Anakin character development: did the "Clone Wars" cartoon do it better?

Oh ja, certainly, let's compare the review of the first and second parts of a trilogy which runs at about 4-5 hours with a game that immediately tells the complete storyline which has the ability to tell its story in more than 20 hours if necessary.

A-yup, that's definately a fair comparison.

 

no matter what you call it, if you cant develop your characters, you've failed as a movie maker.
i dont think anyone should hide behind genre as an excuse for a film's failure.

anyway the point is that the cartoon made same of us feel more for the Anakin character more than 2 movies did.

however you slice it, its a sad commentary

 

Please demonstrate how Lucas failed in this manner. You've yet to give any examples of how the CW cartoons developed Anakin's character better than the movies did. You merely gave examples of what you thought was cool about the CW cartoons.

What failure?

And it didn't do so for others.

How so?

 

Aurrie- Unfortunately it is not a fair comparison. Unfortunately, it is one that has been done. Even I don't agree with it.

 

if a cartoon (emmy award winning, might i add) makes a character's motivations seem more plausible than what is presented in 2, $100 million dollor movies, thats how

anyway, thanks for the reply

 

i'm with maynard and C76 on this one. the cartoon did what the movie wished it could have accomlished. in watching the cartoon i felt as if this was the anakin we were supposed to come to love. the cartton showed anakin's turmoil and struggle to reign in his emotions, it showed anakin touching his potential, slowly building upon his legendary status, it really help cement anakin in my eyes, as the chosen one, as one of the most powerful jedi ever.

the cartoon does nothing but bolster anakin's poor character developement. when watching the cartoon i felt as if i could really feel anakin's anger and frustration with obi wan, the struggles seemed more "real". i know it sounds weird, but anakin in the cartoon seemed to really present his feelings well, the dialogue, the pitch teh tone, was all right on, everything about anakin's delivery in the cartoon was great, i felt as if in each episode we got to see a little bit more or his personality, both light and dark sides.

i have to say that the cartoon did a better job than the films when it comes to fleshing out anakin's character.

 

Great post, Tyranus_the_Hutt.

Thank you very much for the complimentary words.

Reagrdless of Tyranus's theory, it does not change the image that Episode 1 and 2 have with people.

I have encountered individuals (in everyday life) who enjoy those pictures, and then those who do not. I don?t see what this has to do with the issue being addressed in this thread.

The cartoons were short, yes I agree. But overall, they were succesful were the first two movies really weren't.

How so? Due to the arbitrary nature of some awards, whose level of prestige helps to substantiate someone?s feelings towards the animated series? I don?t know how many times we need to go over this, but there are plenty of films that have been overlooked or unfairly maligned upon their initial release. Likewise, there have been numerous films which have been the subject of critical lionization, yet are (arguably) not very good movies (Michael Todd?s "Around the World in 80 Days," winner of the Oscar for Best Picture in 1956, whilst John Ford?s "The Searchers," a film that is often recognized as being one of the greatest westerns ever made, did not receive a single nomination; Elia Kazan?s social drama, "Gentleman?s Agreement," which has not aged very gracefully, was awarded the Best Picture Oscar in 1946; in 1952, De Mille?s "The Greatest Show on Earth," a film with dialogue that is even less distinguished than that which appears in any "Star Wars" film, won the coveted Best Picture Award in 1952; Carol Reed?s "Oliver!" which is a good picture, won the Best Picture Oscar in 1968, whilst Kubrick?s revolutionary "2001: A Space Odyssey," did not receive a nomination in that category [Kubrick was nominated for directing, in addition to garnering recognition for his special-effects achievements, however]; nonetheless, it is interesting to note that filmmaker Carol Reed won the Best Director Academy Award in this year, for a film that is remarkably inferior to his other works, such as "The Third Man," "The Fallen Idol," "The Stars Look Down," "The Man Between," and "Outcast of the Islands," movies for which he did not receive this honor [though he was nominated for all but "The Stars Look Down"]). This list is rather extensive, and I would continue if I didn?t feel that the point has already been made (and I only chose to list some of the more obvious examples).

Like I said, Knights of the Old Republic video game (over 30 Game of the Year Awards) and the clone wars cartoon series (2 Emmy award winner)were very good. It has been the only thing in the last 6 years to recieve accolades. Not to knock anything else.

You?re also discussing two very disparate mediums. I love the "Knights of the Old Republic" video game (its sequel - not so much), but it has no relevance whatsoever to the storytelling techniques employed within a motion-picture. We attend films to achieve a vicarious experience ? if the filmmakers are successful, the audience becomes involved in the emotions being tapped in order to communicate a vestige of transporting experience; in a sense, we are "passive" observers to that which transpires on-screen. A game such as KOTOR is interactive ? a manifest difference between that and the aforementioned ?passivity? with which one watches a film. In KOTOR, the player influences the outcome of the game ? yes, there is a complex narrative that is written for the individual to negotiate, but the respective type of involvement is completely different. There is a reason that "interactive movies" haven?t flourished ? the concept is utterly flawed, not to mention oxymoronic (see my above reasoning as to why ? there are other reasons, as well). Interactive games, however, are a wonderful conceit, and it is important to remember that both games and films have their own sets of limitations. One should not attend a film with the expectation that he/she will receive the same sort of entertainment that that person does when they play a game, and vice versa. Therefore, the above comparis

 

okay, time for some rambling, be prepared! the only thing about the clone wars series is, for most ppl i know, it made no sense for them. it was too fast paced and didnt explain anything very well for the casual fan.

i liked it a lot, it explained so much without making me lift a page, i almost couldnt imagine watching RotS without the clone wars now. we got to see how intuitively powerful anakin was for the 1st time, really. i just think that some of the "big questions" we crave from a movie arent really in the clone wars series, it was more twitch fun. RotS makes you wonder about the nature of evil, redemption, other stuff where the clone wars series fills in a bunch of details about the SW galaxy, both were fun on their own level. i know the clone wars series fills in the details of anakin, so i can see how some ppl might like it better, i want more of it too.

just to re-state, i think RotS takes a specific point about anakin and looks at it as closely as possible and the clone wars takes everything it can about anakin, but doesnt hav its own big points or anything. they need eachother, i guess, they overlap so well.

ps - its kool that we got to learn about anakins 'trials'. it really shows the pressure anakin was under from the jedi order. anakin was changing the clone wars a lot by himself, but he also enjoyed the wars a bit too much. maybe they should hav included more events from the clone wars series in the SW films, but im beyond happy as it turned out.

u might want to disregard everything i say tho, because AotC is my favorite SW to play in the background. soooooo gooooood.

i also thought RotS was as good as any other SW, PT or OT. its so intense, i hav to space out the times i watch it.

 

Well they are making the Clone Wars 3D Animated Series coming out in Fall 2007.

 

RevantheJediMaster
Well they are making the Clone Wars 3D Animated Series coming out in Fall 2007.

they couldnt make enuff for me! (still very happy tho)

 

nm

 

Tyranus_the_Hutt:

i see your point about Lucas staying within a certain format, but i honestly think that he broke from his own mold in the PT.

in the OT you could accept what you saw at face value and move on.

the explanation of the Force was satisfactory, imo. now in the PT we've got a prophecy, a chosen one, the midichlorians. i dont think you (Lucas) should just mention these things in passing, and then bring it up only one or two more times over the course of 3 movies

in the OT we had a believable love story that barely took any screen time or detracted from the momentum of the plot. in the PT...now we have picnics and weddings and all these speeches.

so why these scenes implying complexity and emotion if we are only supposed to know the characters on a surface level?

its like he wants it both ways-he wants a large complicated, emotional story yet claim his movies are just simple popcorn flicks.

my point is that the flaws of the PT become manifest in the character of Anakin

 

The PT is different from the OT in some ways, which makes sense, as it was set 30 years before the OT, and made a decade and a half after the OT. It concerns itself with a vastly different galactic era, and characters.

Which is fine, for the OT. It is more of a straightforward, black-and-white story. But the PT isn't quite so straightforward, which makes sense, being as its central figure -- Anakin Skywalker -- isn't a traditional hero. It's easy to root for Luke, he's so good. But Anakin isn't quite so good. He can't be, because he accepts what Luke rejects: the Dark Side.

None of which take away from the explanation of the Force in the OT.

There are several mentions of Anakin being the Chosen One throughout the course of the movies. The midichlorians are mentioned several times in TPM, then again in ROTS.

That's because it was a subplot, and, strictly speaking, not necessary to the story. While I very much like the Han/Leia romance, it could have been excised from the movies entirely without hurting the story.

The Anakin/Padmé romance, on the other hand, is important to the story. They're the parents of two of the main OT characters, and as Lucas set it up, was a primary factor in Anakin's fall.

The speeches could've been shortened a bit, but I like the picnic. The picnic is a nice, informal moment between two young people who are falling for each other, and they speak frankly. The wedding -- I don't see how it interferes with the momentum of the plot. It's the final scene in AOTC, and while I suppose Lucas could have had them get married offscreen, I'm glad he did not.

I don't think he wants it both ways. He's never claimed SW is a deep character study. Sure, there's complexity beneath the surface, and it's occasionally examined, but these are, in the end, fun popcorn flicks, so for the most part, the complexity is, as you said, beneath the surface.

OK, that's your opinion, but I'm not sure exactly which flaws you're speaking of, or how they manifest in the character of Anakin.

 

It's kinda weird that we have to look to The Clone Wars cartoons to see how powerful Anakin was, but we do. I thought the cartoon in general developed several of the characters in a way that the movie couldn't.

 

I understand that cartoons cant devolop a character the same way as a movie but for Clone Wars characters were devolped by demostrating their powers and the adventures they were put into it showed how each character dealt with the obstacle that was in their way and since we had a basic idea on some characters, the unknown ones had an impact on how we saw them.

 

thechozn1
Registered: May '05

Date Posted: 6:36pm Subject: RE: Anakin character development: did the "Clone Wars" cartoon do it better?
It's kinda weird that we have to look to The Clone Wars cartoons to see how powerful Anakin was, but we do. I thought the cartoon in general developed several of the characters in a way that the movie couldn't.

very well said indeed............

and very tragic considering how masterful the LOTR trilogy was put together in far less time

 

ill make this as short as i can and keep to the main points

also, dont take me for an OT purist who hate the PT. believe it or not, i like the PT more.

ok. the flaw(s) im referring to is that the PT uses a very heavy mythological (arguably biblical) and philosphical foundation, but at the same time asserts that we ignore them to large degree. while these intonations can be disavowed from the majority of the films, these flaws make themselves more apparent in dealing with its main character.

as for qui-gon, we learn (by putting pieces together)that it is trough him that the Jedi will change their views. it is the changing of perspectives of both yoda and obi-wan that allows for the training of a more complete, dark side-resistant Luke. it can easily be argued that without Gui-Gon's discoveries, the OT may not have been possible, if you catch my meaning.

the problem is that we only learn this at the very end when yoda informs obi-wan that qui-gon (essentially obi-wans father) has found immortality. its so casual and treated with minor importance as if it were an afterthought. and then the movie ends. its like, "bye, we're all done here. figure the rest out for yourself."

 

maynard: ok. the flaw(s) im referring to is that the PT uses a very heavy mythological (arguably biblical) and philosphical foundation, but at the same time asserts that we ignore them to large degree. while these intonations can be disavowed from the majority of the films, these flaws make themselves more apparent in dealing with its main character.

as for qui-gon, we learn (by putting pieces together)that it is through him that the Jedi will change their views. it is the changing of perspectives of both yoda and obi-wan that allows for the training of a more complete, dark side-resistant Luke. it can easily be argued that without Qui-Gon's discoveries, the OT may not have been possible, if you catch my meaning.

the problem is that we only learn this at the very end when yoda informs obi-wan that qui-gon (essentially obi-wan's father) has found immortality. its so casual and treated with minor importance as if it were an afterthought. and then the movie ends. its like, "bye, we're all done here. figure the rest out for yourself."

take your bases maynard....you've hit a homerun

 

the problem is that we only learn this at the very end when yoda informs obi-wan that qui-gon (essentially obi-wans father) has found immortality. its so casual and treated with minor importance as if it were an afterthought. and then the movie ends. its like, "bye, we're all done here. figure the rest out for yourself."


Yeah, that's about as good of a summary as i've seen. There was a "Should Ep.1 have been Ep.2 and Ep.2 Ep. 3?" thread that I thought was really great. But of course there was a gusher mod that locked down, but not before saying that for the record he liked them just the way they were. I mean, 20 years between Ep. 3 and 4? C'mon. We didn't need to see podracing or the character of Jar Jar Binks. Just get to the meat.

 

thats interesting. i somewhat feel the same.

i think 1 and 2 could have been combined. heres a concept i had:

get rid of the nonsense in TPM. Fade out after the Qui-Gon burial and have something that says, "10 years later..." then the camera cuts to Anakin and Padme about to be wheeled out in the arena on Geonosis. then the rest is basically he clone wars chasing grievous and dooku. i'd like to see a Mace/Dooku deul. just war for the rest of the movie. I would have Qui-Gon appear to Anakin and warn him of the path he was taking and have Anakin reject him.

ROTS would be about the same it is now, but i would add something with Yoda on dagobah and oni-wan on tatoonie both learning from Qui-Gon the deep teaching of the force. maybe a qui-gon speech to both of them at the same time that would bridge the two series

 

Firstly, thanks for the invitation to this thread, maynard. I have been away from the boards for a couple of days.

I am in complete agreement that the Clone Wars cartoon series did more to advance the characters of Anakin and Obi Wan than the movies did themselves. This is not surprising, given that the Clone Wars cartoons were (when seen sequentially) longer than an actual SW film. The CW were dedicated specifically to following the exploits of that duo in a troubled time. Other Jedi were shown, of course, but the main theme was to track the progression of Obi Wan and Anakin.

The CW cartoons were masterful insofar as they were able to showcase the ongoing struggle Anakin had with his darker emotions and his own sense of self. These are manifested in the way Anakin declines to defer to Obi Wan on numerous occasions, the duel on Yavin IV with Ventress, and, of course, Anakin's failure of the final trial on the frozen planet at the end of the second series. The CW also shows Anakin's continued secrecy regarding his relationship with Padme, as well as the deepening of that relationship.

I agree that the CW also show Anakin's power, though the Jedi and Sith are overpowered in the cartoons. Anakin was under a great deal of stress, and that stress took its toll on him. Obi Wan was under comparable stressors, but his training and emotional detachment allowed him to weather the maelstrom of War with his clarity and focus intact.

In summation, the CW were able to do what the films did not: Humanize Anakin Skywalker, Jedi Knight. I can understand the time limitations GL had with the films, so I will not fault him for a failure to completely flesh out the characters involved, but by and large the film rendition of Anakin left me feeling less than satisfied. The same could be said for Obi Wan, of course, but he was not the MAIN character of the PT (though maybe he should have been, I never liked the premise of turning the SW saga into a Shakespearian tragedy about Anakin in the first place).

 

ya, there was sort of this "anakin the missing years," effect in SW. prolly, would hav played out very similar to clone wars series on the big screen, which would be amazing to see, under GLs direction.

thechozn1
Yeah, that's about as good of a summary as i've seen. There was a "Should Ep.1 have been Ep.2 and Ep.2 Ep. 3?" thread that I thought was really great. But of course there was a gusher mod that locked down, but not before saying that for the record he liked them just the way they were. I mean, 20 years between Ep. 3 and 4? C'mon. We didn't need to see podracing or the character of Jar Jar Binks. Just get to the meat.

ya, i hav to agree, but tPM plays so well in the background for relaxation, eases you into the action slowly. lil anakin just accidently blows up the main ship, there was absolutely no suspense or tension with that, it was a lil funny, lol. and the podrace felt like 10 laps instead of 3, but the ambience was soooo gooood.

the opening of tPM was incredible tho, one of teh best SW scenes we're ever gonna see.

 

i see your point about Lucas staying within a certain format, but i honestly think that he broke from his own mold in the PT.

Lucas intentionally looked to a slightly different artistic template from which to draw as the inspiration for the PT; the tonality of the original films was derived from pictures such as "The Thin Man" and "It Happened One Night" ? there was a quasi-contemporary rhythm to both the dialogue and acting. The prequels are inspired by the formalized theatricality of movies like "These Three" and "Magnificent Obsession," in which the dialogue and acting are much more intricate and baroque. The impetus for Lucas to use two aesthetics which sit in opposition to one another is to suggest the two disparate eras which encompass the narrative of his saga; in this way, Lucas creates a sense of dramatic progression to the political and thus environmental canvas throughout the six-film cycle. I think the films would be pretty dull if their ?trappings? remained entirely static.

in the OT you could accept what you saw at face value and move on.

I?m not sure I understand what you?re getting at here.

the explanation of the Force was satisfactory, imo. now in the PT we've got a prophecy, a chosen one, the midichlorians. i dont think you (Lucas) should just mention these things in passing, and then bring it up only one or two more times over the course of 3 movies

I think that the notions you mention are woven reasonably well into the trilogy?s narrative arc. The only conceit which wasn?t addressed in each of the films was the heavily-maligned "midichlorian" issue, which Lucas was able to make pay-off in an effective manner during "Revenge of the Sith."

in the OT we had a believable love story that barely took any screen time or detracted from the momentum of the plot. in the PT...now we have picnics and weddings and all these speeches.

The Han-Leia romance in the OT was, as you indicated, mostly relegated to the background, and therefore didn?t consume large portions of the films? running time. Although I do confess to enjoying the Anakin-Padme romantic arc which unfolds over the course of the prequel films (it?s a quasi-Victorian romance which contains some Freudian undertones), I agree with your complaints regarding the extended passages of dialogue; AOTC?s second act, during which Lucas advances his narrative by interweaving the Anakin/Padme lakeside idyll sequence with the Obi-Wan on Kamino arc, is bogged down in a little too much banal speechifying. As I have indicated elsewhere, a little more judicious editing in this act of the film would have given the story a bit more shape and fluidity. Nonetheless, I don?t think that these scenes are as horrendous as some people would have you believe.

so why these scenes implying complexity and emotion if we are only supposed to know the characters on a surface level?

Well, I think that Lucas wanted to communicate a series of (forgive the term) "superficial" ideas about the characters and their situations; the interpersonal dynamics are not that complex ? in remaining consistent with the type of aesthetic he is attempting to emulate, Lucas adorns his characters and story with some fairly broad flourishes. Yes, there are subtleties within aspects of the film, but generally, the relationship being conveyed is not meant to be subdued in any manner.

As for the emotional component to which you refer, I suggest that all pictures rely on artifice in order to incite an emotional response in the audience, whether it is laughter, pathos, joy, disgust, or whatever other feeling is being tapped. Film is a primarily emotional medium, and thus situations, images, colors, sounds, etc. are all used to evoke in us a response of some sort. In the case of the "Star Wars" prequels, there is indeed emotion being cultivated within the scenes that occur between Anakin and Padme; this is not, however, the type of psychological plumbing that you would get from a Bergman picture, for instance. Such things are relative,

 

How so?

Which is how?

This looks very much to me like an attempt to start up another LOTR vs. PT argument, but anyway, like Tyranus pointed out, the LOTR trilogy (which I disagree was "masterful" in either its structure or execution -- it was well done, and the cast and crew deserve credit for all their hard work, which they've certainly received -- but far from "masterful") was not "put together in far less time."

Yes, I would have liked to have seen that as well, although it wasn't strictly necessary.

It's supposed to be vague. Prophecies in general are vague, and as Yoda put it, they can be misinterpreted. (As The Master on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" put it during the first season finale: "Prophecies are tricky creatures -- they don't tell you everything.") As it happens, the Jedi didn't misinterpret the prophecy of the Chosen One. Rather, they didn't, or couldn't, forsee that he would indeed bring balance to the Force -- but only after helping Palpatine exterminate the Jedi and living as a Sith himself for 20-odd years.

As for your other points -- why do we need to know where it came from, or how many other such prophecies there are? As for whether the Jedi typically refer to prophecies, well, I don't see how that's important. What's important is this particular prophecy. Obviously it's an important prophecy to them.

Possibly, although I think that was the intention.

I'm not sure what you mean. I've never seen Lucas assert, either directly or through the movies, that we should ignore the mythological/Biblical/philosophical foundation. Lucas has referred to the SW movies as a modern myth, and has been open about his various influences, particularly Jospeh Campbell.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Which flaws, and how do they make themselves more apparent in dealing with the films' main character (by which I assume you mean Anakin)?

Maybe, maybe not. It could also be argued that Luke was more resistant to the Dark Side because he was nearly an adult by the time he was trained, and had been raised in a stable home by good people. He had a father figure -- Owen was a bit gruff with Luke, but he clearly cared very much for him, and did a good job raisin

 

thechozn1 posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's kinda weird that we have to look to The Clone Wars cartoons to see how powerful Anakin was, but we do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How so?



My main gripe is that the only evidence we have of Anakin becoming the most powerful Jedi ever was when he took out Dookoo in ROTS. But even to do this he had to tap into the dark side.