Jedi Council Forums - PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Films » Star Wars Saga

Welcome to the Saga Forum. This forum is for in-depth, analytical discussions that bridge the entire SW Saga. This forum DOES NOT ALLOW: "What if?" Threads, Humor Threads, Favorite Lists, Game Threads, Speculation Threads, Movie Sequel Threads & Topical Threads. For information about the threads, purpose and rules of this forum visit the Rules & Announcements Thread & the Index Thread

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
skgai1 Registered: Nov '05	Date Posted: 4/10 3:09pm Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	mandragora posted: That would be a message I'd have much more problems with. The PT is a very positive and hopeful trilogy, in that it shows as that for the evil side to succeed, the good and wise characters have to make mistakes. Like Palpatine said: "I am depending on you." Or like a character in another fav saga of mine said: "You are still labouring under the notion that people take power. Nobody takes power. They are given power by the rest of us, because we are stupid, or afraid, or both." (William Edgars, in Bab5 Episode 4x17) The PT shows the good guys, as well as the senate, as handing power to Palpatine, because they are "stupid, or afraid, or both." Or in Jar-Jars words, the Jedi were banished because they were clumsy. This, to me, is a much more positive perspective than a story that presents the good side as wise and flawless, and still fight a losing battle, because evil somehow comes from nowhere or send by higher forces, and is so powerful that it can't be overcome even if you are neither stupid nor afraid. The PT in essence is telling us we have our fate in our own hands. It is the characters' decisions that make the difference - they are not doomed to failure because of the overwhelming power of the forces of evil. That, at least to me, isn't cynical and negative at all. Quite the contrary. I'm not so sure. To me, the characters in the CT are paying for the PT's character's mistakes. They're fighting a loosing battle only because before they gave away power. The evil in the CT just has more power than in did in PT. It's not like they can't win its just much harder. They do have the benefit of understanding who and what's evil unlike in the PT, but its much harder for them because evil controls everything.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
mandragora Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 4/12 8:23am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	skgai1 posted: I'm not so sure. To me, the characters in the CT are paying for the PT's character's mistakes. They're fighting a loosing battle only because before they gave away power. The evil in the CT just has more power than in did in PT. It's not like they can't win its just much harder. They do have the benefit of understanding who and what's evil unlike in the PT, but its much harder for them because evil controls everything. Yes, but the difference to Nordom's argument is that in the CT, in the end the characters on Luke's side won. What Nordom was suggesting was a scenario where the PT characters, despite being all good and honourable, eventually lose. I don't see how that would have been less cynical or negative than losing because of one's own mistakes. -----signature----- “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” —Friedrich Nietzsche
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JEDI-RISING Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 4/13 9:32am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	I don't see the point to this. If all the negative of the prequels hadn't happend, the OT wouldn't have happend. You have to have the Empire come to power. Anakin has to fall. It was set up that way in the OT. Geez, i watched ROTS, and i was rooting for Anakin not to fall, but i knew he had to. -----signature----- "Mostly because of my father i guess" "Ah, father. Powerful Jedi was he ,mmm, powerful Jedi."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth-Stryphe Title: Saga Manager Registered: Apr '01	Date Posted: 4/14 10:37am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	Geez, i watched ROTS, and i was rooting for Anakin not to fall, but i knew he had to. Did he...? -----signature----- Lord of the Script, it's FABULOUSO: http://boards.theforce.net/Star_Wars_Community/b10012/8237772/p1 The Desperate Road: http://boards.theforce.net/your_jedi_council_community/b10008/23481819/p1 I love you, lonely Dewback on the ridge Az Isten áldjon meg!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Nordom Registered: Jun '04	Date Posted: 4/15 6:50am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	mandragora posted: Yes, but the difference to Nordom's argument is that in the CT, in the end the characters on Luke's side won. What Nordom was suggesting was a scenario where the PT characters, despite being all good and honourable, eventually lose. I don't see how that would have been less cynical or negative than losing because of one's own mistakes. First I am not demanding perfect or flawless characters, reasonably competent would do. Second not all on the "good" side have to be very noble. You could have traitors in the senate, that the jedi trust were misplaced without them looking like fools. Or you could have traitors among the jedi. I've read some of the backstory ideas from when ANH was made. That Vader turned evil but hid it from the jedi and he sold them out to the empire and he and the empire slowly killed off the jedi untill only a few were left. You could have a traitor among the jedi and they failing to realize it WITHOUT them looking like fools. Third while it might be more pleasing to ones peace of mind that evil can never ever win unless good is grossly incompetent, I think that this might be too easy. It might lead to a false sense of security which is what happened to the PT jedi, they were totally convinced that the sith were gone and were totally suprised when they did come back and even refused to belive it at first. My main point is that having a conflict between two sides were one side looses becasue of mindless stupidity and incompetence is not a very dramatic or compelling story. I've read several books and seen some films were the heroes win because the villains are quite dumb. Battlefield earth is a prime example, there the villains are to man clueless retards. Thus the heroes victory is rather empty because the villains are so stupid one wonders how they could ever be a threat. There are many stories were the evil side is stronger and more powerfull and yet the good guys win because they find a weakness in the bad guys. Take LotR, there Sauron is way too powerfull for the good side to be able to defeat him by pure military might. Instead they destroy the ring which was the one thing that Sauron did not anticipate. Did this make Sauron into a brainless moron? Perhaps in part but being evil he could not see how anyone could throw away power and refuse domination over the world. Or take ANH, the rebels are very overmatched by the DS so the bad guys are much stronger. And yet they win because they find a weakness in the DS. This weakness was an oversight on the empires part yes, a misstake indeed but I did not feel like the empire came across as dumb and ignorant as some of the "heroes" in the PT sometimes do. When the DS is attacked they use their standard defecence first, when that fails they use fighters instead and they are even able to analyse the rebels attack and conclude that there is a danger but Tarkin is too overconfident. So the empire adapt and alter their tactics but the PT jedi seem not to do this. With the PT I feel that the "good" guys were sometimes shown as TOO uncaring, TOO clueless and TOO dumb and this made it hard to root for them as they are undone by them being dumb and the sith comes across as rather weak villains as they did not beat a competent enemy but a bunch of bumbling buffoons. Take Babylon5, in the second season things go very bad for the "good" side, they achive some victories but they loose even moore. Take the Narns, they fight bravely and valliantly but the enemy is simply too strong and when they loose it really hurts the viewer and it is very sad. The "good" guys to prevail in the end but not by being stronger than the "bad" guys or by the "bad" guys being very dumb. They figure out the thruth about the whole conflict. They grow and they learn. With the whole SW saga it ends well, the good guys win in the end so I do not think it is neccesary to have the halfway point, where evil is dominant, to be the result of gross incompetence on the heroes part. With ESB the good guys have lost quite alot, the rebels had to run from the empire, Han was captured and Luke was badly beaten. And yet the heroes did not have to be very stupid for this to work. You could have the heroes doing their best but the evil side were able to turn them against each other and use their weaknesses against them WITHOUT the heroes looking dumb. The overall story of the PT is a good one, that the senate is weakend by corruption and the jedi are somewhat rigid and inflexible and too fixated on dogma and rules. Palpatine is able to use this and create a false conflic to get into a position of power and then create a phony war to get even more power. In the CT the good guys win not because they ares tronger, they are not, nor do they win because the empire is totally stupid, Ewok battle not withstanding. They win because Palpatine, like Sauron, could not concive of anyone refusing power, of anyone turning away from the dark side. Luke beat him, not with power, he defied him and refused to give in to hate and he refused the power of the dark side and in so doing he made Vader realize that he still had a choice as well. So good defeats evil not with power but with love and compassion, "softer" things that evil ignores or looks down on. Sorry this got rather long but I hope some of my points are somewhat coherent. Regards Nordom -----signature----- "I think, therefore I am.. I think" "Morte, how do you stay afloat?" "Flatulence, you stupid polygon"
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
mandragora Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 4/16 2:29am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	I understand your point. In a certain sense, I also agree - the Jedi come across as a bit clueless and certainly less than compassionate and wise, at least for me. Mindless stupidity and incompetence - I wouldn't go that far. But monitoring these forums, and others, I seem to be in the minority. My impression is that the majority of the fans did root for the Jedi and place the entire blame upon Anakin. I think the design of the PT Jedi to make them flawed, perhaps too flawed, was done on purpose, to form a mirror image to the events that happened in the OT. What you mentioned, the evil side is stronger and more powerfull and yet the good guys win because they find a weakness in the bad guys, is exactly what happened in the OT. One could also argue - and it has been argued - that in the OT, the Emperor loses because of incompetence and mindless stupidity. In the PT, it was the good guys who were stronger (at least in numbers) and the bad guy won, because he found weaknesses in them. It's the same story in reversal, and I think it was designed that way deliberately. You mentioned B5 as an example - which happens to be my personal all time favourite SciFi Saga on film. Without getting into details here (although the comparison would merit a thread of its own), let's just say I think that B5 is on a whole different level with respect to studying shades of gray, and the nature of good and evil within characters, than Star Wars is. It's much closer to reality and though it has mythical elements, it's more a study of the human nature and the reality of war. With Star Wars, I feel it's the reverse; there, the study of human nature is secondary to the use and exploration of mythology. Both approaches have their merits, but on the whole, even with the PT being a more political story than the OT, Star Wars is a lot closer to a fairy tale, and in that a lot more naiive (which isn't meant as a criticism) than B5. It's also more targeted towards a younger audience. I also agree that the idea that evil can never ever win unless good is grossly incompetent is too easy. But so is the idea that you defeat an evil empire by throwing away your lightsaber. Star Wars is and remains foremost an allegory, a fairy tale, it's not so much a study of the reality of the conflict between good and evil. As such, I feel that even more political manoeuvering in the PT wouldn't have worked. Conversely, Sheridan defeating Clark by throwing away his lightsaber wouldn't have worked, either. For me, the PT design overall works. The approach you describe works as well, as B5 IMO shows very convincingly. I just don't think it would've worked as a basis for the Star Wars PT. Either it would have been kind of a repetition of the OT, only that the good guys loose in the end, or it would have required a much more realistic approach, which I think would have made the PT-OT transition even more difficult. -----signature----- “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” —Friedrich Nietzsche
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Chiss_Insight Registered: Jun '06	Date Posted: 4/16 11:55am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	NATIONALGREATNESS, I strongly agree with some of your ideas. The movement away from gritty, reality in film as ushered in by ANH is discussed in Empire of Dreams. The "fairy tale" elements of ANH are very strong. That does not mean that ANH cannot have some heavy moments, and not meet this criteria, but it is the spirit of the film in the era in which it was released that makes it a stand-out. I agree that Padme's development over the PT is troubling. Whether that lack of development is rooted in sexism, I will leave to the articulate posts that are already on this thread. I see the trouble with Padme as a character development issue. In TPM, Portman as an actress is just fine. She was younger when she shot that role, and she had not yet become a superstar. She portrays an exceptional teenager with a great amount of spirit, leadership, and beauty. We understand as an audience how this young woman could have been Luke and Leia' mother. We understand why, a decade later, Anakin is sweating before seeing Padme, who he has been thinking about for ten years. In AOTC, the MAIN problem with Padme is why does she give in and fall in love with Anakin? My issue with Hayden in that film is that he is creepy. I find him effective at portraying the pain in the a$$ teenager that Lucas imagined. I do not find him effective as sculpting Anakin into someone that Padme would fall for based on what we saw in TPM. It is not clear why this exceptional young woman should fall for a proverbial "bad boy". The Padme that was established in TPM, would not do this. Even if she did give in right before the execution, because she figured, "What the heck?", I do not believe she would have continued the relationship past the battle on Geonosis. Anakin (as a teenager trying to get Padme to fall for him) is creepy in AOTC. This is all coupled with the fact that the dialogue in AOTC was atrocious. I love the SW movies and I don't have an interest in bashing GL, the PT, or the OT, but the crucial element of how did the twins' parents fall in love was NOT revealed in a way that did it justice. Portman at this point in the PT is done. She cannot do anything with her character or the lines. I am a huge Natalie Portman fan, but her work in AOTC and ROTS is the weakest of her career. By ROTS, it is Lucas who dropped the ball. In the comic adaptation of ROTS, after her force chokes her, Anakin uses the force to throw her against a wall. It was very clear to me that he truly did what Palps said and in his anger, he killed her. When I saw the film and that element was missing, I was very disappointed. Now ROTS is my current favorite film of all time, but this was a real mistake. Now you have the mother of the strongest willed twins in the galaxy dying of a broken heart? Where is the tragic element, the Oedipus type element of Anakin bringing about the very thing he was trying to avoid by turning to the darkside? Where is Darth Vader, choking and then flinging his pregnant wife against a wall? Now Padme cannot find the will to live for her two newborn babies because of a broken heart from a relationship that didn't make any sense based on her strength that was established in TPM? To fail in revealing the details of that relationship is to weaken Anakin's turn to the darkside, which is supposed to be what we were waiting to see for all of those years. I agree that the PT was darker than the OT, but maybe we didn't know to what level Lucas was going to take it. I remember joking around with my best friends, speculating about how cool it was going to be to see the fall of the Jedi. I also remember actually seeing ROTS and how the last hour wrecked the group of fans that had been standing outside all day. I remember a few people around me saying, "Oh my God", once Anakin started burning. It was one thing to specualte about these events, but finally seeing them was something else. Were they perfect? Could another director have done them better? I don't know, and I really don't care. I will never forget the experience of the PT: the teasers, the trailers, the dressing up and taking a day off form work or school to stand outside all day long, and then the crowd erupting as the Opening theme started. The PT is about something great (the universe) coming into darkness. We always knew it was going to be about that. Maybe the experience of finally seeing it all unfold caught us off guard. We thought we were ready for it, but it was harder than we thought it was going to be. The part of the story when darkness starts to cloud everything is always hard. So, NATIONALGREATNESS, if the darkness of the PT concerns you, just know that it will make the redemption and the light of the CT all the more bright. Also, I don't agree that ESB is a light movie. That is one area where I do not agree with your theory. I think I have read another one of your posts in that past. It too was a bit lengthy (which I like) and had many great points. Keep them coming, even if you think your points will not be received well.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cryogenic Registered: Jul '05	Date Posted: 4/16 5:40pm Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute - Date Edited: 4/16 5:44pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cryogenic
	Actually, the original film is surprisingly gritty, in my opinion: right down from the muted, very un-fairy-tale-like photography, to the clipped and unembellished menace of Tarkin and Vader (consider: neither has a musical theme), to moments of sudden and shocking violence (e.g. charred corpses, a candid lightsaber amputation, a bounty hunter being shot in cold blood, mass genocide), to the sort of "take no prisoners" attitude of the principal characters, who barely question themselves and just get on with things. To me, the original film is as much a product of the 70's as any other. It's subversive in the sense that a lighthearted "Flash Gordon" aesthetic is juxtaposed with a very "documentarian" style -- this intermingling distances it from a traditional "fairy tale" mold, in my opinion. Lucas could have had "Star Wars" stand forever alone as one of many films in a rich ouevre; an avant-garde homage to the cinema of old, told with the unapologetic clarity of the cinema of new. No sequels, no merchandise, no nothing. That would have been very interesting to see. But sequels were made, and that's why we're all here, at least in this particular forum, having this particular discussion. In a way, the PT is more "cynical" . . . but only because it remains objective about human behaviour, which is often dogmatic, self-deluding and destructive. This same objectivity is there in the OT, however. Again, I think it starts in the very first film. For example, I love how Tarkin's self-assuredness is never fully explained. Equally, his death strike against Alderaan is over in a flash. Yes, Tarkin does a fundamentally evil thing, but he's never filmed at ominous angles, or scored with dark music, or shown doing anything especially sadistic like Vader is (e.g. strangling). He just gets on with it -- THAT is chilling, but in an objective way a lesser filmmaker could probably NEVER have dared show. So the "blacker than black" bleakness of humanity is there in the OT; the narrative just has a positive outcome. I must also agree with mandragora where the Jedi are concerned. In addition to its surprisingly blunt nature, SW is also a sort of dialectic on morality and moral behaviour. To me, this makes it essential that the Jedi are shown as part of the problem (and then part of the solution). I don't think there's anything to be despondent about here. The Jedi are extremely foolish in the PT, which, again, is an effective analogue for the most noble of human institutions being riddled with bad mistakes and decisions; mistakes and decisions that, one way or another, have affected us all; in the PT, like or loathe him, Anakin is our representative; the naive human thrusted into a world of corruption and compromise. Having the Jedi shape his destiny is more powerful than merely having Anakin shape the Jedi's: "What happens to one of you will affect the other. You must understand this." -----signature----- I have a great admiration for George. These films are very well-intentioned. All right, they make tremendous amounts of money and appeal to kids, but they say good things, and they say them in a broad way. I believe in the Star Wars films. - Ian McDiarmid
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 4/17 10:29am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	The problem is that what we are shown in the PT is so incredibly different from the way things are described in the OT, that the PT essentially undermines the OT. Instead of a wise leader, the OT's Obi-Wan becomes a demented old coot, who tries to resurrect an extinct order that he remembers as much better than it actually was. There's nothing wrong with the good guys losing because they made mistakes. The problem occurs when you get to the OT and those same good guys never come to terms with and learn from those mistakes. In the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan paint a picture of a wonderful Jedi order that was brought down only because Obi-Wan was reckless in wanting to train Anakin himself and failed. But in the PT, Obi-Wan does a damn fine job as Anakin's mentor, while the rest of the Jedi order screws things up (particularly Mr. Mace "Being a jerk to the most powerful Jedi in the order will NEVER come back to bite me on the ass" Windu). Obi-Wan says Anakin was 'seduced' by the Dark Side, but in the PT he slaughters an entire village without a bit of prodding from ANY of the dark-siders.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth-Stryphe Title: Saga Manager Registered: Apr '01	Date Posted: 4/17 10:55am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	Actually, the original film is surprisingly gritty, in my opinion: right down from the muted, very un-fairy-tale-like photography, to the clipped and unembellished menace of Tarkin and Vader The visuals are gritty, and this is deliberate. GL uses different inspirational styles in the SW films and one of these was the western, which explains much of what you are pointing out here. It's the plot, not the visuals, that is fairy tale like. Sure, there are things in ANH one would not normally associate with harmless fantasy, like destruction of whole worlds and families being murdered, but fairy tales actually contain things that if in the real world would be disturbing. What makes them fairy tales is how they handle such things in light hearted manner, which ANH does. Yes, a whole planet is destroyed and one of its few survives is forced to watch it happened, but this leaves no visuable scar on Leia. She seems worried when it happens, then later in the same movie she's being bossy and cheery with no more signs of grief or shock. Luke sees all his parential figures killed in this movie, and yet moments after Ben dies he's gunning down tie-fighters and acting like its a video game. This light hearted handling of otherwise disturbing insistances retains the fairy tale feel to the plot. -----signature----- Lord of the Script, it's FABULOUSO: http://boards.theforce.net/Star_Wars_Community/b10012/8237772/p1 The Desperate Road: http://boards.theforce.net/your_jedi_council_community/b10008/23481819/p1 I love you, lonely Dewback on the ridge Az Isten áldjon meg!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Vortigern99 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 4/17 3:20pm Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	I might also point out that the term "fairy tale", far from being limited to light-hearted, joyful and/or "sugar-coated" happenings -- which is the sense that Cryogenic and Darth-Stryphe seem to be using it -- actually encompasses an entire range of dark, terrifying and even disturbing events and characters. As evidence I point you to the macabre endings of the Grimms' "Cinderella" or Andersen's "Little Mermaid", just to name two. Star Wars -- as a Saga and as the name of the original film -- is a fairy tale both in the goody-goody, foolishly cheerful sense, and in the horrible, I-can't-believe-this-is-happening sense. Its real world grittiness and depiction of atrocity is just as "fairy tale" as its celebratory ending and light-hearted humor. -----signature----- "I knew from the beginning I was not doing science fiction. I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece, a fairy tale."--George Lucas My "Vader's Origins" thread: http://boards.theforce.net/Classic_Trilogy/b10002/8708417/p1
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
skgai1 Registered: Nov '05	Date Posted: 4/17 5:05pm Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	I don't understand why people find the Jedi to be incompetent and stupid. It was clearly set up in the TPM that the Jedi have been the "guardians of peace of justice for a thousand years." There's never any mention of a problems in the middle. The Jedi have kept peace and order for a thousand years! So forgive them if they happen to believe in their ideals and precedents. They worked! They believed the Sith were destroyed. They hadn't seen them for a millennium so why would they expect them to come out of nowhere. Plus they sensed the Dark Side coming. Yoda and Mace both mentioned that, but they also said it was clouded and couldn't quite tell the specifics. They were on their guard. But, they were loosing. Everything they had done before now wasn't working. So forgive them if they tried to new things, broke their own rules. I can't think of any man that wouldn't have at least questioned the methods if the outcome continued to be so bad. The Jedi were trying they're best. They just made mistakes, which is why this saga is about human nature. The Jedi might be alien and have a fairy-tale setting, but its really no different than two guys in a coffee shop. It's just a different setting, it doesn't mean that the rules of human nature change. The Jedi were confident in themselves as history had shown them the way. They were never stupid and never rash, they always discussed the events in great detail before coming to a conclusion. They rightly suspected the emperor and sent Anakin to investigate him. They rightly suspected Anakin and tried not to teach him before being overruled by strong evidence that Anakin did have the Force with him. They tried to stop the Dark Side, but they just failed. That's the story. If you don't like it, that's fine, but that's the story. The PT is an incredibly complex story, just the same as the OT but instead of a good ending there's a bad one. But I don't even subscribe to The PT's ending being negative or without hope. The movie ends with shots of "a new hope." Its an uplifting end scene and powerfully shot and scored. I didn't leave the theaters in any of the six Star Wars films feeling as if they were "cynical" and "negative." Both structures are the exact same only the outcomes are different.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Criix Registered: Apr '08	Date Posted: 4/18 12:25am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	I'm going to have to agree with all of your points. It's true that Luke is a goody-two-shoes, but I think it's important for the main character of a movie to be like that. You can have anti-heros as supporting characters to keep things interesting, like Han Solo was in the OT, but there really isn't a single person in the PT that's as pure, selfless and hopeful as Luke. Maybe Padme comes close since she pleads with Obi-Wan on her deathbed about the good that's still in Anakin.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DRush76 Registered: Jan '08	Date Posted: 4/29 8:08pm Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	I'm wondering how you expected the fall of the Anakin Skywalker, the fall of the Republic, the extermination of the Jedi and the rise of the Empire with tyranny and oppression to be portrayed with the same atmosphere of fun, optimism and positivity as the OT? The PT was always going to be dark and with that comes an amount of cynisism, moral ambigouity, negativity and anti-heroes. That the backstory to Star Wars was dark was known since the moment Darth Vader revealed to Luke his true parentage or, to a lesser extent, when Obi-Wan told Luke about the Jedi purge. I don't know why you act so surprised. In fact, I believe that the darkness of the PT only enhances and underscores the overall positive message of the OT. Anakin was never going to be like Luke, Obi-Wan was never the perfect Jedi and Padmé was not the kind of woman that Leia became. To me, the two parts of the Saga compliment each other perfectly, in tone and in style. Pretty good. I agreed. What makes the saga unique for me is that despite the similarities between the two trilogies, the differences between them allow them to compliment each other. When I think about it, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK seems to contrast between both A NEW HOPE and RETURN OF THE JEDI. It almost seem like a template for the ambiguous darkness that dominated the PT.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JEDI-RISING Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 4/30 8:32am Subject: RE: PT is cynical, negative and morally ambiguous; OT is positive, hopeful and morally absolute
	I don't really get the point of all this. It's not supposed to be that the Jedi were so stupid, it's that Sidious was So manipulative, and powerful. It's supposed to show what can happen in a democracy when bad people gain power. It's not that they show up, tell everyone they're bad, and nobody does anything. They connive, they pretend to do good things. It's stated pretty clearly in AOTC by Yoda and Mace; the Dark Side has clouded their vision. It was the Senate that was the most corrupt. Going back to TPM, when Palpatine whispers to Queen Amidala during the senate scene, prompting her to call for a vote of no confidence. It's not that GL wanted to tell a negative story. Those are things that set up the OT. As to someones point that Vader should have thrown Padme against a wall, i think what was shown on film was plenty. -----signature----- "Mostly because of my father i guess" "Ah, father. Powerful Jedi was he ,mmm, powerful Jedi."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Films » Star Wars Saga