazy and that he wanted to placate fans demanding to see more, the rest is totally speculative and not supported except from your personal bias I believe.

decadentdave
12-08-2007, 03:33 AM
And I'm saying that since the prequels are meant to flesh out and show what bare bones background stuff had been hinted at before, that the 2 relatively vital plotpoints had to be "shown" because that was the intention of the prequels (and thus, they stand in contrast with the OT I say, they do the opposite of the intention of the original SW). So Lucas had to show a few key plotpoints without showing them in a vacuum, so he built up all this junk movie around it, and did the same with Ep 2. He probably would have been best served to just split the dif and put 'em together, but he felt Ani should spend 10 years with Obi-Wan before the CW and Lucas doesn't time-jump that far in a single film.

And what purpose does it serve showing us Anakin as a child? Yippee! And Qui-Gon? What purpose does he serve to the overall Saga when he is never even mentioned ANYWHERE in the OT? He is a completely throway character.


I'm on an internet chat board talking about toys dedicated to a movie most people think is "just for kids", so I'm not going to draw the line anywhere. :pYet when others draw the line they are vilified for having an opinion. Such hypocrisy.



Yes, that makes him a learner, I totally see that. :confused:A student of the Force is always a learner. I think Master Yoda would agree.


A guaranteed industry that just 32 theaters were willing to play at first, and most of them only because Fox threatened to pull another, higher-profile film if they didn't take SW as well, and their other fantasy film that was supposed to open that weekend was suddenly pushed back? And then, around 3/4ths into shooting ROTJ, Lucas ran out of money and couldn't payroll the cast and crew, he had to sell interest in it to investors, including Bank of America, I believe, who barely pulled his bacon out of the fire. He was not a master of business at that time, and he was nowhere near as rich then either - that's what taught him to be more careful.
I'm talking about AFTER ANH. It became a sensational phenomenom that exploded in our culture and took off as a new film licensing and merchandising industry that up till then the film industry had given little thought to merchandising and licensing as a mainstream form of residual revenue aside from box-office grosses.


A saga which began with the Luke farmboy rescuing a princess and ended with him destroying the Death Star and defeating the rebellion. That was the story in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ - that was his saga, the whole saga was intended to be Ep 4, not Ep 4, 5, and 6. Not initially but since it was an overnight success he realized he could continue with the story he had developed and was forced to split up into a middle trilogy.


The PT was never intended to be made as a film, the very notion stands DIRECTLY in contrast with the intentions of Star Wars as he envisioned it. That vague outline was specifically to make it easier to write what became the OT, nothing more.
Not in 1976 when he was writing the fourth or fifth draft of The Star Wars. Point is the backstory was there, written in the early drafts. After Star Wars became a success he eluded to going back and telling the story of how Vader came to be.


I think you're padding those claims with what you wanted to be true, not what was actually there. I don't remember heaps of evidence claiming what you're saying is accurate, there are interviews with Lucas from just before and after ANH came out refuting what you're saying and the materials he wrote at that time confirm it. I've given you ample evidence saying otherwise from both then and now when it doesn't suit his needs or the prequel argument. Just because he said he wanted to stick a banana in his ear during an interview doesn't mean he really was going to stick a banana in his ear.Believe whatever you want but I knew back even in the early 80's that Lucas had every intention of getting around to making the Prequels, just took longer than he or most fans thought it would. When he made his announcement on E.T. in 1992 and made it official it was no surprise to me.


That is pure conjecture on your part and refuted by all the evidence. All I can give you is his projects after Star Wars all sucked to 1 degree or another and that he was lazy and that he wanted to placate fans demanding to see more, the rest is totally speculative and not supported except from your personal bias I believe.What, they he became a family man? Or that he kept a watchful eye on his FX company and waited until the time was right? Lucas has even said that he knew the time was right to make the Prequels when JP came out because the technology was finally there for him to tell that story. He's said that on the DVD's and numerous interviews, I believe it was the 60 Minutes interview. As for my personal bias, as to what, that his other films post-ROTJ all sucked? Yeah, that's my opinion. And Young Cindy was a colossal bore. If you guys think the Prequels are bad, try watching every episode of that show and then talk about continuity. I lay most of the blame for those squarly at the feet of Rick McCallum.

El Chuxter
12-08-2007, 04:10 AM
If the entire PT story was in process, why were early drafts of the scripts so different? Why did Qui-Gon not show up until several drafts in? Why was Chiang only told to draw the scariest thing he could come up with when developing Maul? Why was Jar Jar never developed into anything that made up for him stepping in poop for two hours? Why not mention Dooku in Episode I? Why the ridiculously clumsy car chase in Episode II?

I could go on for several pages, but I'll leave it with those questions to represent the many left unsaid. "Answer me that, Mister Green Lantern."

And, yeah, having now seen bits of Young Indiana, it looks like it was crap. Have to disagree on Willow, though. It wasn't perfect, but it was a lot of fun.

decadentdave
12-08-2007, 04:21 AM
Lucas ripped himself off with Willow. It's ROTJ as a midieval fantasy. You got Darth Kael and Raziel who is basically the Emperor and of course you got Wicket himself, Warwick Davis. Matmartigan is Han Solo-lite. God, that film was awful.

Mad Slanted Powers
12-08-2007, 01:53 PM
And, yeah, having now seen bits of Young Indiana, it looks like it was crap.I can agree with what I remember of the ones where he was a kid, but the ones with Sean Patrick Flannery were a bit better. They involved a bit more action and seemed less like a Disney film or Afterschool Special.

Droid
12-08-2007, 04:38 PM
I don't think Anakin ever had to be shown as a full Jedi. "When I left you, I was but the learner" could have left him an upstart without yet earning the trust of the council who turned to the dark side.

Yes, but Obi-wan does say, "I was once a Jedi Knight the same as your father." Anakin might still have been the learner under Obi-wan when he left him, but I think the prequels should have shown Anakin as a full Jedi Knight. I'd rather as much of the prequels would have matched Obi-wan's OT dialogue as possible.

JediTricks
12-09-2007, 03:19 AM
Yes, but Obi-wan does say, "I was once a Jedi Knight the same as your father." Anakin might still have been the learner under Obi-wan when he left him, but I think the prequels should have shown Anakin as a full Jedi Knight. I'd rather as much of the prequels would have matched Obi-wan's OT dialogue as possible.
They play pretty fast and loose with the meanings of "master" and "knight" and so-forth, but I do see your point. I still can't concede of Anakin being far enough along to think himself worthy of being a Master rank or sitting on the council though.

Droid
12-09-2007, 08:22 PM
They play pretty fast and loose with the meanings of "master" and "knight" and so-forth, but I do see your point. I still can't concede of Anakin being far enough along to think himself worthy of being a Master rank or sitting on the council though.

I totally agree that Anakin shouldn't have been a Master. And I never thought there would be a "Council" prior to the prequels. I would have thought there would be a Jedi code, but beyond there being Knights and Masters I never really thought of their being Jedi leaders or Jedi bossing other Jedi around. It did have a Knights of the round table feel to it though, but it would have been nice if there had been someone on the Council who was a well rounded character besides Yoda. I wish the Jedi would have been shown to be of good humor like Ben and Yoda were in the OT. I would have liked to have seen the Jedi show a character trait other than arrogance, emotionless, or crabby.

EDIT: I guess they did show Kit Fisto smile.

Mad Slanted Powers
12-09-2007, 08:44 PM
I totally agree that Anakin shouldn't have been a Master. And I never thought there would be a "Council" prior to the prequels. I would have thought there would be a Jedi code, but beyond there being Knights and Masters I never really thought of their being Jedi leaders or Jedi bossing other Jedi around. It did have a Knights of the round table feel to it though, The concept of a council works for me. I didn't really have any idea what sort of organization they had, but there must have been some sort of organization if they were guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic.

but it would have been nice if there had been someone on the Council who was a well rounded character besides Yoda. I wish the Jedi would have been shown to be of good humor like Ben and Yoda were in the OT. I would have liked to have seen the Jedi show a character trait other than arrogance, emotionles, or crabby.

I think that may have been intentional. Yoda mentions in AOTC that arrogance was becoming a common trait even in older more experienced Jedi. This probably played a part in their downfall. It seems many were willing to accept Palpatine's portrayal of the Jedi.

Droid
12-10-2007, 02:26 PM
I think that may have been intentional. Yoda mentions in AOTC that arrogance was becoming a common trait even in older more experienced Jedi. This probably played a part in their downfall. It seems many were willing to accept Palpatine's portrayal of the Jedi.

I may have been intentional, but I would have rather that I liked the Jedi shown in the prequels so it would have felt like a loss when they all died.

decadentdave
12-10-2007, 02:35 PM
What, you didn't like Bannana Head, Plo Koon, Aayla Secura, Kit Fisto, Saesee Tiin and Baress Ofee?

El Chuxter
12-11-2007, 01:54 AM
Every straight male and lesbian loves Aayla and Barriss. :love:

Deoxyribonucleic
12-11-2007, 02:52 AM
It's time for me to mow the lawn :thumbsup:

CaptainSolo1138
12-11-2007, 09:51 AM
It's time for me to mow the lawn :thumbsup:
:sur:

I guess that means its time for me to go watch the neighbor do yard work.

Deoxyribonucleic
12-11-2007, 02:29 PM
:sur:

I guess that means its time for me to go watch the neighbor do yard work.

Come on over, I'll set out some chips and finger sammies ;)

jjreason
12-11-2007, 02:47 PM
I'm blushing, and I'm not even sure I know what the hell you two are on about. :Ponder:

CaptainSolo1138
12-11-2007, 02:52 PM
Come on over, I'll set out some chips and finger sammies ;)You got yourself a deal.

No mayo on those sammies, though. Things could get confusing in a hurry.

Deoxyribonucleic
12-11-2007, 03:11 PM
You got yourself a deal.

No mayo on those sammies, though. Things could get confusing in a hurry.

Ok, I'll keep the mayo for myself. I really like mayo, sure adds some flavor :thumbsup:

Feel free to turn on the game as well.

Mad Slanted Powers
12-11-2007, 08:47 PM
I've always preferred Miracle Whip to mayo.

Rocketboy
12-11-2007, 08:56 PM
Will there be Jell-O and/or pudding involved?

Deoxyribonucleic
12-11-2007, 10:42 PM
Miracle whip fans are welcome and I have some black berry jell-o in the fridge, with whip cream.

Wow, this is really turning into a party!

Make sure to bring your opera glasses for better viewing purposes :lipsrsealed:

Rocketboy
12-11-2007, 10:49 PM
There's always room for Jell-O!




*looks for a video camera*

stillakid
12-12-2007, 12:08 AM
Miracle whip fans are welcome and I have some black berry jell-o in the fridge, with whip cream.

Wow, this is really turning into a party!

Make sure to bring your opera glasses for better viewing purposes :lipsrsealed:

I was going to take you to dinner first. :love:

CaptainSolo1138
12-12-2007, 08:30 AM
I was going to take you to dinner first. :love:
"You ol' smoothie."

Deoxyribonucleic
12-12-2007, 12:40 PM
I was going to take you to dinner first. :love:

Of course! You'll just a get a nice after dinner surprise :thumbsup:

:love:

El Chuxter
12-12-2007, 12:59 PM
Will it be drawn on CaptainSolo1138's menu?

CaptainSolo1138
12-12-2007, 01:20 PM
Will it be drawn on CaptainSolo1138's menu?
That'd be awesome. The clown could also describe in detail the current smell within the establishment.

2-1B
02-01-2009, 04:12 PM
Of course! You'll just a get a nice after dinner surprise :thumbsup:

:love:

JT is going to reinstate him? :eek:

Qui-Long Gone
02-03-2009, 10:30 PM
I always find that in exchanges like these - ones that are bordering on the creepy and requiring great contextual attention - it's good to shift gears and bring up a new subject so that those of us who are standing outside the conversation (wondering if we she be amused or disturbed) have something to talk about.

I would love it if all the Prequels were re-done with Scarlet Johanson, Natalie Portman, and Kate Winslet playing ALL OF THE ROLES.