AOTC - From a Writer's POV

I heartily agree with the above comments about the arena "declaration of love" scene.

Let John Williams do all the talkin' -- nothing else need be said.

 

That's why the wedding scene worked so well.

 

Ambccray: Spesking as a lady, I have to say: there is no way that putting the Meadow scene before the kiss scene would have worked. If a man whom I didn't currently know (beyond a conversation or four, and a few creepy, "stalker"-like looks) tried to roll me around in the grass when I only rushed over to make sure he was all right, I would have slapped his face and walked off. It would be harder for the audience to accept that she was attracted to him at all, if they had just spent the previous few minutes talking about dictatorship (HOW romantic) and all of a sudden she feels lovey-dovey. We needed that first hesitant kiss to make us believe that they could have any physical contact at all. (Never mind the parts of THAT conversation from the novel that were left out..but that's another thing.)

Let's go back and examine a similar situation in Empire. Speaking from a purely clincial writer's POV, I find it just as hard to bleive that Leia would fall head over heels for Han so suddenly. We are asked to believe in their love from a similar premise and the ending is just as clunky. At the beginning of the film, Han says "You want me to stay b/c of the way you feel about me." And Leia says yes, but won't admit she's attracted to him. We are dropped in on a relationship that has apparently been like this for yrs. They are apparently 2 similar clashing personalities, and have been bickering over any number of similar escapades. But we, the moviegoing public, don't know this. She's expressed romantic feelings before, (the "South Passage") but is always at war with herself, pulling back.

Through the rest of the film, it;s the same thing, he tries "the moves" on her but she half-allows it and pulls back. She allows him to embrace her one minute, but she clearly doesn't like him as a person, is suspicious of his motives, distrusts his closest professed friends, and uses every opportunity to cut him down in public, and not in any kind of a policy argument (like the "security" dispute)but for the pure enjoyment of it, (Like when she kissed Luke.) That was clearly to hurt hum and cut him down to size. She rebuffs him all throughout the film and hates Lando, and then, after Lando betrays them, all of a sudden, here she is in the holding cell wiping his brow and defending him? If the film had stayed true to the pattern of Leia as we had seen her, she wouldn't be succoring him and defending him against Lando, but would be perfectly happy to see him thrown to the dogs. Why she has a sudden change of heart is incomprehensible. And then all of a sudden, we are supposed to believe she loves him?

And it's clear that she doesn't feel sorry for Lando, or any of Han's "friends", just because Vader may have used them. She is perfectly happy to have Chewie strangle him. We are supposed to beleive that Vader's prescence suddenly makes Han a sypatheitc figure.





Shadow-Jedi, GullyFoyle, I agree with you. And GullyFoyle, you hit the nail on the head. I back up what I said yesterday but in the end I have to confess that if that extra bit of diaogue would have helped immensely, and in the end, it is the only gap in the love story.

 

Just to put a definitive end on the origins of the "I love you/I know" refrain from the OT, here's what Laurent Bouzerau wrote in The Annotated Screenplays:

Bouzerau: The idea of putting Han in carbon freeze first appeared in the second draft [written by George Lucas alone]. Before Han gets frozen, Leia tells him: "I love you. I was afraid to tell you before, but it's true." Han replies: "I'll be back." In the third draft [again solely by George Lucas] Han replies: "Just remember that, 'cause I'll be back." [Bouzerau gives no indication that Kasdan had any significant revisions for this scene]

Irvin Kershner: "The only difference I ever had with George on the cutting happened when Han is about to go into the freezing chamber and Leia tells him, 'I love you.' When I was shooting the scene, Han was supposed to reply: 'I love you, too.' So we did a take, and I said, 'Wait a minute, Harrison, I don't like the dialogue.' It's like she wins, she said it first, and 'I love you, too' is pretty weak stuff for Han Solo because he is too smart, too arrogant for that. So Harrison asked, 'What do you want?' And I said, 'I don't know; let's improvise.' So Leia says: 'I love you,' and he goes: 'Yeah, yeah.' Andwe tried it again and again with different lines, and finally Harrison says, 'I give up, I don't know what the hell to say.' The crew is hating me by now; it's hot, we're way up high on this set, they're all hungry, it was a nightmare. Finally Harrison says, 'Let's do it one more time and that's it.' So she says, 'I love you,' and he replies, 'I know.' And it just came out of him, and I said, 'Cut!' The assistant turns to me and says, 'You're not going to use this, are you?' And I said, 'Why not? It's perfect.' When I cut the film, George looked at the scene and said, 'In the script it was something like "I love you, too," wasn't it?' I told him, 'Yes, but it's such a stinky line for Han Solo that we had to change it.' George was worried that the audience was going to laugh and that it would break the tension. I felt very strongly about this and George said, 'All right, when we show the film the first time, we'll show it your way, and then we'll show it the way it was written.' So we sneak previewed the film in North Beach, and when the line came, the audience roared. George turns to me and says, 'You see, it's a mistake.' Now the picture is over, people start coming out, and they're all talking about the line, saying how great it was. They all noticed it. So we kept it in the film. George is very flexible; he knows what he wants, but he is flexible, and that's why I like him so much."

[Bouzerau, Laurent. Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays, 207-8. 1997.]

While I doubt things happened substantially differently than described, above, Laurent does a terrible job of crediting his sources. It's impossible to know when the Kershner quote was given. The possibility that he may have been quoted closer to 1997 than 1980 admits the possibility that his memory may have gotten foggy. Regardless, it shows that this one line was very much the result of collaboration between writers, director, actor and even crew.

 

While I wouldn't change the "I know" line, how fascinating would it have been for the line "I'll be back" to have been associated with Star Wars instead of The Terminator?

 

First, let me say that I haven't read this whole thread yet. It's just too long to take in at one sitting.

However, after reading the first page or so of posts, I have a couple of comments to make, especially about the love story.

I liked the love story. A lot. And I'm a writer too... let me explain why.

The reason is that not every relationship is perfect. Not everybody has that perfect falling-in-love thing, and considering the fact that neither Anakin nor Padme had ANY experience with love at all -- Anakin was spending the last 10 years living as a warrior monk, and Padme was a workaholic politician who only had one boyfriend before -- it would make TOTAL SENSE for them to be klunky with words and stuff and use cliche's.

It's OBVIOUS that Anakin has been waiting to see Padme again ever since they parted in TPM, he pretty much says that he's thought about her every day at one point in the movie. As such, he would have been planning out what he'd say to her ever since then, to come up with the "perfect plan" to win her. In the process, of course he learned everything about love out of crappy second-rate romance novels (or whatever they call them in SW) or things of that sort. Do you think that Anakin would KNOW how to show his love, not to just blurt it out to Padme? No, it's not in his character.

I admit that I cringe a bit during the love scenes like everyone else, but I realize that it would be totally out of character to have it any way otherwise.

--P

 

Teta:

Actually, I would have cut out that stupid roll in the grass as well. I meant the meadow scene WITHOUT that

 

Yeah man...they should have made the two stories closer together. When they went for that roll in the grass the clones should have shown up in full formation and everybody get together to see them strut for awhile.

Impending death is nice and safe. Nobody can stand impending love.

 

Most of this thread, my posts including, have gone off on the love story. Not to wrap that up, but its safe to say that while it worked perfectly for a few, a larger portion like it but would have changed some, an about equal group wanted to change it more, and for some it didn't work at all, cringe-worthy etc.


But I wrote something in another thread that got me thinking about the writing again...

There's the old saying "Show, Don't Tell", well in AotC, Lucas neither shows nor tells why the Seperatists are leaving the Republic. Lucas doesn't show or tell why the Seperatists leaving the Republic is so threatening to the Republic.

It's obviously very difficult to get the audience emotionally involved in a struggle they know nothing about.

 

I should think that would have been obvious: the corruption Palpatine speaks of in TPM that is again referred to by Dooku in his scene with Obi-Wan. Seeing as how none of the characters disputes the the corruption exists, isn't this the assumed reason for the Seperatist group?

 

Well this is interesting, hehe.

I think you addressed the problems YOU saw quite well -- this was not a topic created in haste or foolishness, but one created after careful consideration.

That being said, my friend, I do not agree with you. I don't see movies the way you do, perhaps. I'm a movie critic myself, but more on that stuff later. I think every movie is naturally going to be different and perhaps you may not like every little aspect, but that's what makes us all unique. The way Lucas wrote the movie, along with Hales, is not in any way anything short of perfect -- for them. That is exactly how they wanted the film to be. Now, as a moviegoer, Star Wars fan, critic, and writer, I loved what he did with it. There were a few lines I personally would not have written the way he did, but does that make them wrong? Not at all. It's just the way he wanted these characters to act, and so I can accept that because to me, everything about the movie worked.

AOTC is actually my favorite movie, all time.

"Obi-Wan?s character, as delightfully droll as he can be, does not change much during the course of the film."

So...?! This is what bothers me most about critics. They are just dense. They don't get it at all. There doesn't NEED to be ANY character development in ANY movie! Some movies lead to character development, others don't. The only thing that is important is the audience learning about the character because obviously if the audience knows nothing about its main character, well, uh, what's the point? They can't at all relate to him/her. Why must any movie show one character changing throughout the course of the film? If a movie takes place within a day or a week, why would a character change? I have had some weeks that were extremely influential in my life (perhaps not worthy of a movie, hehe), but they didn't actually change who I am or how I act. I am still me. The events occur separately from that. I have developed a lot from year ago, wow, an amazing amount, but in the last few weeks? Not that much. Actually that's a bad example because the last few weeks have been a big change for me, but I mean any given period of one to two weeks I do not change much generally.

Anakin's character, who is central to the saga, undergoes significant character development in the movie, which is all that is necessary because he is the main character. His life is the focus of this film, along with the events occurring in the galaxy. Obi-Wan, Padme, Yoda, Mace, none of them need to develop as characters. We learn more about all of them, which is sufficient, but they don't need to change during the course of the film! No way. That type of assumption is simply flawed.

Anyhow, a lot of your points are, well, what can I say. They are quite good for what YOU would have done had this been your movie. Your way would have probably worked well too, but let's just say I love the way Lucas does it and I'm much happier seeing his work on screen than anyone else's; it's his saga, as cliched as that may be.

It's great you are really into writing. Writing, besides Star Wars, is probably my biggest passion. At 17, I wrote most of "Anticipation: The Real Life Story of Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace," which I finished just a few months after I turned 18. Within two months of that (amazingly quickly), I signed with Richard Curtis and his company, Richard Curtis Associates, Inc. of New York, New York. He is, as you might figure, a literary agent. He also represents Leonard Maltin, who has personally endorsed my first book. It, nonetheless, remains unpublished after nine rejections. Still, I am young, I have much time, and my third book is soon to start (the second one is undergoing a waiting period as I try to secure some interviews with people who are, let's say, hard to reach).

I became a professional writer at 17 also, when I wrote for a few online organizations for fairly good pay, especially for my experience (0 experience at the time pretty much). That helped me a great deal, although looking back at my writ

 

okay I haven't read this whole thread. Kudos to anyone who has, but I wanted to adress a couple things and hopefully they've not been adressed yet or haven't been in a while. Mainly the skipping of Naboo.

I sort of agree that this is a good idea as I can see the logic behind it. It gives them something to actually DO. The problem is that, like any change, it sends ripples throughout the rest of the script that would then ALSO have to be changed. For instance, if you have Anakin just deciding to go to Tatoine against orders right off the bat you've got a big problem on your hands: Padme. There's no way she would go along with it and if you make Anakin go anyway you either split them up or he just about has to hold her captive. The first option leaves you NO time for a love story and the second option puts your love story in an even greater hole than it's already in.


So maybe if you had the council give Anakin carte blanche on HOW he protects her and where he decides to take her. That way he would have the "mandate" and could bring her with him to Tatooine. It's a good place to hide as Naboo and you could use the same line that Padme uses on him. He used to live here. He knows it very well. It would only make sense to try and find his mother while he's there. I think that also serves to make Anakin more calculating. Padme's complaint would the be just against the Jedi council that's making her hide rather than against Anakin who is only following orders.

Maybe you could even keep their destination hidden from the audience at least and maybe even Padme doesn't know where they're headed. Play it as a mystery. Where are we going? This, I beleive, would make it more of a *moment* when they arrive on Tatooine. You don't even have to show the ship approaching the planet. Just play the landing off from INSIDE the freighter or whatever so we don't know where we are. We open the doors ... and walk out into Mos Eisely Space Port.

Another thing that might've helped to give some zing to the falling in love scenes is to have Anakin actually protecting Padme in some way, shape, or form. This is supposed to be his job but he never really does anything except stand watch. Just keep the assasination threat alive in some way. I mean maybe it's not Palpatines intention that she actually die, but I don't see any real reason she couldn't stay and hide somewhere on Coruscant popping up for the vote and then disappearing again. Hiding on Coruscant, of course, would not be desireable from a story perspective and so I think it's important to invent a threat to get her to actually leave.

It seems to me once the first chase with Zam is over the threat on Padme's life is all but non-existant. Creating some vague, unspecified threat that's STILL after her might also serve us well in a later scene where we could enjoy some action and at the same time put Anakin into rescue mode again. Witness Padme's reaction when she wakes up in bed after Anakin's chopped up the centipede things. A few more showstopping moments like this from Anakin and it might be very easy for one to beleive that Padme has fallen in love with him. Heck, it would even play into mythic archetypes. It would be generally the same way Knights and Queens fell in love in Arthurian romances.

And not really loose anything that's in there now. I have some other things I'd fix as a writer, but that's enough for now I think. Just trying to fix the "kidnapping Padme" problem that occured to me when the suggestion was made to cut Naboo.

-JWAC

 

JWAC,

I like your input on the idea of keeping the assination threat alive. Even a little line like in Empire. "Those Bounty Hunters we ran into on Ord Mandel(spelling) changed my mind" - Han

Your right it would have been good to have run into another assasin. I think the plans for Padme and the Jedi were seperate. I think Sidious and Dooku really did want her dead because her influence. Being the first victim of the tensions in the Galaxy, and being the leader who explelled the Trade Federation. She was very respected in the Senate.

I'm not sure if I read right the woman who was picking apart the Love scene in Empire. I think that was so much better done than the one in AOTC. I wasn't against a love story. Like one critic said "we didn't get Luke and Leia from the two of them holding hands." So it was necessary. But is was more lifetime than good drama. That is what I didn't like.

Han and Leia sparred like good lovers often do. I dated a lawer once, and I'm just a military guy. She was the best verbal sparring partner I had. We would give eachother ***t all the time. People would look at us and not know what to make of it. That is the way Han and Leia are. Plus Leia was a little bit torn. After all she was raised and princess and while war may tear down some sensibilities, it was probably hard for her to remove herself from her upbringing and actually give her heart to a career space pirate.

There arguments over Lando had nothing to do with her feelings for Han, they were just couple spats. Han probably more or less agreed with her anyway, he was just trying to be optomistic.

Leia: can you trust him?
Han: No. He's got no love for the empire though.

So even then he knew that it was a last option.

The "I know line" was classic. And if what I have read is true, it just goes to re-affirm my belief that GL should stay out of the directors chair and remain the creative influence. Harrison Ford is a master of improv. Take the scene he whips the gun out on the swordsman in Raiders. That was total improv and the took it. GL is notorious for not allowing the actors to do any of that. He had yelling matches with both Ford and Fischer in ANH.

Anyway back to my point. The SW timelines. We only have so much movie and alot of things happen in between. The time it probably took for Anakin and Padme to Reach naboo and some small time refugee space frieghter. Probably days. So I'm sure they had a lot to talk about.

ok, enough rambling from me

 

Sorry if this has been covered. I'm still reading this long and
brilliant thread.

I'm not a writer or interested in writing. I'm a gamer, and
interested in plots and characters from that point of view. This
won't make a difference in this post, which is about what I
wouldn't change. (Except that character development is often
an optional extra in adventure games, and I have internalised
that attitude.) But it will make a big difference later in what I
think should have been different and why.

--

I liked the Obi-Wan Kenobi side of the story. I don't agree that
his lack of character development is a flaw. First, this is space
opera. Second, events follow a logical course.

* Obi-Wan Kenobi begins by recalling a situation where Annakin
saved him. This looks like it's Obi-Wan bucking up Annakin,
and it is. But mainly it's Obi-Wan defining what he wants in the
relationship: backup when he, Obi-Wan Kenobi, adventures and
gets into trouble. He wants to star, and nurture a comrade.

* Annakin immediately and always rejects this role. He must
star, and he undercuts Obi-Wan Kenobi badly, in public, and
often. The relationship between the two characters deteriorates
steadily, as Annakin Skywalker never gives Obi-Wan what he
wants.
After Obi-Wan Kenobi has reminded Annakin Skywalker of his
duty to support him:
Annakin Skywalker: "Why?"
Obi-Wan Kenobi: "What!?"
On that rock, this master-pupil relationship must and will be
wrecked.

* When the Jedi Council split up the master and pupil, Obi-Wan
doesn't protest: he figures he'll do all the keen bits of the
adventure himself, and he pretty well does. Fir the first time
(since he went directly from being Qui-Gon Jinn's pupil to
Annakin's teacher) he does the hero thing unimpeded, and he
loves it. He really blossoms. (Though he suffers from lack of
backup. Even the bounty hunter Jango Fett has a loyal kid to
back him up, a telling contrast.)

* But, at the finish line against Dooku, it's the relationship that
counts. It immediately collapses, as Annakin Skywalker goes it
alone, and Obi-Wan Kenobi is forced to relive the disaster of the
heroes splitting up against Darth Maul. In the duel, he does
everything right, but he's not special enough, and never can be.
This time he can't pull it out. Only Yoda saves him.

* Conclusion: for Obi-Wan, being the hero rather than the
teacher leads ultimately to defeat. In future, he'll be more
ready to be the relatively self-effacing man who teaches Luke.
We don't see the change in _Attack Of The Clones_. But I'm
prepared to live with that. The problems are with the other side
of the story.

 

"There doesn't NEED to be ANY character development in ANY movie!"

Well, there I can't agree with you at all. Even in a story of limited scope, the events involved (if they're significant enough to base a story on) can and should influence the characters they affect.

To illustrate the point, consider First Blood, and its lesser progeny, Under Siege.

The character of John Rambo (yes, I'm psychoanalyzing Rambo--bear with me ) begins the film as a drifter, the last surviving member of a Green Beret division cut loose after Vietnam. Running afoul of a local sheriff--who books him on no greater charge than returning to town after being kicked out--and brutalized by the nastier members of the sheriff's posse, Rambo breaks out of jail and retreats to the nearby woods, where he re-enacts his guerilla warrior days against the police and national guard.

At first, Rambo is somewhat frightened by his circumstances, going so far as to attempt to give himself up to stop the chaos. The sheriff is out for blood, however, and pushes Rambo to the point where, rather than continue to run, the soldier begins to actively fight back. (Berated by his former commanding officer for fighting against civilians, he protests, "They drew first blood.")

By the film's climax, Rambo has taken the offensive, and goes on a hugely destructive (albeit nonlethal) rampage through town in an attempt to flush the sheriff out. At this point, he's completely self-assured; he's convinced himself of what he has to do.

However, just as he has the sheriff at his steadily waning mercy, his ex-commanding officer appears to talk him out of murder. At this point, Rambo's circumstances and pent-up emotions boil over, and he suffers a nervous breakdown, first shouting about what he's lost, then sobbing out a stream-of-consciousness story about his buddies.

In the end, Rambo's commander escorts him off to military prison; whatever may happen to him next, he's had a release of some kind, and may someday be able to get on with a normal life.

Now for Under Siege.

Steven Seagal's character, a knife-throwing, gun-happy, kung fu-fighting Navy cook, has his boat taken over by terrorists. He kills them. Without blinking. The end.

By giving a character significant personal choices to make, and a personal journey to follow, the character grows deeper, and allows the audience to know and care more. Only good can come of this.

 

Hi. Im writing a story. and Im looking for someone who can help me with a few scenes-most of them are ground battles & Space battles. Thanx. Pm me.


EDIT: and also a Duel.

 

Up

 

I love the story and I love the characters. I believe that Anakin and Padme love eachother - but Im not moved by their love for eachother. I should feel elated that Padme gives in to her love for Anakin, but instead I feel awkward at the scene.

Why should you feel elated they are in love. We KNOW how it's going to end. In tears. If this relationship were built more on lust it would make sense. If they are hot for each other, well, people make stupid decisions for lust.

But she is going to have to lie to him in the future, either about the number of children she has, or about having children at all.

I dunno.

 

Just registered, but have been reading the topics a while and this thread impresses me with the level of intelligence and observation of AOTC. I have only read the first 5 pages of posts on this thread, but I had to post something and I apologize if someone has already said this.

2 main things:

1. A lot of what people are finding wrong with the final cut seems to grow out of what was cut from the screenplay. The whole point of Naboo was to introduce Padme's non-politcal side, i.e. family life and their feelings and opinions towards her as well as their observations of Anakin. Also, Naboo is there to bring Anakin and Padme and is the central stage of their courtship, which I will address later. By cutting the family scenes, the casual observer is not "shown" the other side of Padme, the emotional, feminine family side. If these scenes were shown, then you could understand her clothes while on Naboo as a rejection of her official side and embracing her personal identity as Padme Naberrie.

I have also heard about an earlier intro to Dooku. In the original complete screenplay, Jocasta Nu gives a full discussion to Obi-Wan in the library about him, his opinions and idealism, his power and his mysterious personality and departure, which would only have added a certain aura around his character and would have accentuated C.Lee's great performance later in the movie; Plus giving the necessary bridge to the end of the movie.

2. My other comment is about the love story. GL, IMO, is of the traditional breed and wanted to make this love story like it was out of the middle ages, and he wrote it as such. Maybe not so in today's world, but there is a pattern in courtship, which I would venture is as such:

1. Man pursues woman. Anakin cares for her, has feelings for her, and wants to be with her.

2. He seeks to impress her, show his love for her, shows dedication to her and protects her.

3. She puts up resistance to his initial advances in order to test him to see if his intentions are for real and not for physical aims.

4. He continues to pursue her.

5. She gradually reduces resistance as his love is proved. (In her mind)

6. Eventually, they mutually agree on "love."

This general pattern, put into the context of the characters, makes the love story classic and real. Anakin's character is struggling between his commitment to the Jedi and his feelings for Padme. Padme is conflicted between her official side, with its responsibilities and who she is - as Padme, not Senator Amidala. This side feels, has emotions and is the source of her femininity. In other words, it is a battle between the mind (Senator Amidala) and the heart (Padme Naberrie).

And in every scene where they are together these factors play out.
1. The initial meeting, her official, him being initially rejected. (her apartment)

2. He continues, she notices his advances and her mind tells her to reject him (packing scene)

3. They stay official around Obi-Wan and her security because he has to and it is the proper way for him to act as a Jedi. (leaving as refugees)

4. He continues to make known his feelings, which she begins to take more notice of. (On he refugee ship)

5. Their conflict in front of the Queen, shows not anger, but something else at another level, away from the official relationship.

6. They are in the Lake country, away from anything official, and she forgets about her official side. He continues forward and gets a kiss, in which her mind finally comes in and says "stop, you shouldn't be doing this."

7. The atmosphere at the picnic allows them to be more open as she finally begins to ease the barriers between them; the flirting increases and that leads to the dinner scene.

8. During the fireplace scene is really where everything comes to the head. He feels that she has responding enough to proclaim his full feelings for her. And he was right in guessing where her feelings where. Unfortunately for him, her mind will allow her feelings to take over. Her formal words only conveys this

 

to jedi-es

very well though out post. kudos! i felt that the romance scenes horribly hacked away in the cutting room floor. the scenes with padme's family were greatly needed to keep the flow of the romance going. the acting in those scenes with natalie and hayden were brilliant, but some of those lines in the fireplace scene were just ridiculous imho. this scene would have been the scene with the greatest impact as far as the romance goes had it not been for those cliche lines being spat out by anakin. whoever wrote those lines were really out of touch as they were putting it on paper.

i agree with a lot that was stated on your post.

to the author of this thread...

absolutely brilliant. magnificent!
we need more posts like these.

 

I agree we need more threads like these!!!

To Gonk, you wrote:
I should think that would have been obvious: the corruption Palpatine speaks of in TPM that is again referred to by Dooku in his scene with Obi-Wan. Seeing as how none of the characters disputes the the corruption exists, isn't this the assumed reason for the Seperatist group?

#1. What does Dooku say to Obi-Wan about corruption IN THE FILM?

#2. Do you really think that a line about "unseen corruption" is enough to get the audience emotionally drawn into the conflict between the Seperatists and the Republic?

#3. Since you think it should be obvious, please ask ANY non-SW diehard "Why are the Seperatists leaving the Republic?" "Why does the Republic care?" and please write back their responses, I'd love to know.


Hate to do bring up OT AGAIN, but in ANH, we saw the Empire kill people, saw dead Jawas killed by Empire, saw burnt Owen & Beru, saw them blow up a planet, kill Obi-Wan, etc. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE TOLD THE EMPIRE WAS EVIL, WE SAW IT.

And we were told the reason why the Empire was being so evil: they wanted the DS plans back!!!

So it was relatively easy to get emotionally drawn into the struggle. Not as easy this time.

 

There have been some remarkable posts, above, about the family scenes cut out, and, while I haven't read the script from which they were torn, I'd tend to agree with what previous posters have said: they'd certainly be welcome additions to the DVD.

To reorient on the writing of the romance scene, though, I reiterate my admiration for it, even as is. I completely agree with Mr. P, above, who points out with some clarity exactly why there is no other way in which these characters can romance.

Indeed, one of the mysteries to be revealed in EIII is precisely how Obi-Wan will react to Anakin's decision to wed. I would be very surprised if he didn't say something to the effect of, "What can you possibly know of love? You go around speaking in clichés and grand metaphors as if love is something merely professed. It is a commitment as great as your vows to the Jedi Order. You can't have both."

The clichés are deliberate, IMHO.

 

Great post! Although I don't agree with everything you said I admire the fact that you are a person who doesn't just sit back and complain but comes up with some intelligent ways to fix things or make them better in your opinion. I was extremely pleased to read your observations and suggestions.

 

Fitten Trim makes the point:

Hate to do bring up OT AGAIN, but in ANH, we saw the Empire kill people, saw dead Jawas killed by Empire, saw burnt Owen & Beru, saw them blow up a planet, kill Obi-Wan, etc. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE TOLD THE EMPIRE WAS EVIL, WE SAW IT

I think you're missing the overall theme of the PT: evil isn't obvious. Critics have been saying from the release of Episode I that GL has lost the ability to show rather than tell, but they (and, I think, you) aren't seeing what is being shown. This is a creeping and gradual tale in which good becomes evil. The whole reason he did IV-VI first was precisely because they were more accessible stories for the average moviegoers. They had clear-cut lines of good and evil, which is what people are used to seeing. There have been few stories of the transition to evil because it goes entirely against storytelling paradigms--especially in the PG arena. This generality about the plot separates some viewers from their ability to like these films.

But you're missing a specific storytelling point as well. If there were clear-cut evil depicted, how would you explain inaction by the Jedi? I mean, if we had an "enemy"--in the same way that the Empire is in the PT--how would the Jedi be "duped" into anything? They would just attack the Emperor up front and kill him post haste. The PT has to lead us from a point where the Jedi are dominant to where there are only two left--and they're in hiding. The only way to get there, save a dramatically unsatisfying explosion that takes everyone out, is a gradual reveal of evil.

You might think it would be cool to have a black hat/white hat galaxy in the PT, but you just can't have it. It won't work. In such a galaxy, the Jedi could only be killed by being overwhelmed, which reduces their mystic power. For the (majority of the) audience to retain their sense of "Jedi wonder", the Jedi must be depicted as being (temporarily) out-finessed, not only out-fought. Likewise, if evil is clear, then that would mean Anakin unambiguously choses to be evil, rather than joining a cause that's fueled by the Dark Side. That would make him irredeemable. Finally, with black hats flying, the people of the galaxy would be shown choosing evil as the Republic crumbles, which would make them not worth saving.

Everyone has to be deceived by the Emperor, or nothing we've seen in these films makes sense. The problems involved in making the changes you suggest--while they may be correct for a conventional movie--are far worse than anything Ahmed Best's characterization of Jar Jar has visited upon this series.

To put it briefly, if the enemy were obvious in the PT, Star Wars would not be Star Wars.

 

Propp:

The line which dictates the nature of Anakin's descent and his eventual, tragic failure is one which people seem to have - in the main - missed. It's spoken about halfway through the film and is the key to episode 3. It's all there in one short line.

Which line is that?

the fact that Sifo-Dyas went from a red herring to a mysterious Jedi with a backstory points - to me at least - of a very canny Lucas picking up a piece of 'striking imagery' from TPM...

What scene are you referring to?

Just curious.

-tn