AOTC - From a Writer's POV

Darth Skeptical,

While you are entitled to your opinion, I believe their is a MAJOR flaw in your argument. You wrote: "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 TPM, you had the Trade Federation vs. the Naboo. Darth Maul vs. Obi-Wan Kenobi. Droid armies vs. Gungan Armies.

And you want to claim that the PT doesn't have black hat/white hat mentality??? I'm flabbergasted. That IS black hat/white hat. That's what Lucas wrote, not me!

Let's look at AotC. While the film introduces gray in Anakin, the Republic, Obi-Wan, etc... you wouldn't call the Seperatists gray, would you? The droid armies are not gray, the Commerce Guilds are not gray... Lucas presents them as the 'black hat.' They're villains! (Make that 2-dimensional villains). Sidious, Dooku and Jango may be more 3-dimensional characters, but you'd be hard-pressed to call them anything but 'black hat'.

I have no problems with the way Lucas has handled the "grays" of the PT: the Republic, the Jedi, Anakin (save the romance), etc. I do see certain writing flaws in the way he's handled the 'black-hats' of the PT.

But perhaps you'd like to answers those questions I posed to Gonk?

 

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

When Obi-Wan is held captive, Dooku makes mention again of the corruption in the Senate and how he could use Qui-Gon's help in dealing with it. This statement carries over from Palpatine's exposition on it in TPM.

#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?

There's other suggestion as well. There's Obi-Wans doubting in his voiceover within Padme's apartments, and there's Anakin's consistent doubting and mentioning "I don't think the system works".


#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.

I'll get on it.


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.

The Seperatists attempt to kill people. They do a number of assassinations and such. But you know, perhaps we're not seeing them as evil because they're simply NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EVIL. They are greedy merchants and political idealists, not Imperial Nazis. They're very much a mixed bag.

I do remember one person coming out of the theatre though, who I knew and was not a die-hard SW fan. Her comment:

"I don't trust anyone except Yoda and R2!"

 

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.

I do disagree with this one bit, DarthSkeptical. I think the people of the SW galaxy... the public at large... is by
Epsiode III going to be shown as quite fickle. After all, the concept will likely be that the Empire comes to power on the backs of a sweeping majority and it is the minority who take up arms. In some ways this WOULD make them not worth saving... but I think the people the Rebellion fight for seem to be those that are oppressed, not the majority in the interior who do the oppressing. Certainly, those people are also sick of the Empire by the time Epsiode VI comes about, but I think it's a totally different story in III.

 

Sidious, Dooku and Jango may be more 3-dimensional characters, but you'd be hard-pressed to call them anything but 'black hat'.

Sideous is not 3-dimentional at all. Jango and Dooku are, and what, precisely makes them 'black hat'? Because they kill Jedi? Dooku professes a reason for doing so and offers the Jedi an oppertunity to live...would the Emperor or Vader have given them the same option? Tarkin does something like this, but whereas Dooku actually shuts his droids down when he doesn't have to, Tarkin makes only the presumption of doing something like this to get the information he wants, and then goes about his evil action anyway.

And Jango... there is more than enough onscreen to suggest that Jango is not a true 'black hat'. Real black hats have few if any redeeming qualities. What does Jango have? He's a father, for one-- and he's not as bloodthirsty as Maul, for second. It's rather clear by the conversation in the Slave I cockpit that Jango is at ease with disabling Kenobi rather than killing him ("Doesn't take the hint, this guy..."). He certainly kills when he has to, but certainly you don't hear from either Dooku or Sideous anything like "Wipe them out. All of them."

In essence, 3d characters are never really black-hat characters becuase black-hat characters are almost always 2d. So I think your statement is in itself a contridiction.

After all, the true 'black hats' in the end reside in the Republic, not the Seperatists. The seperatists are the decoy threat, mostly grey hats who are either cowardly, greedy, idealistic, or fatherly bounty hunters.

 

wow

 

Wow?

 

I think he was awed by your cranial (is this even a word?) capacity.

 

I call Sidious more 3-dimensional because he's also Palpatine, ya know?

"Dooku professes a reason for doing so and offers the Jedi an oppertunity to live...would the Emperor or Vader have given them the same option?"
Didn't Vader give the same option to Luke in ESB? And Vader in ESB was a complete black hat villain.

"3d characters are never really black-hat characters becuase black-hat characters are almost always 2d. So I think your statement is in itself a contridiction." I couldn't disagree more. In ANH and ESB, the audience is presented with 3d characters of Vader and Tarkin, but they're both 'black hat' terrible villains. Think of the greatest villains in film/book history: they're all well-rounded characters.


Of course, we've gotten off on this tanget because I believe that Lucas has created poorly-written/under-written villains in TPM's TF and AotC's Seperatists. That makes the central drama of the heroes conflicts with these villains weak.


But I should say that I definately agree with this statement, "the concept will likely be that the Empire comes to power on the backs of a sweeping majority and it is the minority who take up arms."

 

DarthLascivious
beautifull
did lucas recruited u for EpIII ?
no ? well he should !

anyway i think the love-story doesnt work good because Portman is a bad actress (at least for a SW movie) they should have take at least some 1 who is a SW fan(if not a huge fan) for that role
a pretty face isnt everything (as we know by now )
she doesnt make hayden look good
but since she was good enough for Ep I
Lucas had to bare with her for this Ep aswell

for the Obi part :
well its Obi !
and i love his acting
hes perfect

again thx for hours of reading this topic , it was 1 of the best i saw here so far

mtfbwy

 

I call Sidious more 3-dimensional because he's also Palpatine, ya know?

Actually he's not as I see it, but even if he was, he wouldn't be 3-dimensional. What makes him three-dimenional one way or the other? Because he's a workaholic mastermind that wormed his way through the political system does NOT make him 3-dimensional. Dimensions of a character have to do with thier mental state: of Palpatine we know practically nothing because if Sid = Palp (or just Sid), he's lying all the time. If he's lying all the time, we aren't really getting any true sense of character. He would have to afforded at least one truthful soliloquy. Now, if it were just Palp, we would have more than enough to make him 3-dimensional because it would make his remarks in TPM the truth, at least by intent. But the evil mastermind? No. Absolutely not. It would be like saying Gruella DeVille is a 3-dimensional character. In fact, DeVille is MORE 3-dimensional, because she at least has a psychological fetish. Sideous or Sideous = Palpatine has only an obscure love of power in general.


Didn't Vader give the same option to Luke in ESB? And Vader in ESB was a complete black hat villain.

No he wasn't. Absolutely not. He ceases to be the black-hat villian at that very moment. All of the sudden, he ceases his diatribe of "Stop at nothing" and starts to speak of Justifications like Dooku: Bringing ORDER to the galaxy, having his son join with him. The body language too, changes. Instead of wagging fingers he starts carrying himself more forlornly. Things like his arm dropping like a dead weight right after he sees Luke make that plunge.


I couldn't disagree more. In ANH and ESB, the audience is presented with 3d characters of Vader and Tarkin, but they're both 'black hat' terrible villains. Think of the greatest villains in film/book history: they're all well-rounded characters.

I definately disagree with that. There's absolutely nothing in ANH that makes either of them well-rounded. Tarkin is simply a bureaucrat, through and through. There's absolutely nothing that distinguishes him. He's defined by the goals of the Empire. He has no hint of inner conflict, no hint of inner psychosis, nothing. Vader too, shows little if anything. The only thing that makes him stand out is his desire to kill Kenobi, and the sort of working relationship he and Tarkin have, which is really nothing approching 3-dimensional. Vader becomes 3-dimensional later on after we know who he is, but until then he's simply a visual piece. Art decor. A geiger painting. He's like the creature from alien with witty evil dialogue.


Of course, we've gotten off on this tanget because I believe that Lucas has created poorly-written/under-written villains in TPM's TF and AotC's Seperatists. That makes the central drama of the heroes conflicts with these villains weak.

I for one think they're actually better written, but they're not precisely villians in the common sense of the term.


But I should say that I definately agree with this statement, "the concept will likely be that the Empire comes to power on the backs of a sweeping majority and it is the minority who take up arms."

Coolio.

 

Up!

 

Up!

 

I just love your insight.

Great read.

Prescription? Again, cut Naboo. That?s where all the real trouble is. We could avoid all the sitting and keep the heroes moving, giving them some more to do. To put it simply.

I believe that this was a waste in the film. If you go back and look at the previous movies Lucas only uses a maximum of three planets, or locations per movie.

ANH - Tatooine, Death Star, Yavin
TESB - Hoth, Dagobah, Besbin
ROTJ - Tantoone, Dagobah/Death Star, Endor

TPM - Naboo, Tatooine, Coruscant
AOTC - Coruscant, Naboo, Kamino, Tatooine, Geonosis

The film suffered with the extra planets. At the very least cut Naboo. All it really serves is a place for Sio Bibble to give us an update on Nute Gunray.

Being a writer myself, and after reading the internet screenplay and the one in the Art Of Book I was disapointed in the film overall.

 

I've gotten inspired again to discuss the writing, but the other topic about writing seems much more mean-spirited & personal, so I've relaunched this more respectful thread.

Watched the film last night, re-writing it in my head. Not drasticly: I don't think AotC needs to be ripped apart and started over from scratch, but little things. A few more lines, here and there. A changing of a line, here and there. A change of delivery, here.

In Palpatine's Office...:
#1. Padme says she believes Count Dooku is behind the attack... but gives no reason for this belief, not even after the Jedi tell her they don't think Dooku's involved.

#2. This could be accomplished with Padme's line about why she thinks the Seperatists are behind the attack, but Lucas desperately needed to explain why the Seperatists are leaving, and why that's bad!!! Not ONCE in the entire film is the Seperatist's motive explained. Yes, Dooku mentions corruption in his scene with Obi-Wan, but please. If the conflict between the Republic and Seperatists is important, Lucas had to set up WHY its important!

#3. Add a line to clarify that Padme was going to vote AGAINST the creation of an army. Strangely, the "vote about creating an army" is barely in the movie: the opening scroll, a throwaway line in the Jedi Council, and one line in Padme's bedroom "I'm the leader of the opposition." If the vote and Amidala's position are important to the story. You've got to address them. Based on Lucas' edit of AotC, the vote isn't important, then why not cut it entirely?

#4.In the novelization, it's described that Palpy is banging his hand down on his desk as he says "I will not let this Republic be split in two." The banging of the hand is meant to show the passion behind this. But on screen, Lucas directs it with Palps in his chair, not moving, not showing any outward emotion. But that's directing, so I'll just move on...

In AMIDALA'S apartment...

#1. Obi doesn't want to investigate, Ani wants to overstep the mandate and investigate. This is meant to show that Ani breaks the rules. Yet later, the Jedi Council apparently agrees with Ani and thinks Obi should investigate. So was Ani right and Obi wrong? This bit of confusing logic may seem like a minor thing on the surface, but IMHO it shows the true heart of Lucas' writing in the prequels. Everything is muddied (and no, I don't believe Lucas is doing it on purpose!)

#2. Cut Ani's line about "It was Padme's idea" to use her as bait. The story's set so that "Padme barely recognized me, she doesn't remember me" yet in an instant (not shown on camera), Ani and Amidala have a secret plan formed behind Obi-Wan's back??? Just have it be Ani's plan... because he and Padme haven't come together yet.

Romance
#1. - CUT NABOO. Sure, it painted a pretty backdrop... yes, anybody could see two people falling in love in such a romantic setting... BUT outside of that, Naboo provided NOTHING to the story, and to include it, Lucas had to insert loads of exposition. All the same romantic situations scenes could take place on the shuttle or on Tatooine.

#2. Smooth out the transitions. I've written before about how in one scene Ani&Padme are fighting and in the next they're flirting... and how Lucas didn't provide any transitions?!? Example of one simple line change that connects the dots:

Padme: Are you going to use one of your Jedi Mind tricks on me?
Ani: How can I? I'm not a Jedi yet, remember?

This provides a nice wink, IE: yes, these two flirting kids are the same people you just saw in a confrontation.

OBI-WAN'S INVESTIGATION

Obi-Wan needs a sidekick. The story of the clones is generally well-thought out:

The senate's about to vote to create an army not realizing that an army has already been created... Senator Padme's doesn't want an army and the bounty hunter trying to kill her is the source of clone army, just waiting

 

Where you at Gonk?

 

I think Lucas did a fine job for the most part with AOTC's script. But there is one thing that I just thought of that might have improved the film. Anakin and Obi-Wan should have been introduced in action, rather than just standing in an elevator waiting to meet Padme. It wouldn't have to be a long scene - just them fighting their way out of some situation (the border dispute on Ansion?) before returning to Coruscant.
If we saw one of them rescue the other from some dire situation (rather than just hear about Anakin falling into a nest of gundarks) it would cement their relationship in the same way as the opening of ESB, where Han saves Luke after he is attacked by the wampa. A sequence like that wouldn't be strictly relevant to the plot, but it would add a lot of character development, IMO. Granted, we do get to see a bit of Anakin and Obi-Wan's friendship and how they work as Jedi during the Zam Wesell chase scene, but I didn't feel that was quite enough as they spend almost the entire rest of the movie apart (and barely interacted in TPM either, for that matter).
Basically, there's nothing I'd really want to cut out of AOTC (apart from trimming some of the dialogue, especially the fireplace scene) but there's definitely things I'd like to see added. Unfortunately, the law of economics seems to preclude a three hour Star Wars film.

 

In response to Fitten Trim's last post, though I don't have anything to add to this current discussion, I want to clarify one fact from your last post. It is not that Obi-wan doesn't want to investigate, it's that they have been ordered to investigate by the Jedi Council. They are there only as bodyguards ("we will need excede our mandate"). So it does show Obi-Wan as following the rules (his orders) and being a good Jedi, and does show Anakin willing to break the rules, especially for Padme.

 

#1. - CUT NABOO. Sure, it painted a pretty backdrop... yes, anybody could see two people falling in love in such a romantic setting... BUT outside of that, Naboo provided NOTHING to the story, and to include it, Lucas had to insert loads of exposition. All the same romantic situations scenes could take place on the shuttle or on Tatooine.

Ok, I feel a bit nervous about even saying this, since so many people seem to agree that Naboo should have been cut and that Ani and Padme should have been on Tatooine in the first place...

BUT Anakin is forbidden to go to Tatooine isnt he? If they had gone to Tatooine in the first place, the whole significance of the balcony scene after the dream, where he is obviously struggling with love vs duty would be gone...he has to have a good enough reason to go to tatooine, and breaking the rules to save his mother is a very good reason, something most people would have done.

This is my take on it...correct me if I'm wrong.

 

There are two sides to the story.

I gave my opinion on the Obi-Wan Kenobi side in a previous post. I think George Lucas got it right. Obi-Wan Kenobi shows he wants to adventure more than he wants to teach his pupil. We see he does his adventure, and he blossoms. But he pays the logical price: he loses his pupil. There is a sharp conflict and contrast with Jango Fett, whose relationship with his pupil is as good as the relationship between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Annakin Skywalker is bad. Bravo!

The other side of the story doesn't work so well. In my opinion, small touches won't fix this. The character of Padme Amidala needs a rewrite, and the story should go different places.

We are told Padme Amidala is a politician, the leader of the galactic opposition, dedicated to the defeat of the bill to create an army, and dedicated to her duty. I don't believe this, because I don't see it. She's called a politician, but she never uses the skill. We hear she's dedicated to her duty, but instead she goes on a picnic. (In _The Phantom Menace_, as queen, she returned her planet, which was being conquered by her enemies. That's how you show someone is dedicated to their duty!) We don't see her interacting with people as the driving force of the galactic opposition to an army creation bill. All up, Padme Amidala is out of character and/or incoherent.

Also, she is a major character, and her agenda should drive the story to a large extent.

In my opinion, Padme Amidala should need to be pushed harder to get her off planet, and the instant she's off Coruscant, she should change the itinerary to someplace exciting and dangerous that she wants to go to raise support for the opposition, trade favours and debts for votes, or otherwise pursue her political aim. She should negotiate, bribe, bluff, vamp or otherwise manipulate everyone in her path, specifically including Annakin Skywalker, so do what she thinks her duty as Senator requires. And this should somehow lead her and Annakin Skywalker to Tatooine.

This means a romance on the move, in danger, with Padme seducing Annakin, while (a) not realising just how far she's taking him into obsession, (b) being guilty about what she's doing, and (c) losing control, as "the hunter gets captured by the game".

If you advertise a character as being a big deal at what they do, in this case politics, you should deliver. If you want to deliver a pretty girl who likes picnics, nice clothes and going on adventures, OK, advertise that. But make up your mind. One way or another, the character should be rebuilt.

Comments?

 

Interesting. I remember one of the first reviews I read of AOTC's screenplay (over a year ago, I think) said that it involved a personal journey for the four main characters. I guess you could say Obi-Wan went on a journey literally, and Anakin began his journey to the dark side. Did Padme have a journey? And who was this mysterious fourth character? Jar Jar?

I think AOTC's strongest story element is the sense of mystery. I've heard many people complain that there isn't a clear villain, and Palpatine's machinations are too far in the background. But isn't that the point? It reminds me of a line from The Godfather Part III - "Our true enemy has yet to be revealed"
When Palpatine does step forward and become the Emperor in Episode III, it will be a devestating moment, especially for the Jedi who trusted him. I can't wait.

 

Love everyone's comments, even if I don't happen to agree 100% with all of them. But I did want to chip in on certain points that people have made:

David Blue wrote:

We are told Padme Amidala is a politician, the leader of the galactic opposition, dedicated to the defeat of the bill to create an army, and dedicated to her duty. I don't believe this, because I don't see it

As I stated earlier, when I re-watched the movie again recently, I was shocked to discover that the audience wasn't really told she was leader of the galactic opposition, dedicated to the defeat of the bill. This information is BARELY in the film. I can only assume that we people on this board assume it was in the movie because we know the story so well. So in actuality, not only is the Padme's position not shown/demonstrated in the film... its barely talked about!?!


I definately agree with Darth Homer's post of "AOTC's strongest story element is the sense of mystery." My only thought after watching the film 3 times, is that it would be even stronger if Lucas gave the audience more insight into Obi's thoughts.

In literary fiction, Agatha Christie always gave her top two detectives (Miss Marple, Hercule Periot) partners. Sherlock Holmes had Dr. Watson, etc. Through discussions with their partners, the reader was able to gain insight into the detective's mind/thought process. In literary works, where the detective works alone: Michael Connelly, Hammett, etc. the author writes long passages describing the thoughts of their main detectives. The author of the AotC novelization did this for Obi-Wan.

In films, when the main detective isn't given an on-screen partner (Maltese Falcon, Chinatown, Silence of the Lambs), the main detective is often given multiple interogation scenes, through which the audience is given insight about the detective and the investigation.

Turning to AotC, the best scene in the "Obi-Wan investigation" story is his scene with Jango Fett. While he never states what he's thinking, the audience is given a very clear understanding of Obi-Wan's thoughts: "Jango is the bounty hunter I'm looking for, but I don't want to tip him off." The subtext and insight into Obi's thought process is perfect.

Sadly, it rarely happens any other time in the film. When ObiWan speaks via hologram with Mace and Yoda, he isn't given a chance to voice his opinion on the mysterious clone army, Master Sifo-Dyas, etc. Other scenes deal strictly with the discovery of facts (the source of the toxic dart, the disappearance of Kamino, the discovery of the clones, the discovery of the pact between the Trade Guilds and the Seperatists) we never hear Obi-Wan's opinions on them or conclusions/assumptions that Obi-Wan has made upon discovering these facts.

So in the end, we're given a story about a detective's investigation... but never given the conclusions that the detective made about his investigation!


As I've said, this is the best part of the movie, but I think giving the audience more insight into Obi-Wan's thought process would have made this story even better.

 

Hi, Fitten trim.

I only know what I see in the movies, and I haven't been a real
Star Wars fan till now. (I do have a couple of Dorling Kindersly
books on _The Phantom Menace_, and I will see any film
featuring Ray Park, who in that case played Darth Maul, but
I'm not someone who follows the books, buys the comics and so
on.)

The point of _The Attack Of The Clones_ is the Army of the
Republic. This is what is said in the opening yellow writing, so I
looked for anything to do with that. (And the end of the film
showed the yellow writing was right. Yoda tells us so too.) The
rest of the story should orient around that.

After a while, we learn that the army is already built, so the
real fight is over the authority to use it. Politicians are the key.

I knew who the bad guy was, only from _The Phantom Menace_.
We don't see the bad guy's interest in this till late in the film.

Information on the political opposition barely exists, but if
you're looking hard for it, as I was, you see some. The
opposition is Padme Amidala. Nobody in the film helps her. Of
course that's not how a real political opposition can ever work,
but for a film it is dramatic. One hero alone fights for what's
right, and wins heroically (hooray) or fails tragically (sob).

The leaders of the political fight foe and against the Army of
the Republic should be the key figure of the film. Everyone else,
like Obi-Wan Kenobi, is or should be adding weight to one side of
the scales or another (or taking away weight from the other
guy's side.

The bad guy's flunky helps him, as he should, but in an indirect
way. And we don't see him till to late in the film.

The Jedi find things out, but never tell anybody who's in on the
fight, so who cares what they know. (They're like detectives in
a courtroom drama, but they don't bother to tell the hero
attorney what they find.) And the leader of the opposition,
allegedly a top politician and dedicated to her duty, is neither.
She's a pretty girl who likes nice clothes, picnics, and outdoor
adventures. She should be on a dating show.

The bad guys win, effectively unopposed. That's how it looks to
me.

This is why I recommend a total rewrite of Padme Amidala and
her side of the story,

PS.

_The Phantom Menace_ was better in this respect. Who was to
be Chancellor of the Republic mattered. Padme Amidala was
tricked and manipulated into betraying her true friend,
Chancellor Velorum, and getting her secret enemy, Senator
Palpatine, the top job. When it happened, it was a real conflict,
and it was personal. There were tears in her eyes. And I felt for
her, even though she was doing what I knew to be the wrong
thing. That's how it should be, in my opinion. The hero queen
was on the job, and losing (big time) did not make her less the
heroine, because she tried her heart out. Isn't that how writers
are supposed to arrange things?

 

I don't remember Padme crying in TPM

 

I think it was the scene where she realized that Jar Jar was her only hope!

 

Sorry if this is a double post. My previous posting of this seems
not to have registered on the board.

DarthHomer, you're right: there was no weepy scene in the
Senate in _The Phantom Menace_. What I should have said
simply and literally was that Queen Amidala was there, visibly
stressed and unhappy, and fully engaged with the conflict.

Please don't let a silly mistake in a PS distract you from my
main point: in _Attack Of The Clones_, Padme Amidala and her
side of the story need a complete re-write. The politician should
do political stuff. The woman of duty should attend to the main
issue (announced in her own agenda and at the beginning and
end of the movie). The strong character should drive the action
in her part of the story.

I want the goods the movie announces. Here is the issue, says
the yellow writing. Here is the leader of the opposition, says the
script. Yet Padme Amidala neither leads nor opposes. I say she
should do both, heroically, leading to dramatic conflict.