PDA

View Full Version : If Dooku escapes....



stillakid
10-02-2007, 11:10 AM
YODA
If Dooku escapes, rally more systems to his cause he will.



What cause? What cause would Yoda know about at that point in the story?

Mando3lite
10-02-2007, 01:28 PM
to refresh my memory at what point in the movie is this said?

sorry i just realli ehat aotc.

Rocketboy
10-02-2007, 02:27 PM
YODA
If Dooku escapes, rally more systems to his cause he will.



What cause? What cause would Yoda know about at that point in the story?Ummm...the Separatist cause that he was leading maybe?

stillakid
10-02-2007, 02:53 PM
Ummm...the Separatist cause that he was leading maybe?


Well, yeah, but what IS the Separatist's cause?

El Chuxter
10-02-2007, 03:37 PM
To separate!!!!

JON9000
10-02-2007, 03:41 PM
The Separatists' Cause is to secede from the Republic. Reasons are left a little murky, but it appears that the little cabal on Geonosis is comprised of moneyed interests and cartel representatives. I assume these parties were put to disadvantage by the taxation of trade routes to outlying systems by the Republic. This reason could be taken as an allusion to the causes of the American Revolution.

While I would be curious to know if Palps somehow got this started, I think the first film is a little politics heavy already, so I don't mind filling in a bit. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the cause is down to Palp's scheming!

stillakid
10-02-2007, 04:02 PM
It does matter because Yoda says what he says as if he is sure that Dooku will "rally more systems to the cause." How does Yoda know what the "cause" is and if he doesn't know what it is, how can he be so sure that other systems will follow Dooku?

JON9000
10-02-2007, 05:51 PM
Things are getting a little circular here. Why not, for the sake of keeping our semantics straight, we use term "goal" and "reason" instead of "cause" and "cause".

So, in order to consider the goal of a Sith splitting the Republic in two a "bad thing," Yoda would have to know all of the underlying reasons a Sith would have for trying to make it so?

Sorry, Stilla, once Yoda finds out Dooku is a Sith :twisted: and is a high profile figure in the effort trying split the Republic (the cause), I can dig it.

Now, how Yoda is certain Dooku will rally more systems, indicated by saying "will" instead of "might"... I think you have found the fatal flaw in the Prequel Trilogy! I never thought of that! I now hate the prequels! :cry:

Blue2th
10-02-2007, 06:11 PM
Dooku was a disgruntled former Jedi.
Yoda knew what kind of damage this sort of revengeful attitude and lust for power could do.
Qui-Gon had a little bit of this loner maverick rebelliousness in him as Dooku's former apprentice.
It's like interpretation of religion. Dooku had his own ideas about the force in opposition to the Jedi.
Like one leaving a great church or religion, then persecuting his former brothers.
Or a fallen angel being cast out, who then turns into an evil demon then goes to work for the Devil (or Sith)
Know this Yoda does.

stillakid
10-02-2007, 08:13 PM
Great, but what was the "Cause" of the Separatists that Yoda spoke with such confidence about? Why are those other factions (bankers, mechanical guy, Geonesis flying bugs, etc.) wanting to leave the Republic? Is that the "Cause"?

LTBasker
10-02-2007, 09:20 PM
I take it as the "cause" being the financing and production of an army to defeat the Republic. This makes sense if Yoda was basing his comment on the large droid army on Geonosis, if he was thought it was gained from more systems pitching in resources and/or finances.

JON9000
10-02-2007, 09:41 PM
The American Revolution was a separatist movement caused in no small part by the taxation of trade by the British central government. When patriots went through the streets collecting money chanting "for the cause, for the cause", what "cause" were they talking about?

The "cause" they were talking about was independence from what they considered to be foreign oppression. They would never have put it down to something as petty as money. The British would likely have seen the American "cause" as simple ingratitude after the Crown had spent so much effort on the colonies.

Likewise, the cartels likely term the cause as independence, but the fact that they all have names linking them to commercial interests combined with TPM's crawl should be enough to let you know they simply don't want to pay taxes. Dooku's own cause is completely shady at this point to the Jedi. They do not know that the movement is merely a subterfuge to facilitate a power grab. However, the fact that the Sith are working with the separatists must give them a "cause", i.e. reason for doing so, even if the cause is unknown. Yoda, at this point, is likely thinking in terms of the immediate goal- secession, without referring to the ideology behind it, because he cannot say for certain what it is. I suppose he could have isnstead said, "side".

What do you think is the appropriate alternative dialogue in this situation, because it seems okay to me.

And I love it that Dooku is using the greed of these lovely capitalists to fuel their own destruction and eventual slavery to the Emperor.

JON9000
10-02-2007, 09:42 PM
I take it as the "cause" being the financing and production of an army to defeat the Republic. This makes sense if Yoda was basing his comment on the large droid army on Geonosis, if he was thought it was gained from more systems pitching in resources and/or finances.

That makes good sense, as well!

stillakid
10-02-2007, 10:06 PM
I take it as the "cause" being the financing and production of an army to defeat the Republic. This makes sense if Yoda was basing his comment on the large droid army on Geonosis, if he was thought it was gained from more systems pitching in resources and/or finances.

...to defeat the Republic why? In what sense? Is the suggestion being made that the "Separatists" wanted to separate from the Republic because they were being taxed unfairly? Is that what Dooku was rallying those guys at the table around? Is that what Yoda's idea of the "Cause" was? Is that why all those ships left Coruscant at the end of AOTC?

Blue2th
10-02-2007, 10:13 PM
And I love it that Dooku is using the greed of these lovely capitalists to fuel their own destruction and eventual slavery to the Emperor.

A powerful ally greed is, and that as you say was Trade Federation's "cause" This is evident in the Phantom Menace where they were defeated from their greedy plans. Only to come back and try it again. This time with more allies and armies.

Dooku's "cause" was different, and Yoda though sensing the Dark Side and being told of a Sith Lord by Obi-Wan did not put together all the motives or causes because the Dark Side clouds the truth and everything is not revealed yet.
So he referred to it in a general sense as a "cause" maybe thinking of it as a combination of power and greed wrapped up in the enigma of the Dark Side.

We see that not all things did our little green friend know as he and everyone else were duped pretty good by Sidious.

LTBasker
10-02-2007, 10:27 PM
I'm guessing that it's more than just wanting less taxes, if they defeat the Republic then they can take alot more control than what they had then. Ie: taking over a complete system for resources as opposed to negotiating deals under Republic law.

Considering Palpatine turned Anakin against the Seperatist leaders in ROTS, he wasn't including them in the grand scheme, so it's possible he promised they could use the armies to rule over systems they wanted in order to get their membership. If these systems were rich in rare resources, they were probably protected heavily by the Republic.

I doubt any of the Seperatists would've joined in if they knew it was to help Palpatine rule over EVERYTHING, nor is it likely they would have joined if they only got mere tax benefits.

stillakid
10-02-2007, 11:17 PM
I'm guessing that it's more than just wanting less taxes, if they defeat the Republic then they can take alot more control than what they had then. Ie: taking over a complete system for resources as opposed to negotiating deals under Republic law.

Considering Palpatine turned Anakin against the Seperatist leaders in ROTS, he wasn't including them in the grand scheme, so it's possible he promised they could use the armies to rule over systems they wanted in order to get their membership. If these systems were rich in rare resources, they were probably protected heavily by the Republic.

I doubt any of the Seperatists would've joined in if they knew it was to help Palpatine rule over EVERYTHING, nor is it likely they would have joined if they only got mere tax benefits.

Right. It is never made clear exactly what these other factions wanted to separate from the Republic for. Am I wrong about that? I know that Palps had his nefarious scheme blah blah blah. I'm not even touching that because it really has nothing to do with the overall issue of the Republic splitting up and what reasoning all of those factions have to do it. Why does the banking clan agree? And the techno union robot guys? What did the "Republic" do to pi&& them off to the point of wanting to secede? A guy like Dooku can go in and stir the pot, but there has to be something there to stir to begin with. What was it?

El Chuxter
10-03-2007, 12:07 AM
Y'know... If all these mega-corporations are so powerful that they have Senate representation (and we know that at least the Trade Federation does), wouldn't merely splitting away be enough to cripple the Republic? So wouldn't the threat carry enough power to make the government change all the laws to favor the big companies more?

You can make the argument that it'd be like the South seceding from the North, and that a war would be inevitable. Only you'd be wrong. There was already a standing military in the US, and both sides had the resources to recruit more soldiers and keep the war machines running (for about four years, at least). It's established that the Republic not only has no military, it doesn't even have the power to create one without changing the law (as we see in AOTC).

The more I'm thinking about this, the more this is some seriously honked-up logic.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-03-2007, 12:57 AM
In TPM, Queen Amidala says to Palpatine that it is clear the Republic no longer functions and Palpatine talks about the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Senate. By AOTC, Dooku is leading a separatist movement, so I think it is obvious that more and more people believe this. The separatist systems just don't want to live under the rule of a Republic that is unable to serve their interests effectively. JON9000's example of the Revolutionary War is a good example, as would be the Civil War.

Blue2th
10-03-2007, 01:22 AM
Money and the power that money gives to make more money with more power. Controlling more resources, and the money made from owning and trading those recources.
Taxation of trading routes, over-regulation, rules that hamper unfettered business
Hasn't war mostly been about the haves and the have nots?
It's always been good for business. (sure is "cause" enough now to start a war)
The Banking Clan was sure to make a ton financing the war machine.
The Nemoidians had their own reasons for re-arming and starting another confllict. After loosing their first war with Naboo and kissing their trading franchise goodby, perhaps they were over-regulated by the Republic, even punished with sanctions, economy ruined, forced into another confict. Secretly re-arming (this almost sounds like Germany)
They definitely had revenge on their minds by trying to assasinate Amidala.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-03-2007, 01:34 AM
TPM was a perfect example of the ineptitude of the Republic. The Trade Federation blockades and then invades Naboo, and the Senate decides to appoint a committee to investigate the validity of the allegations.

stillakid
10-03-2007, 01:53 AM
So the entire reason for the "Clone War" is because the Separatist factions just decided one day that they didn't want to be represented by the established Republic government? Because of overtaxaction? Because of poor representation of their own issues?

Which again begs the question: why would the Separatists INVADE planets, like Wookie-world? If they are merely interested in seceding, they would be on the DEFENSE, not off invading random planets. No?

JON9000
10-03-2007, 08:27 AM
You can make the argument that it'd be like the South seceding from the North, and that a war would be inevitable. Only you'd be wrong. There was already a standing military in the US, and both sides had the resources to recruit more soldiers and keep the war machines running (for about four years, at least). It's established that the Republic not only has no military, it doesn't even have the power to create one without changing the law (as we see in AOTC).

The more I'm thinking about this, the more this is some seriously honked-up logic.

I don't see why.

There is no "Grand Army of the Republic," and why would there be? The Jedi have been able to keep the peace for 1,000 years through negotiation. However, it is apparent that the individual systems within the Republic have their own standing military forces. If the Republic were to face the very novel threat of war, it would be factional with these standing militaries forming alliances among themselves and fighting.

If the Republic itself were to step into the conflict, it would ostensibly have to call forces up from the individual systems within, rather than rely on the Jedi. This method is exactly like the arrangement the United States military had in the 19th century, back when Federalism was a much more meaningful concept. Lincoln had to call upon the states to provide troops. North Carolina joined the Confederacy when Lincoln called upon that state to provide soldiers for the Union.


Which again begs the question: why would the Separatists INVADE planets, like Wookie-world? If they are merely interested in seceding, they would be on the DEFENSE, not off invading random planets. No?

Why would American forces invade Canada during the Revolutionary War? If they were merely interested in Independence from Britain, they would be on the DEFENSE, not off invading random countries. The answer in the case of Canada as well as any other military conflict is "strategic importance." Now, I don't know the geography of that galaxy far, far away, but as far as I know, Wookie world could be the galactic equivalent of the Golan Heights or the Suez Canal.

If there were any area of the saga ripe for even remotely interesting EU, exploring these issues using completely new characters would be it. I guess that is what Clone Wars is supposed to be about, but I never watched it.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-03-2007, 09:22 AM
As far as strategy goes, all the battles that were going on had the effect of spreading the Republic Forces out. Also, just sitting back and waiting for the Republic to attack isn't a great strategy either. By taking the fight to the Republic, it is showing that they are a serious threat and that maybe the Republic would be better off to let them be.

El Chuxter
10-03-2007, 09:43 AM
Yeah, but, um, the point is, there were armies and provisions to expand armies during both the American Revolution and the Civil War.

It's explicitly stated that there's no army in SW. Local systems don't seem to have much in the way of armies, either. Look at TPM: a handful of pilots and the Gungan Grand Army, which is an oddity because it exists without the knowledge of the Naboo. (Had they not been lucky enough to live on a planet with a second intelligent species, the Naboo would've been toast.) And it's also stated that Jedi cannot fight a war.

The secession of the southern states would've severely damaged the economy of the Union, had it been permanent. But can you imagine if one of the economic powerhouses, like New York, had decided to secede? With the Trade Federation, Intergalactic Banking Guild, Techno-Union, etc, all seceding, that's pretty much what's going on here.

And if these guys ran all the trade and banking, then why didn't the Republic grind to a halt during the Clone Wars? Palpatine in charge or not, you expect me to believe that the Senate was actually effectual for once, and was able to restore the basis of the economy while fighting a war? Damn, they couldn't even agree to sanction to Trade Federation a decade earlier.

Of course, on the other side of the equation, while I can see Dooku being an effective figurehead leader for the Separatists, why the hell would they follow a thug like Grievous?

JON9000
10-03-2007, 10:13 AM
Chux, many of the core systems likely have standing armies for planetary defense. I would be willing to bet that Naboo and Alderaan are more likely exceptions than the rule, and Naboo at least had light security. I doubt full-scale occupation of another planet was very practical prior to the advent of droid soldiers.

As far as having the ability to provide for a Grand Army of the Republic, if Palps can create an army in secret, I expect he has the requisite skill to provide for it as well. Once the Separatists became a cogent threat to peace, I'm sure Palps had no problem getting the member systems to supply it with provisions. Remember, the Americans did not have much of an Army prior to the Revolution, the 10-year lead-up to Bunker Hill was a series of skirmishes between red coats and colonial irregulars (minute-men). We got an army together on the double, and while supply was the major concern on both sides, both the colonists and His Majesty's Red Coats were able to provide for themselves.

As to the ability of the commercial interests to squeeze the Republic, I am sure they did. But look at it this way, we can butt heads with Iran, Venezuela, and many other OPEC nations. We still get our oil because it exists on a world market. Saddam had a UN resolution providing for Oil for Food only, and everybody and their mother was in bed with him on the sly. I expect intergalactic politics are just as convoluted.

Again, a ripe area for EU, if you are into that thing, but I would never want all of this explained in a childrens' movie.

stillakid
10-03-2007, 10:33 AM
Again, a ripe area for EU, if you are into that thing, but I would never want all of this explained in a childrens' movie.

While it can get complicated and there is a line to walk along, there should be some kind of explanation included in the Prequels. Palp's entire nefarious plan was resting on this notion of him taking emergency powers due to a civil war. Some kind of quick and economically explained reason for the civil war would do, but there really isn't any ever. It is explained merely with phrases like "the cause" which imply some great moralistic stance against oppression or something. The OT Rebellion has a definitive "cause" and it has an easy to see (for the audience) justification. Their cause is freedom, freedom from oppression (though we never really see anyone being oppressed), and the ideal of rebuilding the Republic. What was the "Separatist cause" that those systems were rallying around? As far as we can tell, the Republic decidedly didn't oppress anyone at all...they couldn't because there was no army to do the oppressing with and we saw that the Senate was basically ineffectual, preferring committees over action.

Separatists of any kind usually have some deep motivation that drives their choice, but I still can't see in the films what that motivation really was.

El Chuxter
10-03-2007, 10:56 AM
We know that at least Coruscant didn't have a standing army. They had to use clones even for their fire brigade.

JON9000
10-03-2007, 02:16 PM
Separatists of any kind usually have some deep motivation that drives their choice, but I still can't see in the films what that motivation really was.

Well, I am still murky on why the Trade Federation instituted a blockade on Naboo... perhaps it was an important waystation on a shipping lane, who knows?

LTBasker
10-03-2007, 02:49 PM
So the entire reason for the "Clone War" is because the Separatist factions just decided one day that they didn't want to be represented by the established Republic government? Because of overtaxaction? Because of poor representation of their own issues?

Which again begs the question: why would the Separatists INVADE planets, like Wookie-world? If they are merely interested in seceding, they would be on the DEFENSE, not off invading random planets. No?

The "Clone War" was Palpatine's doing, keep in mind the Clones didn't come in until the end and the Separatists were even shocked that they were able to get such an army. I assume that the Separatists thought it would be more along the lines of taking over Naboo, where there was no resistance until later.

The Republic obviously didn't have an army, especially not one that could rival the manufacturing of droids meant solely for battle. So, the only opposing forces they could theorize about would be local authorities of systems they wanted to control. Definitely no match for their droid army.

The thing is, since they were already involved, would any of them have had the guts to tell Sidious they were backing out when the poodoo hit the fan?
Or, would Sidious have even listened to them, he probably would have just killed them immediately.

So, by the time of ROTS (or sometime after AOTC) it's likely their forces weren't being used for their own interests, they were at Sidious' complete disposal. Hence, the invasion of planets like Kashyyyk.

All in all, it's likely Yoda just said "their cause" because he didn't actually know what was going on, just that Dooku = Separatists and he would be gathering more. I think it would've been more appropriate for him to say, "If Dooku escapes. Separate more systems from the Republic, he will."

Lucas probably thought that he needed to show the audience Yoda was aware there was a "cause" in which they needed to stop Dooku for, and that the consequences otherwise would be dire. He just failed to write it properly.

Droid
10-03-2007, 02:54 PM
This has been discussed before, but I find it very odd that it was called "the Clones Wars". Why would the Republic choose to name the war after its own soldiers? And wasn't it just one war?

Would Yoda really have said, "Begun this Clone war has?" Wouldn't he have said, "A civil war we are now in". Why not "begun this battle droid war has."?

I guess I always kind of thought that the Republic and Jedi were weakened through a series of conflicts over the course of decades or even centuries in which the Republic was attacked by armies made up of Clones. The Jedi were at a disadvantage because they didn't use Clones. I assumed these wars wore down the Jedi's numbers. I assumed Palpatine took advantage of this situation to declare himself Emperor.

Fine. It makes Palpatine more evil to have him have orchestrated it all, but I still find it odd that the Clones were on the good guy side. Even weirder they named the second movie Attack of the Clones since they only attacked battle droids on Geonosis. You'd think Attack of the Clones would imply clones would be attacking through more of the movie and then would be attacking the good guys.

I think it is strange that the Clone Wars were supposed to be a big deal and then they started at the end of the second movie and ended in the third movie. I thought they would be the backdrop of the entire trilogy the way the Galactic Civil War was the backdrop of the original trilogy.

The opening crawl of A New Hope says that it is a period of civil war. Well wasn't it a period of civil war in the first trilogy also, the Republic coming apart? I thought that the first movies would be the Clone Wars, an outside threat to the Republic and the second trilogy would be a civil war.

I get what the Phantom Menace was. But what were the Sith getting Revenge for such that the movie would be called Revenge of the Sith? And in Revenge of the Sith Palpatine says the Sith will once more rule the galaxy. When did the Sith control the galaxy?

El Chuxter
10-03-2007, 03:04 PM
We were told in 1980 by rather canonical sources that Boba Fett wore the armor of a Mandalorean Supercommando, an army that was destroyed by the Jedi during the Clone Wars. And we were told in the early 1990s that both sides of the conflict (presumably the Republic and the Mandaloreans, or whoever employed the Mandaloreans) used large numbers of clones for various purposes. Among other things, there were cloned pilots, cloned support staff, and even cloned Jedi.

What bugs me is this: Sure, Lucas doesn't read all the EU. He doesn't care about it. But why state the Clone Wars are something one year, and ten years later approve a novel that more explicitly spells it out, only to trash both earlier sources ten years after that? The two main differences between the Thrawn Trilogy and the rest of the EU are really quite important: 1) at the point it was released, there was no other EU for Lucas to be confused by when he gave his stamp of approval, and 2) we know he read it, because he used the name Coruscant! (That's a bit different from seeing a half-naked Twi'lek on the cover of a comic book.)

Blue2th
10-03-2007, 03:48 PM
When Luke is talking to Ben at his place in "A New Hope" After Ben says he knew Luke's father, Luke asked "You fought with my father in the Clone Wars?"
So Lucas knew about the Clone Wars or had planned them way back in 1977.

Droid
10-03-2007, 04:53 PM
When Luke is talking to Ben at his place in "A New Hope" After Ben says he knew Luke's father, Luke asked "You fought with my father in the Clone Wars?"
So Lucas knew about the Clone Wars or had planned them way back in 1977.

And Leia said, "Years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars." I frankly don't think he had much more in mind about the Clone Wars at that time than the fact that Obi-wan, Leia's father, and Luke's father had fought in something called the Clone Wars. And Lucas never meant to show the back story so I don't think he was too bogged down in specifics.

stillakid
10-03-2007, 05:01 PM
When Luke is talking to Ben at his place in "A New Hope" After Ben says he knew Luke's father, Luke asked "You fought with my father in the Clone Wars?"
So Lucas knew about the Clone Wars or had planned them way back in 1977.

Right. But Lucas clearly either didn't have a clear picture in his own mind of what the "Clone Wars" would be or he decided to change a preexisting idea of the Wars. Quite simply, Anakin did NOT fight "with" Obers in the Clone Wars. That one statement implies that the war(s) had been in progress for quite some time before Anakin fell to the darkside. From that we can easily assume that Obers found Anakin (already a great pilot, probably a freighter or something) by accident and realized the potential. Obers, full of zeal in his own abilities, decided to train Anakin himself. Not being as great a Jedi teacher as he thought he was, Obers eventually lost Anakin to the seduction of Palpatine, who was looking for a powerful apprentice.

How the Clone Wars were connected to Palpatine's plan to take over is never really addressed in the OT. The existing Prequels take one possible approach. Another could have been that the Republic was attacked from outside forces (Clones) and Palpatine took advantage of the situation instead of engineering it. Or better yet, taking a page from the New Hope Prologue, the Republic was falling apart from inside due to corruption, so internal power struggles just naturally caused the Republic to crumble at which point Palpatine could have merely taken advantage of an existing situation.

But the way George decided to go with the story was to have Palpatine engineer the entire situation to create a civil war. What is not explained is what political rationale he (and Dooku) use to drive a wedge between the existing government and the Separatist factions. There is really no indication that the Republic is neglecting anyone, at least to the point that a rebellion would take place. Heck, if anything, based on TPM logic, the Separatists should have been led by NABOO and Amidala herself, not the Geonesins and Trade Federation.

Qui-Long Gone
10-03-2007, 10:48 PM
I don't think Lucas put much thought into it either back in 1977 or in 1998.....he just sort of had an idea of wars happening in the stars....after that, he sort of lost his ability to tell more stories.....

JediTricks
10-04-2007, 10:03 PM
AOTC was preceded by the HoloNet News (http://www.holonetnews.com/56/archives/) site, if you read its contents it gave you a clearer picture on what Dooku's beef with the Republic was and why systems were joining him. Basically, it was just "your government sucks, we can do it better without you!" and the Republic said no, escalating to the events of AOTC. Of course, that's a LOT to ask the audience to follow just to get an idea of what was going on with these various entities.

Qui-Long Gone
10-04-2007, 10:19 PM
that's a LOT to ask the audience to follow


....which sums up the writing of the new trilogies....

Mad Slanted Powers
10-04-2007, 10:27 PM
AOTC was preceded by the HoloNet News (http://www.holonetnews.com/56/archives/) site, if you read its contents it gave you a clearer picture on what Dooku's beef with the Republic was and why systems were joining him. Basically, it was just "your government sucks, we can do it better without you!" and the Republic said no, escalating to the events of AOTC. Of course, that's a LOT to ask the audience to follow just to get an idea of what was going on with these various entities.It also gave some insight as to why the general public might distrust the Jedi. I recall a story about the Jedi taking in a Force sensitve child who was orphaned by some disaster. However, the mother turned up alive and found out the Jedi had her child. They refused to give the child back and it became a big controversy. Something they probably debated heavily on the Star Wars equivalent of Hannity & Colmes.

stillakid
10-04-2007, 11:11 PM
AOTC was preceded by the HoloNet News (http://www.holonetnews.com/56/archives/) site, if you read its contents it gave you a clearer picture on what Dooku's beef with the Republic was and why systems were joining him. Basically, it was just "your government sucks, we can do it better without you!" and the Republic said no, escalating to the events of AOTC. Of course, that's a LOT to ask the audience to follow just to get an idea of what was going on with these various entities.


Great, "your government sucks..." But WHY? "Because I said so" may be enough for mom and dad to use as a reason, but a filmmaker doesn't get that kind of free ride.

I just find the story very unfulfilling not having a solid reason for the civil war given that it is the foundation of Palpatine's scheme which leads into the next trilogy. weak. weak.

JediTricks
10-05-2007, 04:52 PM
The events and aftermath of Ep 1 with the Naboo Blockade and the Republic's inability to intervene was the touchstone to the systems that join the Separatists. Lucas puts this into Ep 2 but it's only a cheap, quick wave without resonating.

Blue2th
10-05-2007, 06:46 PM
The events and aftermath of Ep 1 with the Naboo Blockade and the Republic's inability to intervene was the touchstone to the systems that join the Separatists. Lucas puts this into Ep 2 but it's only a cheap, quick wave without resonating.

I would've rather seen some development of that side of the story in AOTC, rather than the unbearable Anakin-Padme ("ma Lady") Coruscant-Naboo love story. They should've spent two minutes on that, then ok next.

El Chuxter
10-05-2007, 06:50 PM
On the love story note, it occurred to me that ESB is as much a love story as AOTC is, but doesn't have any of the clunky bits.

Blue2th
10-05-2007, 07:05 PM
Yeah, the love hate thing between Han and Leia is a lot more exciting.

JediTricks
10-05-2007, 10:28 PM
Yeah, leaving the reasoning for the war largely unsaid was foolishness, bad storytelling - we don't need the entire breakdown, that'd take a long time (though watching a bunch of bankers talk to Dooku, we have all the time in the world for that, apparently :rolleyes: ) but at least a few lines of dialogue that drive it home, maybe a slogan to hang the concept on.



ESB also tries to earn that romance story, there's setup, there's reason they get together; AOTC fails to develop anything there.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-06-2007, 12:18 AM
Here's a question. Why do we really need any more explanation about why they are separating? ANH didn't explain why there was a civil war or why there was a rebellion other than that the Empire was evil and tyrannical. But, were they always tyrannical, or did they become that way to suppress a bunch of terrorists?

TPM establishes that the Republic is broken. AOTC begins by saying systems are leaving the Republic. We later find out that Dooku is really a Sith and that it is all a part of Palpatine's scheme. So, on their own, maybe the systems wouldn't have been so quick to leave. However, with a "political idealist" like Dooku to lead, many would follow. We even got the line about how the Trade Federation came to him after being betrayed by Darth Sidious. Why would they want to be part of a Republic being influenced by him?

stillakid
10-06-2007, 01:40 AM
Here's a question. Why do we really need any more explanation about why they are separating?
Yes.



ANH didn't explain why there was a civil war or why there was a rebellion other than that the Empire was evil and tyrannical. But, were they always tyrannical, or did they become that way to suppress a bunch of terrorists?
Well, I would think that it is safe for everyone to assume that the Empire was evil because the bad guys were called Stormtroopers, reminiscent of the Nazis, and the guy in charge (or so we think in ANH) is wearing a dark black sinister mask.

More to the point, the OT films didn't have to explain how the Civil War began. That wasn't the point of those. We join the war in progress and learn small clues as the trilogy continues, but the cause isn't important to the OT storyline.



TPM establishes that the Republic is broken. AOTC begins by saying systems are leaving the Republic. We later find out that Dooku is really a Sith and that it is all a part of Palpatine's scheme. So, on their own, maybe the systems wouldn't have been so quick to leave. However, with a "political idealist" like Dooku to lead, many would follow. We even got the line about how the Trade Federation came to him after being betrayed by Darth Sidious. Why would they want to be part of a Republic being influenced by him?
The entire point of the Prequels is to explain how the Republic falls into civil war. Not being clear about why systems would just decide to join this "cause" doesn't make sense given that the reason for the Prequels is to explain A) what the "Cause" is and B) why the systems/factions would want to join it.

As far as your last sentence about Sidious, nobody in the Separatist camp connected Sidious to the Republic, the Senate, or to Palpatine.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-06-2007, 02:15 AM
The entire point of the Prequels is to explain how the Republic falls into civil war. Not being clear about why systems would just decide to join this "cause" doesn't make sense given that the reason for the Prequels is to explain A) what the "Cause" is and B) why the systems/factions would want to join it.I thought the point of the prequels was to show how Anakin became Darth Vader. The fall of the Republic was just the backdrop against which it is set. Beside, people have tried to explain the cause here. Why is it so hard to believe that systems would want to leave a broken republic that no longer seems to be able to serve their needs? There are clues all over TPM: "The Republic doesn't exist out here." "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no civility, only politics." The precise reasons aren't really necessary to the story, only that the climate was right for such a movement to exist. Besides, we eventually learn it was all orchestrated by Palpatine anyway.


As far as your last sentence about Sidious, nobody in the Separatist camp connected Sidious to the Republic, the Senate, or to Palpatine.Were you even watching TPM? Sidious tells Nute Gunray that he will make the invasion legal, that he has the Senate bogged down in procedures, and later says that he will make sure things stay as they are in the Senate. Certainly, Nute would realize that Sidious must have some sort of influence on the Senate.

stillakid
10-06-2007, 03:18 AM
I thought the point of the prequels was to show how Anakin became Darth Vader. The fall of the Republic was just the backdrop against which it is set.
No, the point of the entire saga is to show the fall of the Republic and how it was restored. A host of other stories are told in addition to, and to help tell, the primary story.


Beside, people have tried to explain the cause here. Why is it so hard to believe that systems would want to leave a broken republic that no longer seems to be able to serve their needs?
It's hard to believe mainly because we don't see or hear exactly how any of those Separatist factions are disgruntled with the system. As I said before, the only ones in the Prequels who have any legitimate beef against the Republic are those from Naboo. Padme even confirms this late in ROTS by uttering to Bail, "maybe we're on the wrong side." Maybe those other factions DO have a legitimate beef against the Republic, but we never see nor hear one iota of why. THAT is the problem with the Prequels. You claim that the story is only about Vader and that isn't so. It is about the fall of the Republic (in the Prequels) and just saying "it's happening" isn't enough.



There are clues all over TPM: "The Republic doesn't exist out here." "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no civility, only politics." The precise reasons aren't really necessary to the story, only that the climate was right for such a movement to exist. Besides, we eventually learn it was all orchestrated by Palpatine anyway.
The precise reasons ARE necessary to tell a GOOD story.

As far as Palpatine goes, his involvement is beside the point. The question is, what rationale did he and Dooku use to sow the seeds of discontent. It's not like our Civil War when the government was calling for an end to slavery which was central to the Southern economy, not to mention disrupting to the popular notions about black people. A government just being "ineffective" is just annoying and annoyance isn't enough to justify an armed insurrection. Those types of battles are generally a result of SOMETHING occurring...a spark event that sets off a series of worse events that culminate in armed conflict. The Prequels fail to illustrate this in any meaningful way.


Were you even watching TPM? Sidious tells Nute Gunray that he will make the invasion legal, that he has the Senate bogged down in procedures, and later says that he will make sure things stay as they are in the Senate. Certainly, Nute would realize that Sidious must have some sort of influence on the Senate.
It is your suggestion that the Trade Federation is seceding from the Republic because it blames Sidious who they believe to be a part of the government. The problem with that logic is that even Nute knows that Sidious isn't really a loyal member of the government. He knows that Sidious was trying to undermine the government, so if Nute has a grudge against anyone, it would be against the Sith for allowing the Trade Federation to be defeated on Naboo. Sure, the Republic punished them, but it was Sidious who ultimately let the Federation down, not the government.

Qui-Long Gone
10-06-2007, 10:15 AM
No, the point of the entire saga is to show the fall of the Republic and how it was restored. A host of other stories are told in addition to, and to help tell, the primary story.


All good points, but I would still argue that the point of the saga (and every good epic) is NOT the Republic.....every good epic story is about a character (or characters) and the choices they make necessarily set against a backdrop....the original sage is about Luke (and that's why ANH, ESB and ROTJ were terrific)....and the new trilogy is about Anakin....


**But the 6 are NOT about the rise and fall and redemption of Anakin as Lucas suggests! If they are, then Lucas fell short in telling that story***

The Republic creates the situation and circumstances for the characters (what in dramatic structure is called the inciting action), but in storytelling, real storytelling, you can never confuse setting for plot! Everything is about the choices made my character(s)….the plot is what the people do, not what is their circumstances…

Good Examples (where the writer succeeded):
· The point of the Lord of The Rings is about the choices made by the characters of the fellowship during the war of the ring.....not about the ring…

· The point of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey is not about the Trojan War, but the fall of Achilles and the rise of Odysseus....

· Beowulf is about Beowulf, not Grendel

· Saving Private Ryan (and Band of Brothers) is not about WW2, but the men of WW2 and the life and death choices they had to make….

· United 93 was about the personal dramas of the people who were physically (or at least in terms of their jobs) part of the tragedy of 911….

Bad Examples (where the writers failed to understand this):
· Titanic asked way too much of the audience….a rich woman fell in love with a poor artist and they happened to have been on a boat…

· Pearl Harborasked us to follow the love triangle of sexy young people when oops! The Japanese are coming!

The good examples are good because the characters are continually flowing down the current of the situation (American soldiers fighting Germans to find Ryan, Frodo and Gandalf trying to get to Doom)….the bad examples are bad because the story is character driven for too long and then, boom! Inciting action….it becomes a gimmick and we think, man, a really important event happened so incidentally…

Mad Slanted Powers
10-06-2007, 04:30 PM
No, the point of the entire saga is to show the fall of the Republic and how it was restored. A host of other stories are told in addition to, and to help tell, the primary story.Lucas himself has said that the OT was about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, and the prequels tell us how he got that way.



As I said before, the only ones in the Prequels who have any legitimate beef against the Republic are those from Naboo. Padme even confirms this late in ROTS by uttering to Bail, "maybe we're on the wrong side."Padmé is, for the most part, a pacifist. In TPM, they are facing an invasion and she says she will not condone a course of action that will lead to war. Only at the end does she decide to fight, and that has the added benefit of bringing together her people and the Gungans. She was a popular queen, and the people wanted to change the constitution to allow her to serve beyond her term. She ends up becoming a Senator and is fighting to prevent the creation of a military because she thinks it will lead to more war. If the rest of her people are anything like her, then I can understand them not wanting to secede. Even the queen in AOTC says they must have faith in the Republic.


Maybe those other factions DO have a legitimate beef against the Republic, but we never see nor hear one iota of why. THAT is the problem with the Prequels. You claim that the story is only about Vader and that isn't so. It is about the fall of the Republic (in the Prequels) and just saying "it's happening" isn't enough.Considering that they spend so little time talking about it and more time focusing on Anakin and his troubles, I think that the story IS about Anakin and not the Republic. That is probably why Episode III's title was Revenge of the Sith and not The Fall of the Republic.



Those types of battles are generally a result of SOMETHING occurring...a spark event that sets off a series of worse events that culminate in armed conflict. The Prequels fail to illustrate this in any meaningful way.I think Geonosis was the spark. There really wasn't a war going on until then. Prior to that, it was just some disgruntled systems thinking that they could do things better without having to cut through all the corrupt bureaucracy of the Republic. The scene in Palpatine's office suggests that negotiations are still ongoing to prevent the split in the Republic. Here in Washington state, there have been people suggesting that Eastern Washington should become a separate state, and there was even a campaign to split the county I live in.



It is your suggestion that the Trade Federation is seceding from the Republic because it blames Sidious who they believe to be a part of the government. The problem with that logic is that even Nute knows that Sidious isn't really a loyal member of the government. He knows that Sidious was trying to undermine the government, so if Nute has a grudge against anyone, it would be against the Sith for allowing the Trade Federation to be defeated on Naboo. Sure, the Republic punished them, but it was Sidious who ultimately let the Federation down, not the government.What I'm suggesting is that the Trade Federation doesn't trust the Republic because someone like Sidious is able to undermine it. Plus, how would they go after the Sith? Sidious and Maul were the only ones they knew of. Maul is dead and Sidious remains elusive. If they told the Senate, they would probably be too arrogant to believe that they are being controlled, or else they may be someone who is in league with Sidious. The Jedi know there mayb be another Sith, but ten years later they are no closer to finding one.

El Chuxter
10-07-2007, 01:44 AM
I will argue against Lucas to the last breath on this.

The saga may be about Anakin/Vader when looked at in its entirety.

However, looked at as two separate trilogies, it's the story of Obi-Wan (prequels) and Luke (originals), with Anakin as a supporting character in each.

stillakid
10-07-2007, 09:55 AM
Lucas himself has said that the OT was about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, and the prequels tell us how he got that way.
Lucas is wrong about his own story.



Padmé is, for the most part, a pacifist. In TPM, they are facing an invasion and she says she will not condone a course of action that will lead to war. Only at the end does she decide to fight, and that has the added benefit of bringing together her people and the Gungans. She was a popular queen, and the people wanted to change the constitution to allow her to serve beyond her term. She ends up becoming a Senator and is fighting to prevent the creation of a military because she thinks it will lead to more war. If the rest of her people are anything like her, then I can understand them not wanting to secede. Even the queen in AOTC says they must have faith in the Republic.
So what? That has nothing to do with the point. The discussion is about who would be disgruntled enough with the Republic to want to leave it and the reasons why. From the Prequels, the ONLY ones who are shown to have ANY reason at all to be upset with the Republic are the Nabooians. Whether they do it or not and why is a non-starter.


Considering that they spend so little time talking about it and more time focusing on Anakin and his troubles, I think that the story IS about Anakin and not the Republic. That is probably why Episode III's title was Revenge of the Sith and not The Fall of the Republic.
The story does focus on Anakin, but that doesn't mean it is ABOUT him. There are a lot of other people in the story too. I wouldn't be surprised if Obi Wan is in the running to have as much, if not more, screentime than Anakin in all three films.

Heck, for that matter, why isn't this story ABOUT the droids? They're in all of the films too?



I think Geonosis was the spark. There really wasn't a war going on until then. Prior to that, it was just some disgruntled systems thinking that they could do things better without having to cut through all the corrupt bureaucracy of the Republic. The scene in Palpatine's office suggests that negotiations are still ongoing to prevent the split in the Republic. Here in Washington state, there have been people suggesting that Eastern Washington should become a separate state, and there was even a campaign to split the county I live in.
Spark for what? It was a rescue effort, not an event that would stir political discontent among the Separatist systems.



What I'm suggesting is that the Trade Federation doesn't trust the Republic because someone like Sidious is able to undermine it. Plus, how would they go after the Sith? Sidious and Maul were the only ones they knew of. Maul is dead and Sidious remains elusive. If they told the Senate, they would probably be too arrogant to believe that they are being controlled, or else they may be someone who is in league with Sidious. The Jedi know there mayb be another Sith, but ten years later they are no closer to finding one.
The Trade Federation isn't on the side of the Separatists because they think the Sith are in control.... if they have any reason to want to split, it's because they are greedy. They have no beef with the Republic or the Senate. Their "deepthroat" Senate insider kept the Republic off their backs with the Naboo thing. They didn't ask the Republic for military backup to be refused. No, they were greedy, got themselves into a situation on their own and were put down by the Nabooians themselves. It's all about greed and more money. That's what most big wars are about even if they do hide behind the veil of religion or patriotism. People usually fight over something tangible, like money, land, and scarce resources. They just use those other things as tools to motivate the masses toward the "cause."

Which takes me back to the question. What is the Separatist "cause" in the first place? The Trade Federation was greedy, but is that enough of a cause for the other factions to want to Separate from the Republic? They want to secede because the Trade Federation is greedy? That's hard to believe.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-07-2007, 11:37 AM
Lucas is wrong about his own story.

.
.
.

The story does focus on Anakin, but that doesn't mean it is ABOUT him. There are a lot of other people in the story too. I wouldn't be surprised if Obi Wan is in the running to have as much, if not more, screentime than Anakin in all three films.

Heck, for that matter, why isn't this story ABOUT the droids? They're in all of the films too?Well, I know that one of the things that people looked forward to when it was announced that the prequels were announced was that we would finally get to see how Anakin became Darth Vader. How the Republic became the Empire was also one of things that we were interested in seeing, but Lucas has talked more about the idea of how people are willing to give up their freedoms and turn power over to dictators. Thus, the focus was more on how Palpatine acquired more power and announced the creation of the Empire to thunderous applause. Thus, I still contend that the details of why the Separatists are separating aren't important. The fact that the Republic is broken and someone like Dooku is willing to lead a movement is enough.

When the creator of the work tells you what the story is about and you still refuse to believe it, then it makes sense that you think the prequels don't work. That's like Aesop telling you that the moral of the Tortoise and the Hare is "slow and steady wins the race", but you say it is about race relations. Then you complain that Aesop didn't do a good enough job illustrating the problem.

JON9000
10-07-2007, 01:43 PM
The Republic creates the situation and circumstances for the characters (what in dramatic structure is called the inciting action), but in storytelling, real storytelling, you can never confuse setting for plot! Everything is about the choices made my character(s)….the plot is what the people do, not what is their circumstances…

My favorite show on television is ROME. In it, we have the characters of the Republic going through each of their own little dramas, but the "plot" is inextricably linked to and interwined with the "setting": the fall of the Republic- much like the PT. On rome, it works, it's great, and I think what you said above is fairly debunked by that reality.


Good Examples (where the writer succeeded):
· The point of the Lord of The Rings is about the choices made by the characters of the fellowship during the war of the ring.....not about the ring…

How is this different from Star Wars? It is about the choices made by Anakin, during the "Fall of the Republic", not about the....

Insert what you want into the blank. Oh, nothing? No macguffin like that stupid ring? Is that the big problem here? I say that is bunk.

I think we are letting the conversation drift into semantics.


· The point of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey is not about the Trojan War, but the fall of Achilles and the rise of Odysseus....

· Beowulf is about Beowulf, not Grendel

· [COLOR=black]Saving Private Ryan (and Band of Brothers) is not about WW2, but the men of WW2 and the life and death choices they had to make….

· United 93 was about the personal dramas of the people who were physically (or at least in terms of their jobs) part of the tragedy of 911….

Bad Examples (where the writers failed to understand this):
· Titanic asked way too much of the audience….a rich woman fell in love with a poor artist and they happened to have been on a boat…

· Pearl Harborasked us to follow the love triangle of sexy young people when oops! The Japanese are coming!

The good examples are good because the characters are continually flowing down the current of the situation (American soldiers fighting Germans to find Ryan, Frodo and Gandalf trying to get to Doom)….the bad examples are bad because the story is character driven for too long and then, boom! Inciting action….it becomes a gimmick and we think, man, a really important event happened so incidentally…

Have you never seen a film from the 1950's or 60's? Watch the advertising for "Rear Window" or "The High and the Mighty". The films are characterized as exciting action films, when really, they are just the backdrop for characters interacting with each other. Character is built, then, bang- something happens and there is stress. Look at "Gone with the Wind". For the first HOUR Scarlet is involved in insipid parties and scheming for a man- then you have the war and all hell breaks loose for an hour. Titanic is a film in that old-school tradition.

Story is character. Plot is window dressing to put the characters into situations of stress so we can see how they react. The Macguffin is exactly what it's name suggests, a cipher. That was the only thing I actually liked about the Da Vinci Code- it had the happy conclusion of showing it's Macguffin, the grail, to be truly that- a whiff of smoke.

Droid
10-08-2007, 10:55 AM
I will argue against Lucas to the last breath on this.

The saga may be about Anakin/Vader when looked at in its entirety.

However, looked at as two separate trilogies, it's the story of Obi-Wan (prequels) and Luke (originals), with Anakin as a supporting character in each.

I was going to post this exact thing. I completely agree. The prequels are about Obi-wan and the original trilgoy is about Luke.

JediTricks
10-08-2007, 07:02 PM
Here's a question. Why do we really need any more explanation about why they are separating? ANH didn't explain why there was a civil war or why there was a rebellion other than that the Empire was evil and tyrannical. But, were they always tyrannical, or did they become that way to suppress a bunch of terrorists?ANH is a movie you're meant to be dropped into the middle of, you're not supposed to know all the backstory to those sorts of things, just hear the hints and suggestions - that's why the film is "Episode IV" even. But even with those hints and clues, we knew the Empire was oppressive and evil within moments. With AOTC, there's not nearly enough to directly explain why there are separatists - and that's one of the films that's supposed to be the explainer, the back-story teller.


TPM establishes that the Republic is broken. AOTC begins by saying systems are leaving the Republic. We later find out that Dooku is really a Sith and that it is all a part of Palpatine's scheme. So, on their own, maybe the systems wouldn't have been so quick to leave. However, with a "political idealist" like Dooku to lead, many would follow. We even got the line about how the Trade Federation came to him after being betrayed by Darth Sidious. Why would they want to be part of a Republic being influenced by him?That's pretty vague though. It's one thing to be good vs evil, it's another to be 2 opposing pointless viewpoints with little context or values.




Lucas himself has said that the OT was about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, and the prequels tell us how he got that way.Yes, you know what else Lucas says? "The story is ultimately about Princess Leia and her attempts to destroy the Death Star as a Rebel leader..." and in the same discussion he says Star Wars is about the Droids, Star Wars is about R2-D2 alone, Obi-Wan, Luke & Leia, Luke alone, and Vader. :p Lucas says a lot of unhelpful things on this matter which aren't worth taking as gospel.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-08-2007, 07:42 PM
ANH is a movYes, you know what else Lucas says? "The story is ultimately about Princess Leia and her attempts to destroy the Death Star as a Rebel leader..." and in the same discussion he says Star Wars is about the Droids, Star Wars is about R2-D2 alone, Obi-Wan, Luke & Leia, Luke alone, and Vader. :p Lucas says a lot of unhelpful things on this matter which aren't worth taking as gospel.I think all of those things can be true and the OT as a whole can still be about the redemption of Vader. Episode IV begins with the Tantive IV being captured in an attempt to get the Death Star plans to the rebel base. In the end, the Princess is rescued, the plans are delivered, the Death Star is destroyed and there is a big celebration. It is about Obi-Wan in the sense that he returns from exile and sacrifices himself for the greater good. It is about Luke in that he is the one undergoing the hero's journey from naive farmboy to being the one to blow up the Death Star.

In the greater scheme of things, the OT is about the redemption of Anakin. He is one of the first characters we see. He appears to be the embodiment of evil and beyond redemption. In ESB we see he is Luke's father and that maybe he has different plans than the Emperor. In ROTJ, he sacrifices himself to save his son. The last scene has Anakin joining Yoda & Obi-Wan.

stillakid
10-08-2007, 08:14 PM
Yes, you know what else Lucas says? "The story is ultimately about Princess Leia and her attempts to destroy the Death Star as a Rebel leader..." and in the same discussion he says Star Wars is about the Droids, Star Wars is about R2-D2 alone, Obi-Wan, Luke & Leia, Luke alone, and Vader. :p Lucas says a lot of unhelpful things on this matter which aren't worth taking as gospel.

Right, and in the even Greater "scheme of things," the story is about the downfall and reconstitution of the Republic. It takes a lot of smaller stories to tell that grand one, which takes nothing from the smaller stories, but they all are in service to the larger one about the Republic.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-08-2007, 09:21 PM
Right, and in the even Greater "scheme of things," the story is about the downfall and reconstitution of the Republic. It takes a lot of smaller stories to tell that grand one, which takes nothing from the smaller stories, but they all are in service to the larger one about the Republic.Isn't the Star Wars saga suppposed to be a modern retelling of the old myths? How many of those were about politics? This is a story about archetypal characters, the choices they make, and the effects those decisions have.

stillakid
10-08-2007, 11:03 PM
Isn't the Star Wars saga suppposed to be a modern retelling of the old myths? How many of those were about politics? This is a story about archetypal characters, the choices they make, and the effects those decisions have.

Most stories are revamped from earlier versions. Star Wars uses archetypal characters in order to tell this epic story of a Republic that crumbles from within and is reborn. See the Prologue in the novelization of Star Wars (ANH) to really get the idea of what this story was meant to be.

2-1B
10-09-2007, 12:15 AM
All I know is that mechanical fella on wheels with the knob turning action dial on his chest was politically pi**ed about something.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-09-2007, 01:27 AM
Most stories are revamped from earlier versions. Star Wars uses archetypal characters in order to tell this epic story of a Republic that crumbles from within and is reborn. See the Prologue in the novelization of Star Wars (ANH) to really get the idea of what this story was meant to be.If that's the case, then Lucas failed in the OT as well. There was very little of politics there. I guess all I can really say is that if the PT did not do a good enough job of explaining what you thought the movie should be about, and if Lucas says it is about something else, then maybe it is about something else.

stillakid
10-09-2007, 02:03 AM
If that's the case, then Lucas failed in the OT as well. There was very little of politics there. I guess all I can really say is that if the PT did not do a good enough job of explaining what you thought the movie should be about, and if Lucas says it is about something else, then maybe it is about something else.

No, the OT works quite well. The politics of post Clone War Star Wars galaxy are very simple: Evil Empire fighting insurgent guerrilla Rebellion. Period. The OT films say what is necessary and do it well.

The Prequels are about showing us how the galaxy got to the situation we see in the OT. With that in mind, it is necessary for the Prequel stories to not gloss over the political situation that leads to the breakdown of the Republic. Simply saying, "well, it happened but look over here at these bright shiny objects instead" isn't good storytelling.

And it isn't "what I thought the movie should be about." My opinion isn't important. The fact is that the saga IS about the fall of the Republic and the fight to take it back after the coup. It takes characters of many kinds to accomplish that and paint the picture of the setting. So just as it takes Luke's effort to turn his father back to the good side of the Force, it also took the efforts of a host of aliens and droids to fight in other arenas as they go through trials and tribulations.

JediTricks
10-09-2007, 03:48 PM
I think all of those things can be true and the OT as a whole can still be about the redemption of Vader. Episode IV begins with the Tantive IV being captured in an attempt to get the Death Star plans to the rebel base. In the end, the Princess is rescued, the plans are delivered, the Death Star is destroyed and there is a big celebration. It is about Obi-Wan in the sense that he returns from exile and sacrifices himself for the greater good. It is about Luke in that he is the one undergoing the hero's journey from naive farmboy to being the one to blow up the Death Star.

In the greater scheme of things, the OT is about the redemption of Anakin. He is one of the first characters we see. He appears to be the embodiment of evil and beyond redemption. In ESB we see he is Luke's father and that maybe he has different plans than the Emperor. In ROTJ, he sacrifices himself to save his son. The last scene has Anakin joining Yoda & Obi-Wan.All those things cannot be true because each one of them says they are the top of the food chain when that's not the case, there are no separated works for each character or character set, we have 1 tale and they all play a part but they're not all the star of the play. In the greater scheme of things, the OT is absolutely NOT about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, the prequels have made that revisionism claim but there is no redemption story in ANH or ESB, and it's only a tertiary thread in ROTJ until the last act of the film. The OT is clearly about Luke Skywalker's journey - the hero's journey - and extended through him the Rebellion's struggle against the Empire. Lucas talks about how it's this guy's story and that character's story, but it's amply plain that the film is Luke Skywalker's tale - he's the main character, and he's the one with the most complete story arc. Just because the prequels bolt on this new Anakin aspect doesn't change the intent behind the creation of the OT. And just because there are other characters in the OT doesn't mean it's their story - Lucas has obfuscated the meaning so badly since 1983 with his constant blustery, revisionist statements and various PR cuteness.



Right, and in the even Greater "scheme of things," the story is about the downfall and reconstitution of the Republic. It takes a lot of smaller stories to tell that grand one, which takes nothing from the smaller stories, but they all are in service to the larger one about the Republic.That's wrong, the struggle against the Empire is the setting, not the main story; and the downfall of the Republic is only the backdrop to that.



All I know is that mechanical fella on wheels with the knob turning action dial on his chest was politically pi**ed about something.Actually, he seemed to be more focused on fiduciary concerns, politics were only a means to that.

El Chuxter
10-09-2007, 03:57 PM
I'd argue that there is a redemption story in ESB, albeit only in the last few minutes. After Luke seemingly commits suicide to avoid Vader, Vader starts acting like there's really a human being inside the armor, most notably when he slumps his shoulders as Luke falls out of sight.

JediTricks
10-09-2007, 04:29 PM
That's a pretty revisionist way of looking at it. Vader's not gotten his way, not secured his prize, not turned his son to the Dark Side - he's not a happy camper. If Vader hadn't turned to the Light Side at the end of ROTJ, you wouldn't even have a basis for that claim, I can't say his behavior in ESB has any redemption value, his behavior is just as consistent without that.

El Chuxter
10-09-2007, 04:48 PM
It may not be "redemption" in the full sense of the word, but it is certainly evolution. Vader in ANH is totally inhuman. Vader in ROTJ is a tragic character in need of redemption. ESB is the turning point. We actually see him as something more than this boogieman in a black suit.

stillakid
10-09-2007, 06:11 PM
I agree. In ESB we begin to see Vader's pitfull attitude from ANH change, beginning with his hologram phone call with Palpatine.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-09-2007, 07:21 PM
All those things cannot be true because each one of them says they are the top of the food chain when that's not the case,Where did it say any of those were the top of the food chain? A story can be about many things, even more so when it is spread out over more than one movie.


And it isn't "what I thought the movie should be about." My opinion isn't important. The fact is that the saga IS about the fall of the Republic and the fight to take it back after the coup.You seem to contradict yourself though. You argue that the movie IS about something and then complain that it failed to illustrate it well. That could be a sign that the movie isn't about what you claim it as fact to be. You've cited the prologue to the novelization as a reason that it is about the Republic, but that didn't appear in the movie. If I bring up some EU to support the prequels, you'd argue that we shouldn't have to rely on that to fill in the gaps of a poorly written story.

stillakid
10-09-2007, 09:11 PM
You seem to contradict yourself though. You argue that the movie IS about something and then complain that it failed to illustrate it well. That could be a sign that the movie isn't about what you claim it as fact to be. You've cited the prologue to the novelization as a reason that it is about the Republic, but that didn't appear in the movie. If I bring up some EU to support the prequels, you'd argue that we shouldn't have to rely on that to fill in the gaps of a poorly written story.

No, it's a sign that the movie in question didn't do it's job of telling the story properly. I never contradicted myself.

As far as the novelization goes, there is a huge difference between an officially sanctioned source like the original (ghost written) novelization of Star Wars and some other fank-wank nonsense.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-09-2007, 09:41 PM
No, it's a sign that the movie in question didn't do it's job of telling the story properly.Only if you assume that the story is something that it is not.


As far as the novelization goes, there is a huge difference between an officially sanctioned source like the original (ghost written) novelization of Star Wars and some other fank-wank nonsense.The holonet stuff occurred on the official starwars.com website. It's only nonsense if it fails to support what you BELIEVE the movie is supposed to be about. Actually, I was hoping more of that stuff would have been in AOTC. It might have helped to provide the explanation you want. However, the fact that it was left out of the movie indicates to me that it wasn't important to what Lucas was trying to do. Anakin making decisions that will lead him to the Dark Side, and Sidious manipulating the Republic into a war are the important things here. A detailed list of Separatist grievances are not important to the story. Each system may have had their own reason to separate. So, in that respect, we do know what this "cause" that Yoda speaks of is - separating! That's it. That's all you need to know.

stillakid
10-10-2007, 01:34 PM
Only if you assume that the story is something that it is not.
I'm not assuming anything. Lucas said point blank what this story is supposed to be about. In an interview in the 1980s (I'm still looking for the original source, sorry I can't provide it at the moment), Lucas stated that the Prequels would be about the downfall of the Republic, a more "Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli)" story that, because of the politics involved, wouldn't be as action packed and exciting as the OT films. That's supposedly why he began in the middle of the story, in order to get people interested instead of beginning with the more "boring" political films of the Prequels.

So clearly the intention and point of the films was to illustrate how a strong Republic could be destroyed from within by a complacent populace, which is a consistent viewpoint of someone who grew up in the shadow of Nixon and Vietnam.

What we got instead was worse than a Saturday morning cartoon, devoid of any real substance, substituting poop jokes for actual content.


The holonet stuff occurred on the official starwars.com website.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding "holonet" stuff. That's meaningless to me. I was referencing the Star Wars novelization Prologue, ghost written by Alan Dean Foster, yet credited to George Lucas.


It's only nonsense if it fails to support what you BELIEVE the movie is supposed to be about.
Not what I "believe" the movie is supposed to be about. It's what Lucas said it was supposed to be and what the OT establishes it to be. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.


Actually, I was hoping more of that stuff would have been in AOTC. It might have helped to provide the explanation you want. However, the fact that it was left out of the movie indicates to me that it wasn't important to what Lucas was trying to do. Anakin making decisions that will lead him to the Dark Side, and Sidious manipulating the Republic into a war are the important things here. A detailed list of Separatist grievances are not important to the story. Each system may have had their own reason to separate. So, in that respect, we do know what this "cause" that Yoda speaks of is - separating! That's it. That's all you need to know.

Clearly, because I'm asking, that's not all I need to know. The story rests upon this idea that Palpatine creates a Civil War that gives him the opportunity to step in to "create peace." Given that, it is vitally important to know HOW he creates that situation of civil war. The Prequels fail to provide that reason therefore they are inherently flawed and less than they were intended to be.

JediTricks
10-10-2007, 04:37 PM
It may not be "redemption" in the full sense of the word, but it is certainly evolution. Vader in ANH is totally inhuman. Vader in ROTJ is a tragic character in need of redemption. ESB is the turning point. We actually see him as something more than this boogieman in a black suit.That doesn't make the OT primarily about Vader though, you may as well be saying ESB and ROTJ are about Lando by that argument.



Where did it say any of those were the top of the food chain? A story can be about many things, even more so when it is spread out over more than one movie.You can have multiple plot threads within a single tale, but when you say "the story is about _____" that is stating what the overall narrative is concerning. You can say that Spider-Man 3 has plot threads about Sandman, the new Goblin, Venom, Mary Jane, and Gwen Stacy, but you can't say the movie's story is about them, they're just part of the greater tale that's about Peter Parker.

El Chuxter
10-10-2007, 07:02 PM
That doesn't make the OT primarily about Vader though, you may as well be saying ESB and ROTJ are about Lando by that argument.

Good point! In fact, I think I've seen that thought echoed by another of our forumites.


I will argue against Lucas to the last breath on this.

The saga may be about Anakin/Vader when looked at in its entirety.

However, looked at as two separate trilogies, it's the story of Obi-Wan (prequels) and Luke (originals), with Anakin as a supporting character in each.

:p

Mad Slanted Powers
10-10-2007, 07:30 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding "holonet" stuff. That's meaningless to me. I was referencing the Star Wars novelization Prologue, ghost written by Alan Dean Foster, yet credited to George Lucas.

I was referring to this exchange:


You've cited the prologue to the novelization as a reason that it is about the Republic, but that didn't appear in the movie. If I bring up some EU to support the prequels, you'd argue that we shouldn't have to rely on that to fill in the gaps of a poorly written story.


As far as the novelization goes, there is a huge difference between an officially sanctioned source like the original (ghost written) novelization of Star Wars and some other fank-wank nonsense.


The holonet stuff occurred on the official starwars.com website. It's only nonsense if it fails to support what you BELIEVE the movie is supposed to be about.

That very prologue also states:


Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace. Soon he was controlled by the very assistants and bot-lickers he had appointed to high office, and the cries of the people for justice did not reach his ears.

Having exterminated through treachery and deception the Jedi Knights, guardians of justice in the galaxy, the Imperial governors and bureaucrats prepared to institute a reign of terror among the disheartened worlds of the galaxy. Many used the imperial forces and the name of the increasingly isolated Emperor to further their own personal ambitions.

This makes it sound as if the Emperor wasn't really in control, yet ROTJ shows him to be quite feared and a mastermind of everything that is going on. However, this paragraph was illustrated quite well in TPM:


Aided and abetted by restless, power hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic.

JediTricks
10-12-2007, 10:11 PM
Good point! In fact, I think I've seen that thought echoed by another of our forumites. :pYou should be giving YOU crap for that then, not me. :D You're the one who took my argument about revisionism and turned it into "evolution of Vader as seen in ESB" reply. I still say ROTJ could have ended exactly the opposite the way it did and ESB's scenes wouldn't have changed though.

2-1B
10-12-2007, 10:13 PM
So does that mean Chux revised his revisionist argument against revisionism ?

lol

stillakid
10-12-2007, 10:35 PM
I still say ROTJ could have ended exactly the opposite the way it did

Please elaborate.

JediTricks
10-13-2007, 02:30 AM
Please elaborate.
Vader didn't turn - by any method you wish. Luke defeats him, Luke dies, the Emperor kills Luke and Vader doesn't care, whatever. The key to that sentence wasn't to describe how ROTJ would end opposite how it does, but the ramifications the ESB scene would suffer had Vader not turned to the light side in ROTJ - zero.

stillakid
10-13-2007, 08:45 AM
Vader didn't turn - by any method you wish. Luke defeats him, Luke dies, the Emperor kills Luke and Vader doesn't care, whatever. The key to that sentence wasn't to describe how ROTJ would end opposite how it does, but the ramifications the ESB scene would suffer had Vader not turned to the light side in ROTJ - zero.

Well, the ramifications for the entire saga would suffer as it renders Luke's journey fairly meaningless. I mean, yeah, he was studying to be a Jedi and he became one. But the reason he trained was primarily to save his father. Without that resolution, his entire story is pointless and the audience is left with a collective "Huh?" even if Vader and Palps die when Death Star 2 blows up.

I liken it to ALIEN 3 where we learn in the first few minutes that Newt dies in transit. Huh?! Ripley's entire goal in ALIENS is to save the little girl (who metaphorically represents the future of humanity). Killing her off immediately in the sequel tells the audience that everything that Ripley did was pointless. The same "killing the point" was also accomplished by Terminator 3 when it destroyed the point of T2 whose message was that we can change the future. T3 essentially said, no you can't no matter what you do. Coincidentally enough, both of those films that were rendered moot were written and directed by Cameron. It would've been apro po had Cameron been the creator of the Star Wars originals and have someone else glide in to destroy the established continuity with the Prequels. But Lucas managed to do that all on his own.

2-1B
10-13-2007, 10:56 AM
I liken it to ALIEN 3 where we learn in the first few minutes that Newt dies in transit. Huh?! Ripley's entire goal in ALIENS is to save the little girl (who metaphorically represents the future of humanity). Killing her off immediately in the sequel tells the audience that everything that Ripley did was pointless. The same "killing the point" was also accomplished by Terminator 3 when it destroyed the point of T2 whose message was that we can change the future. T3 essentially said, no you can't no matter what you do.

Exactly, it's also like how ESB and especially ROTJ took a dump all over ANH and it's "dare to dream to be something bigger (until you find out you were born with added abilities all along anyway)"

stillakid
10-13-2007, 11:22 AM
Exactly, it's also like how ESB and especially ROTJ took a dump all over ANH and it's "dare to dream to be something bigger (until you find out you were born with added abilities all along anyway)"

I'm not sure I buy completely into that argument that Luke and Leia (in the OT anyway) are more "Superman" than "Batman." Luke does says that line "I have it, my father has it, and ... my sister has it." But I don't know that it implies anything quite as egregious as adding Midichlorians into the mix the way the PT did. Had Midi's been part of that original concept, Luke would've told her about Midi's on Endor, but he didn't. And Old Ben and Yoda would've included Midi's in their teachings, but they didn't.

So the concept introduced in ESB about Luke and Leia "having it" is meant to suggest that, like some athletes, they have more potential to develop an ability to tap into the Force, but it doesn't mean they have innate "superpowers" in the way Midichlorians did. So ESB doesn't destroy the continuity or purpose of ANH. It merely built on the idea that Luke is "a new hope" to save the Republic and redeem his father's soul.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-13-2007, 02:00 PM
So the concept introduced in ESB about Luke and Leia "having it" is meant to suggest that, like some athletes, they have more potential to develop an ability to tap into the Force, but it doesn't mean they have innate "superpowers" in the way Midichlorians did. I don't see how midichlorians imply you have innate superpowers anymore than your analogy that some people have more potential to become great athletes. Just as there are a lot of people that could have become Olympic champion if they had put in the time and effort, there are probably a lot of high midichlorian count people in the Star Wars universe that never became Jedi or learned to access Force powers.

2-1B
10-14-2007, 01:29 AM
Exactly MSP, it's the same thing.

stillakid
10-14-2007, 02:53 AM
I don't see how midichlorians imply you have innate superpowers anymore than your analogy that some people have more potential to become great athletes. Just as there are a lot of people that could have become Olympic champion if they had put in the time and effort, there are probably a lot of high midichlorian count people in the Star Wars universe that never became Jedi or learned to access Force powers.

It's different because Midis are an entirely separate entity/parasite/sentient being that apparently live inside only certain lucky few. Whether someone "trains" or not, they still are strong with the Force whether they want it or not.

Having potential to be better is entirely different. A world without Midichlorians means that nobody has alien lifeforms giving them an advantage that nobody else is capable of ... without a blood transfusion anyway. Our ROTJ heroes are "strong with the Force" for an unknown reason that isn't attributed to an alien parasite. They are just strong with the Force just because... just as some people are smarter than others or some can jump higher. Here on Earth, people aren't granted superpowers like the Prequel characters are. And Earth people are a lot like OT people.

2-1B
10-14-2007, 08:40 AM
It's different because Midis are an entirely separate entity/parasite/sentient being that apparently live inside only certain lucky few.

Nope, it's explained in the movie that they reside within ALL living cells.
You can choose to ignore the onscreen evidence if you want to rationalize OT fanwank, but it's there for anyone to see.

lol lol lol

stillakid
10-14-2007, 09:05 AM
Nope, it's explained in the movie that they reside within ALL living cells.
Yes, but only the lucky few supermen get to have A LOT.



You can choose to ignore the onscreen evidence if you want to rationalize OT fanwank, but it's there for anyone to see.

lol lol lol

There's no such thing as OT fanboywankoff. Kasdan didn't write things into the movies to please fanboys as that concept didn't exist yet, save maybe for Trekkies.

2-1B
10-14-2007, 09:58 AM
Yes, but only the lucky few supermen get to have A LOT.

That's what I think was the deal with Luke/Leia, of course in the OT it's more "mystical" while the PT shows it as something more "tangible" but the point is the same, that some are more inclined than others...:)


There's no such thing as OT fanboywankoff. Kasdan didn't write things into the movies to please fanboys as that concept didn't exist yet, save maybe for Trekkies.

I know. :D
I just like the phrase fanwank that you coined awhile back, well done sir ! lol

stillakid
10-14-2007, 11:28 AM
That's what I think was the deal with Luke/Leia, of course in the OT it's more "mystical" while the PT shows it as something more "tangible" but the point is the same, that some are more inclined than others...:)
Roger that and that's one of the disconnects b/n the OT and the PT. The OT Force is a mystical energy field etc etc etc... It is just "THERE" and by clearing your mind etc etc etc, anyone can tap into it and "use" it. In the PT, ONLY those blessed with enough parasites can do it. In the OT, it is more of a religion and Jedi are mystically powerful keepers of peace and justice. The PT reduces the Jedi to Superheroes and scientists who use their superpowers to do beatcop duties.




I know. :D
I just like the phrase fanwank that you coined awhile back, well done sir ! lolI can't take credit for it. I saw it a couple weeks ago somewhere and it was too perfect to just let slip away.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-14-2007, 02:24 PM
Roger that and that's one of the disconnects b/n the OT and the PT. The OT Force is a mystical energy field etc etc etc... It is just "THERE" and by clearing your mind etc etc etc, anyone can tap into it and "use" it. In the PT, ONLY those blessed with enough parasites can do it. I still don't see the difference. It's still a mystical energy field. The midichlorians just give an explanation of how some can tap into it more than others. If anyone could do it, why doesn't everyone become a Jedi? Why did Yoda and Obi-Wan sit on their butts for 20 years when they could have set up a secret academy someplace to train those willing to join the Rebel Alliance?

JediTricks
10-15-2007, 03:25 PM
Well, the ramifications for the entire saga would suffer as it renders Luke's journey fairly meaningless. I mean, yeah, he was studying to be a Jedi and he became one. But the reason he trained was primarily to save his father. Without that resolution, his entire story is pointless and the audience is left with a collective "Huh?" even if Vader and Palps die when Death Star 2 blows up. Luke's journey if Vader didn't turn would not fundamentally change, he'd defeat the Empire and resist the temptation to turn to the Dark Side. He'd win the day, save the galaxy, and become a true Jedi - that's not going to leave audiences feeling confused or empty. "the reason he trained was primarily to save his father" - that is so far outside the realm of reality it's unfathomable, Luke is training for many reasons, one of which is he thinks his father is dead and he wants to be like him, he wants to matter, he wants to live an adventurous life, and Obi-Wan and Yoda convince him to train specifically to defeat the reign of the Emperor and Vader.


I liken it to ALIEN 3 where we learn in the first few minutes that Newt dies in transit. Huh?! Ripley's entire goal in ALIENS is to save the little girl (who metaphorically represents the future of humanity). Killing her off immediately in the sequel tells the audience that everything that Ripley did was pointless. The same "killing the point" was also accomplished by Terminator 3 when it destroyed the point of T2 whose message was that we can change the future. T3 essentially said, no you can't no matter what you do. Coincidentally enough, both of those films that were rendered moot were written and directed by Cameron. It would've been apro po had Cameron been the creator of the Star Wars originals and have someone else glide in to destroy the established continuity with the Prequels. But Lucas managed to do that all on his own.Alien 3 stunk on ice, and that was one of the reasons. But Vader not turning was always a possibility in ROTJ and Vader turning was never even a possibility in ESB, so the ramifications are NOTHING like what you're saying.



I don't see how midichlorians imply you have innate superpowers anymore than your analogy that some people have more potential to become great athletes. Just as there are a lot of people that could have become Olympic champion if they had put in the time and effort, there are probably a lot of high midichlorian count people in the Star Wars universe that never became Jedi or learned to access Force powers.Qui-Gon explores this in TPM when he discusses with Anakin and Shmi the boy's innate abilities at podracing, seeing as he's the only human who has ever been able to do it - even though he's a LITTLE kid with ZERO training. Anakin has more midichlorians so he naturally is able to tap into the Force, that's the conclusion we're given.



There's no such thing as OT fanboywankoff. Kasdan didn't write things into the movies to please fanboys as that concept didn't exist yet, save maybe for Trekkies.My aunt fanny! Boba Fett's appearance in ROTJ is fanwank. (and his death shows how little Lucas understood how to pay it off, he thought it'd be "funny" to do it that way - in retrospect, Lucas now realizes that was a mistake, so he says on the ROTJ DVD commentary.)

Droid
10-15-2007, 04:58 PM
I was hoping that because of the fan backlash after the TPM that they would realize in AOTC or ROTS that the mids don't allow increased access to the Force. In essence, don't cause the force, but are attracted to it. I hate the midi concept altogether, but really loath the idea of doing a blood test to decide if someone would be a good Jedi.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-15-2007, 07:24 PM
Qui-Gon explores this in TPM when he discusses with Anakin and Shmi the boy's innate abilities at podracing, seeing as he's the only human who has ever been able to do it - even though he's a LITTLE kid with ZERO training. Anakin has more midichlorians so he naturally is able to tap into the Force, that's the conclusion we're given.Back in school, there were kids who could run really well without training. They had a natural ability. Not all of them ended up running track or cross country, choosing to do other sports or none at all. You could probably do all sorts of tests to measure what's in their blood, what their muscle composition is, and what sort of bone structure they have. You could probably find a correlation between those results and their performance, but there could still be other unmeasurable factors that contribute to their abilities. My running form was crap, but through training I was able to have a lot of success. Most of those kids that were faster than me in junior high did not reach the level that I did.

2-1B
10-15-2007, 07:53 PM
Anakin has more midichlorians so he naturally is able to tap into the Force, that's the conclusion we're given.

Just like Leia who uses ESP to hear Luke calling out for her in ESB.


My aunt fanny! Boba Fett's appearance in ROTJ is fanwank. (and his death shows how little Lucas understood how to pay it off, he thought it'd be "funny" to do it that way - in retrospect, Lucas now realizes that was a mistake, so he says on the ROTJ DVD commentary.)

I thought it was kind of funny to do it that way. lol

stillakid
10-15-2007, 11:36 PM
Luke's journey if Vader didn't turn would not fundamentally change, he'd defeat the Empire and resist the temptation to turn to the Dark Side. He'd win the day, save the galaxy, and become a true Jedi - that's not going to leave audiences feeling confused or empty. "the reason he trained was primarily to save his father" - that is so far outside the realm of reality it's unfathomable, Luke is training for many reasons, one of which is he thinks his father is dead and he wants to be like him, he wants to matter, he wants to live an adventurous life, and Obi-Wan and Yoda convince him to train specifically to defeat the reign of the Emperor and Vader.

Uh, all that is true...for Luke from his perspective. From the larger story perspective, what I said is true.


Alien 3 stunk on ice, and that was one of the reasons. But Vader not turning was always a possibility in ROTJ and Vader turning was never even a possibility in ESB, so the ramifications are NOTHING like what you're saying.
I'm losing your train of thought here. You're suggesting that Vader not turning ever was a possibility? Not sure where you got that...perhaps it was tossed around in the writing room as a joke or something, but the saga has to end in personal success for Luke lest his journey is for nothing. That's one of the reasons the OT worked so universally well: in the grand scope of things, the Rebellion finally wins in its epic battle against the Empire. But all great stories find a way to personalize the bigger story, and Star Wars did that by giving us the "Luke needs to save his father's soul" tale. Had he failed, then what would the point have been? Even if the Death Star blew up and took an unredeemed Vader with it, the story would have been a failure because Luke would have failed.




My aunt fanny! Boba Fett's appearance in ROTJ is fanwank. (and his death shows how little Lucas understood how to pay it off, he thought it'd be "funny" to do it that way - in retrospect, Lucas now realizes that was a mistake, so he says on the ROTJ DVD commentary.)
What?! Sure, Fett had caught on with the kids, but he had to be in the story. Fanwank (the way I define it anyway) is the gratuitous addition of a story element for pure marketing reasons to fanboys. Fett in ROTJ had a small role, which made complete sense given that he was a bad guy who had delivered Solo to the Palace. The Fanwank in the Prequels is so thick, you have to dig through it all to find any semblence of a meaningful story.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-16-2007, 01:30 AM
I'm losing your train of thought here. You're suggesting that Vader not turning ever was a possibility? Not sure where you got that...perhaps it was tossed around in the writing room as a joke or something, but the saga has to end in personal success for Luke lest his journey is for nothing. That's one of the reasons the OT worked so universally well: in the grand scope of things, the Rebellion finally wins in its epic battle against the Empire. But all great stories find a way to personalize the bigger story, and Star Wars did that by giving us the "Luke needs to save his father's soul" tale. Had he failed, then what would the point have been? Even if the Death Star blew up and took an unredeemed Vader with it, the story would have been a failure because Luke would have failed.
Earlier you were arguing that the OT was not about the redemption of Anakin. Now you are saying that if he hadn't redeemed himself, the OT falls apart.

Edit: Perhaps I was wrong. I didn't look back through the whole thread but it seems you were saying more that the PT wasn't about Anakin. It was JT that was arguing about the OT. Still, if the OT is about the redemption of Anakin, it would make sense that the prequels should be about his fall.

stillakid
10-16-2007, 01:45 AM
Earlier you were arguing that the OT was not about the redemption of Anakin. Now you are saying that if he hadn't redeemed himself, the OT falls apart.
Right. It's not ABOUT the redemption of Anakin. It's also not ABOUT the Rebellion defeating the Empire. It's also not ABOUT Solo's love affair with Leia nor R2D2 & Threepio nor any of the other details.

It IS about the fall of a Republic and how it is brought back to life. To do that, the story uses all of the above.



Edit: Perhaps I was wrong. I didn't look back through the whole thread but it seems you were saying more that the PT wasn't about Anakin. It was JT that was arguing about the OT. Still, if the OT is about the redemption of Anakin, it would make sense that the prequels should be about his fall.

Again, the OT isn't ABOUT the redemption of Anakin. That storyline is indeed integral to the larger story of Star Wars, but it isn't ABOUT that one thread in the larger fabric.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-16-2007, 01:55 AM
Again, the OT isn't ABOUT the redemption of Anakin. That storyline is indeed integral to the larger story of Star Wars, but it isn't ABOUT that one thread in the larger fabric.If it is about the Republic instead of Anakin, then what happens to him isn't important. All that matters is that the Empire was defeated.

stillakid
10-16-2007, 01:58 AM
If it is about the Republic instead of Anakin, then what happens to him isn't important. All that matters is that the Empire was defeated.

For F's sake, you're missing the point. Of COURSE the details matter, but it doesn't have to mean that the entire story is ABOUT just one damn thing. We wouldn't HAVE the big story without the details that make it exist. How hard is this to understand?

Mad Slanted Powers
10-16-2007, 09:26 AM
For F's sake, you're missing the point. Of COURSE the details matter, but it doesn't have to mean that the entire story is ABOUT just one damn thing. We wouldn't HAVE the big story without the details that make it exist. How hard is this to understand?Of course it can be about different things, but if the main point is something else, then the details could change as long as that main point is still served. When I said that the OT could be about all the different things that Lucas said it was, JT disagreed.

JediTricks
10-16-2007, 09:45 PM
Back in school, there were kids who could run really well without training. They had a natural ability. Not all of them ended up running track or cross country, choosing to do other sports or none at all. You could probably do all sorts of tests to measure what's in their blood, what their muscle composition is, and what sort of bone structure they have. You could probably find a correlation between those results and their performance, but there could still be other unmeasurable factors that contribute to their abilities. My running form was crap, but through training I was able to have a lot of success. Most of those kids that were faster than me in junior high did not reach the level that I did.That's not at all the same though, Qui-Gon makes it clear that his unusual innate abilities are due to the Force - no other human can do what he can no matter how much training they have - and he is so strong with the Force because of the midichlorian content in his bloodstream. There's even a cut scene in the film where Anakin uses the Force to fix a damaged hose on his vehicle during the race.



Uh, all that is true...for Luke from his perspective. From the larger story perspective, what I said is true.The story is told from his perspective.


I'm losing your train of thought here. You're suggesting that Vader not turning ever was a possibility? Not sure where you got that...perhaps it was tossed around in the writing room as a joke or something, but the saga has to end in personal success for Luke lest his journey is for nothing. That's one of the reasons the OT worked so universally well: in the grand scope of things, the Rebellion finally wins in its epic battle against the Empire. But all great stories find a way to personalize the bigger story, and Star Wars did that by giving us the "Luke needs to save his father's soul" tale. Had he failed, then what would the point have been? Even if the Death Star blew up and took an unredeemed Vader with it, the story would have been a failure because Luke would have failed.Ridiculous. Luke could have defeated his father and the Empire and still had personal success. Look at ANH as the standalone story, he DOES defeat Vader and the film ends that story just fine, if we never saw another SW film that's be the end of it. Hell, if Lucas hadn't written Vader's TIE to survive that impact, he would be dead. ROTJ completes the OT story because Luke becomes a Jedi and helps defeat the Empire, his close friends also play their parts in defeating the Empire. To suggest that the story would have failed if Vader had remained evil is you projecting your opinion as fact when it's not - does Michael Corleone have to remain a good guy for The Godfather to cinematically tell its tale? Of course not, he slips and never can fully redeem himself, not even in a horrible 3rd film where he tries and it costs him.


What?! Sure, Fett had caught on with the kids, but he had to be in the story. Fanwank (the way I define it anyway) is the gratuitous addition of a story element for pure marketing reasons to fanboys. Fett in ROTJ had a small role, which made complete sense given that he was a bad guy who had delivered Solo to the Palace. The Fanwank in the Prequels is so thick, you have to dig through it all to find any semblence of a meaningful story.Fett in ROTJ has to be in the story? That's simply untrue, he's a bounty hunter, he's caught his prey and collected his reward, there's no reason he needs to stick around after that point. His pitiful showing in ROTJ amounts to absolutely nothing beyond fanwank.




Of course it can be about different things, but if the main point is something else, then the details could change as long as that main point is still served. When I said that the OT could be about all the different things that Lucas said it was, JT disagreed.Star Wars isn't an anthology story with no central story focus, there are some of those out there, but the OT has a very specific and direct protagonist in Luke Skywalker.

stillakid
10-16-2007, 10:08 PM
Ridiculous. Luke could have defeated his father and the Empire and still had personal success. Look at ANH as the standalone story, he DOES defeat Vader and the film ends that story just fine, if we never saw another SW film that's be the end of it. Hell, if Lucas hadn't written Vader's TIE to survive that impact, he would be dead. ROTJ completes the OT story because Luke becomes a Jedi and helps defeat the Empire, his close friends also play their parts in defeating the Empire. To suggest that the story would have failed if Vader had remained evil is you projecting your opinion as fact when it's not - does Michael Corleone have to remain a good guy for The Godfather to cinematically tell its tale? Of course not, he slips and never can fully redeem himself, not even in a horrible 3rd film where he tries and it costs him.

Not even close to ridiculous. Comparing Corleone to Vader/Luke is apples and oranges. Corleone's story...heck, the entire Godfather saga for that matter is about the TRAGEDY of what that life (gang) does to people. Corleone's failure is part of the message.

On the other hand, Vader isn't trying to redeem himself. It is part of Luke's purpose in the saga to save the "good man who was his father" and save his soul. That was THE POINT of Luke's story. Had he failed to accomplish it (meaning, had Vader not been "unmasked" both literally and figuratively), the story would have failed entirely. It would be like watching a murder mystery flick and being led to the room where the Inspector was to reveal the culprit but having to leave the theater when it turns out he was wrong. Where's the resolution in that?

As far as bringing the standalone nature of ANH into it, it's a non-starter. Sure, IF ANH was the ONLY Star Wars film ever made, then yeah, it's an entirely different set of circumstances. But ESB brought the element of Anakin's redemption into the mix so Luke's "mission" changed from being merely about defeating the generically evil Empire to a more personal issue of saving his father's soul from eternal damnation.


Fett in ROTJ has to be in the story? That's simply untrue, he's a bounty hunter, he's caught his prey and collected his reward, there's no reason he needs to stick around after that point. His pitiful showing in ROTJ amounts to absolutely nothing beyond fanwank.
Sure, he didn't HAVE TO be there, but his being there wasn't a ridiculous or needless element. He wasn't placed in a situation that wasn't necessary and that's the difference, to me anyway. As long as there is a reasonable point to something being in the story, then it isn't as egregious. I mean, look at that compared to concocting an entire history of Fett that A) didn't match any of the "non movie" hints that George himself offered years earlier and B) was moronic anyway regardless of it being fanwank. Fett in ROTJ is basically wallpaper until he dies... at no point was the story impacted by his presence. Compare that to the fanwank of manipulating the storyline of ROTS by having Padme die of "NOTHING" just so we would see Obers take the baby to Tatooine. You want to call something ridiculous, I would think that the end of ROTS would top the list.

2-1B
10-16-2007, 10:10 PM
"And we the Prequel Lovers sat back filled with glee while an anti-Prequel thread turned into a debate between Prequel Haters."

lol lol lol lol lol

El Chuxter
10-16-2007, 10:20 PM
JT: Given that Qui-Gon was seen as an eccentric, one line in AOTC or ROTS about his being totally mistaken about the midichlorions could have totally explained away the whole mess.

2-1B
10-16-2007, 10:36 PM
Or they could have just called AOTC Episode 1 Attack of the Clones and then made 2 more movies after that, not just 1.

JediTricks
10-17-2007, 03:24 AM
Not even close to ridiculous. Comparing Corleone to Vader/Luke is apples and oranges. Corleone's story...heck, the entire Godfather saga for that matter is about the TRAGEDY of what that life (gang) does to people. Corleone's failure is part of the message.

On the other hand, Vader isn't trying to redeem himself. It is part of Luke's purpose in the saga to save the "good man who was his father" and save his soul. That was THE POINT of Luke's story. Had he failed to accomplish it (meaning, had Vader not been "unmasked" both literally and figuratively), the story would have failed entirely. It would be like watching a murder mystery flick and being led to the room where the Inspector was to reveal the culprit but having to leave the theater when it turns out he was wrong. Where's the resolution in that?Yeah, that movie you describe would be a real piece of crap... but it's a totally flawed analogy as well. Luke's main goal is to defeat the Emperor, his secondary goal is to save his father, he's perfectly willing to lay down his life if it means taking out the Emperor - he doesn't even expect to walk away from the DS2, no way to redeem daddy when they're all vaporized.


As far as bringing the standalone nature of ANH into it, it's a non-starter. Sure, IF ANH was the ONLY Star Wars film ever made, then yeah, it's an entirely different set of circumstances. But ESB brought the element of Anakin's redemption into the mix so Luke's "mission" changed from being merely about defeating the generically evil Empire to a more personal issue of saving his father's soul from eternal damnation. My favorite part of ESB was when they brought up Anakin's redemption... of course, that part only took place in the theater in your mind, so it's particularly difficult to get tickets for that screening.



Sure, he didn't HAVE TO be there, but his being there wasn't a ridiculous or needless element. He wasn't placed in a situation that wasn't necessary and that's the difference, to me anyway. As long as there is a reasonable point to something being in the story, then it isn't as egregious. I mean, look at that compared to concocting an entire history of Fett that A) didn't match any of the "non movie" hints that George himself offered years earlier and B) was moronic anyway regardless of it being fanwank. Fett in ROTJ is basically wallpaper until he dies... at no point was the story impacted by his presence. Compare that to the fanwank of manipulating the storyline of ROTS by having Padme die of "NOTHING" just so we would see Obers take the baby to Tatooine. You want to call something ridiculous, I would think that the end of ROTS would top the list.I know all the freelance bounty hunters out there end up collecting their bounties and then hanging around for no reason in a room full of competition instead of either going back out to make another buck or retiring to enjoy the fruits of their labors. :rolleyes:



JT: Given that Qui-Gon was seen as an eccentric, one line in AOTC or ROTS about his being totally mistaken about the midichlorions could have totally explained away the whole mess.Can you believe it's been 8 years since I first suggested that? :p



Or they could have just called AOTC Episode 1 Attack of the Clones and then made 2 more movies after that, not just 1.No no, then we wouldn't have the all-important scene where the queen of Naboo addresses the senate and is interrupted, or the Trade Federation's questionable legality on their blockade. Those 4 lines of dialogue totally were worth the 2+ hours spent watching the rest of the film. :rolleyes:

stillakid
10-17-2007, 08:44 AM
Yeah, that movie you describe would be a real piece of crap... but it's a totally flawed analogy as well. Luke's main goal is to defeat the Emperor, his secondary goal is to save his father, he's perfectly willing to lay down his life if it means taking out the Emperor - he doesn't even expect to walk away from the DS2, no way to redeem daddy when they're all vaporized.

Saving his soul and saving his life are two different things. His goal was to save his father's soul regardless of whether he and daddy continued to breath after that or not ... if he accomplished that, he would

1) save Anakin
2) kill "Vader"
3) defeat the Emperor
4) hopefully HELP to defeat the Empire (but that's pretty much a given... cut off the head and you kill the rest) and
5) hopefully help to restore the Republic.


My favorite part of ESB was when they brought up Anakin's redemption... of course, that part only took place in the theater in your mind, so it's particularly difficult to get tickets for that screening.
JFC. How hard is it to think more than 8 seconds into the future? I said that ESB introduced the element of Luke saving his father .... that is relative to the more basic and generic mission from ANH which was to help fight the generic and faceless Empire. If you need me to ram it down your throat, I'll rephrase it and say that ESB AND ROTJ introduce the more personal mission to save Anakin's soul instead of his journey just being about destroying a generic bad guy.



I know all the freelance bounty hunters out there end up collecting their bounties and then hanging around for no reason in a room full of competition instead of either going back out to make another buck or retiring to enjoy the fruits of their labors. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: How many freelance bounty hunters do you know?

I'm not a bounty hunter, but I am a freelancer and I DO know the practice of "hanging around" a clients office for a few extra minutes to schmooze to help keep the work comin' in.

For Fett, he might've been doing that, plus he had the added benefit of probably free food and getting laid. Heck, maybe he didn't have anywhere else to go. How do I know? But I do know that there is a rationale for his being there beyond just to have fanboys (who hadn't been invented yet really) wankoff to the sight of a cool bounty hunter.

Droid
10-17-2007, 03:16 PM
In A New Hope and Empire Luke had to goals: to become a Jedi and to defeat the Empire. If he had accomplished those by the end of the trilogy he would have been a success regardless of what happened with Vader.

When Luke found out Vader was his father, it made it harder to accomplish his goal of defeating the Empire, but it wasn't really until Return of the Jedi that saving Anakin really became a goal.

It could have just as easily been that in Return of the Jedi Luke came to grips with the fact that in order to beat the Empire he had to kill his own father.

If Anakin had chosen not to turn good again Luke would not have been a failure. Luke only failed if he a) never became a Jedi or b) the Empire was never defeated.

Part of growing up is letting go of childhood beliefs that don't hold true in reality. In A New Hope Luke admired his father the great Jedi. In Empire he found out his father was a monster. It could have just as easily been that the last part of growing up was confronting (and perhaps dispatching), but no saving that monster.

2-1B
10-17-2007, 09:14 PM
No no, then we wouldn't have the all-important scene where the queen of Naboo addresses the senate and is interrupted, or the Trade Federation's questionable legality on their blockade. Those 4 lines of dialogue totally were worth the 2+ hours spent watching the rest of the film. :rolleyes:

Good point, I forgot about the importance of the committee that was recommended to be sent to Naboo "to ahhhsutain tha tooth."

lol lol lol

Mad Slanted Powers
10-19-2007, 12:17 PM
You know, one other thing that I just thought of. One reason why Naboo wouldn't be one of the first to try and separate is that one of their own, Palpatine, is Supreme Chancellor. After TPM, I'd imagine that things were probably okay for Naboo, and people probably believed Palpatine was sincere when he pledged to eliminate corruption. The "power hungry individuals" and "organs of commerce" are the ones that would be the targets of such a crusade, and thus they would be among the first to join the separatists.

JediTricks
10-19-2007, 11:55 PM
Naboo won't turn because Padme feels loyal to the Republic, she understands the plight of the Separatists and sympathizes, but she basically tries to be left wing without being disloyal to the greater government. All this is in the Holonet News site, they hint at in in the movie mentioning the Loyalist Committee, but it's not really drawn out like it was there.