Did anyone not like the story of TPM?

Thats what I like about you Patrick, you are willing to discuss this with someone like me.

I don't want you to see my responses as some sort of attack. Obviously, I see a lot of good in TPM that you don't agree with me on.

I merely offer my point of veiw to contrast.

 

MORMEGIL: "I want to reiterate something from another thread that I posted about taking things personally... Stop taking things personally."

Go-Mer: I haven't been taking things personally. I am not sure why you feel that. Is it simply because I don't lick your boots every time you have a critique of this fine film?

MORMEGIL: "Stop taking my - and others' - personal opinions personally. Go-Mer, you asked for evidence, and I gave it, in broadened terms."

Go-Mer: So you have "evidence" as to why your opinion is Justified? I wasn't asking for that I was merely asking you to support your request for less Jar-Jar and more adult fare by asking you to elaborate. Obviously, you can't articulate anything other than coming up with broad generalizations. I have heard it all in the 3 years I have been here. People want more Maul, more Obi-Wan, more info on the Jedi order, more, more, more... But they don't seem to know what it is they want beyond "more". Your comments seem to fall within this line of reasoning. It is almost like the "obscene" argument. People say they can't define what is "obscene", but they know it when they see it. Unlike You, I beleive Patrick happens to think about this quite a bit more. I wasn't insinuating he hadn't. I just wanted to better understand the stance. I may disagree with it after hearing more detail, but I am not "condemning" or "crucifying" it. There is nothing I can ever do to -make- you change your mind. That is still up to you. If you see me as an unbalanced, "accepts anything no matter how bad" kind of guy, well that is your call.

MORMEGIL: "You think it's a personal blow to you that I think JJ needs to walk away and die."

Go-Mer: I think it is a blow to SW fandom, and the human race at large. I was always of the opinion that SW fans listened to Yoda about fear anger and hate. It saddened me to see how many indulge in hate on a daily basis, even over their own fanship. I don't take it personally. I just feel bad for you.

MORMEGIL: "But we've said what we don't like. I've also given CONCRETE examples of what could have gone in its place. If you want a play by play, I have not the time nor the inclination that Patrick Russel claims not to have (LOL) to sit here and give you a play by play."

Go-Mer: So once again, you have been able to point to things in the film you didn't like, and your suggestion would be to replace that with more stuff you would like? And you can't even get into specifics? How can this dialogue get Lucas to make things better for you in the next one, if you can't be bothered to articulate what it is you want? The only thing you seem to know for sure is what you don't want. Which is fine. Nothing wrong with that. Not everyone will be a fan of TPM. Just as not everyone is a fan of the other films in the series.

MORMEGIL: "We are left with the burden of proof here, kinda like a DA. Where the problem lies is that this is not a court, and you are not the judge."

Go-Mer: Never said I was. Well now that you mention it, I am the judge as far as what makes a good SW film to ME. Only you can decide that for yourself.

MORMEGIL: "You, being engaged in a discourse, are, by gentlemen's law, left to your imagination to say, "Yes, perhaps Jar-Jar was a little overboard there. Yes, perhaps someone would think that the movie was aimed entirely at kids, while the die-hard, long lived fans were seemingly left to deal with it. Yes, the movie could have been adjusted to fit all ages with no love lost. I can see their points, though I disagree. I can use my imagination to put myself in their places."

Go-Mer: I can understand the philosophy. Some of you refuse to share this saga with the very kids it was always intended for. Sure, I admit, TPM has some of the most "kiddie friendly" elements so far in the saga. I don't have blinders on or anything. But then again, TPM has some of the more adult themes of the saga with it's political setups and behind the scenes manipulations. The kiddie elements are there to balance that out. Also, I feel this is appropriate because t

 

Patrick,

I have no problem with your dislike of TPM - all kinds of people dislike the film, and I think it's perfectly understandable. Different people have different tastes; it's a fact of life. My only problem is that you have characterized (in the initial post that I responded to) the people who do like TPM as immature and uncritical, at best. I just don't understand this line of reasoning. We all have an opinion about the Phantom Menace, and all of our opinions are equally valid. Liking or disliking the film is not indicative of personality trait x, y, or z. It is a simple opinion about a film. This is what I was trying to get across; sorry if it didn't make sense.

That said, does anyone else see the parallels between TPM and the beginning chapter(s) of LOTR, or am I out in left field on this one? I mean, both are light-hearted and playful in tone, especially when contrasted with the later "chapters" of the story. The difference is like night and day. My only point is that we shouldn't expect TPM to be as "adult" and "dark" as ANH or ESB, simply because at the beginning of many good adventure stories the tone is light and somewhat "juvenile" so that it can change and progress as the more serious events in the story unfold.

I'm not trying to imply that if you disliked TPM, then you are wrong. I'm simply suggesting that there is a perfectly legitimate and time-honored reason for TPM's "kiddie elements."

 

Mormegil,

Your imagination will not reach to something better. With all this in mind, I think you should take a hit for the team (human race) and kill yourself. You couldn't improve an omelet. I think your narrow-minded view of the movie, ie you were handed it and accepted it, is counter to any progress or evolutionary demand that might crop up. You may have earned a JJDF Navy Cross with this thread, but I'm setting you up for a Purple Heart.

Perhaps you're not aware, but generally we use animated faces to suggest sarcasm within a post (such as ).

In the event that you were aware of that, and meant the above quote seriously, then you really need to lay off the personal attacks. Go-Mer is just a guy telling us what he thought about a movie, for god's sake! The people who post on these boards are real people, and they have genuine feelings. You cannot absolve yourself of responsibility by admonishing Go-Mer to not take your comments so personally while you simultaneously make tasteless and violent remarks like the one above.

Just relax, man. It's only Star Wars.

 

Just relax, man. It's only Star Wars.


Go-Mer, that line was written for you.

 

Geez, if your count to count lines how many lines did Obi Wan have in AHN?

TPM had multiple main characters, imo the two actual main characters hade a small amount of screen time - Anakin and Padme. Even though they dont' have the most screen time the two stories taking place in the movie are THEIR stories. (Not Jar Jar's).

 

I already know that Stone-Jedi, there are others here who expect it to be more than that. Me, I am one of the most relaxed SW fans there are.

 

Go-Mer, are you wanting specific ideas of "more" and "less" from fellows other than Patrick_Russell and Mormegil? Just wondering. I hope you don't find discussion with me tiring, either.

And Mormegil... you should watch what you say. That's highly uncool to say things like that. I don't think I ever agree with Go-Mer on anything about TPM (except that it was made by George Lucas), but I've never said he should kill himself.

 

I'm so dangerously relaxed I can't sit in a chair properly.

 

Mostly the "more". Like I said, I there isn't a second of this film someone hasn't said they disliked.

I guess I am looking for the things that thematically you felt should have been there, that weren't, in more specific terms.

You know, like for example, some people think that we should have seen more to Anakin. Perhaps more hints of his eventual turn to the dark side. Then maybe elaborate on a way you would get that across in a scene if you are so inclined.

 

I hated the way that there was constant dialogue explaining every little step of the way. (ex. "this is my apprentice Darth Maul) This is because the movie was written for 4-yr olds.

But my 4 yr-old son prefers the classic trilogy to the Phantom Menace. that should say something.

No mystery/No suspense/No quiet moments/No heart

 

Dionysis, the thing is ANH WASN'T overly "dark" or "adult", it was merely aimed at a somewhat higher target audience than TPM was, and apparently held wider appeal than TPM did. It didn't pull punches when it came to the storyline like TPM often did (constantly throwing in slapstick to "break the tension" in scenes which were designed to BUILD dramatic tension) but it was a fun, old-school swashbuckler nonetheless.

I certainly didn't expect TPM to be some dark, moody grunge film, it's just that I also didn't expect it to be the ounce of substance dipped in a pound of sugar that it ended up being.

Gomer, some specifics... forget stuff that I might write if it were up to me, how about merely going to the shooting script as it was published. Even there in what George cut there are some moments which would have added to the story, and which I don't understand his rationale for cutting.

Look at the Senate scene. It was written to be slightly longer and more involved than the final cut showed. It opens with Palpatine in the Naboo Congressional pod continuing to subtly push his will on the Queen, assuring her that her pleas will fall on deaf ears and asking her again to end the current session by calling for a vote of No Confidence.

Here is an element which was all but lost in the final cut which would perhaps have given the audience a better idea of what Palpatine was trying to do... remember, he's not just trying to get elected Chancellor... he's also trying to stall the vote on the Naboo issue to give the TF time to get the treaty signed. In this section, Palpatine makes clear that bogging the Senate down in procedures (as he'd told the TF Viceroy) is his goal. It's a short additional scene (bottom of page 99 in the TPM Illustrated Screenplay) but it gives the political story more time to settle in.

On pages 101 and 102 of the Illustrated Screenplay, you can see how the reaction to the Queen's call for the No Confidence vote plays out in a more natural way than it did in the film. Rather than the Queen putting forward the motion, Valorum slumping silently in his seat and the assembly immediately (and rather unaccountably) breaking into the "Vote Now!" chant, we get a reaction from Valorum, and then the Alderaanian Senator (Bail Organa in the script, but if George didn't want to introduce him yet it would have been simple enough to name the guy something else) seconding the Queen's motion (a standard bit of procedure which is overlooked in the film) and his further insistance that the vote be taken during this current session, with the TF reps immediately calling for the motion to be referred to committee for study, THUS prompting the "Vote Now!" chant. At the end of the scene as it continues to play out (with Palpatine assuring the Queen that this will result in a strong Chancellor being selected, as in the film) Valorum bursts out with the line "Palpatine, I thought you were my ally... my friend! You have betrayed me! How could you DO this?".

IMHO the scene as it was originally written is more satisfying and flows better than the edited version we saw in the final film. It not only gives Palpatine a bit more focus in terms of what it is that he wants, but it also provides a more believable setup for the "Vote Now!" outburst (which seems in the film to be unconnected to much more than the Senators' desire to be loud and boistrous) AND it gives Valorum a more believable reaction to his betrayal. Rather than just sitting down silently with an "I'm too old for this ****!" expression on his face, he becomes understandably agitated.

It's just one example, but as I read the screenplay again last night I realized that a good chunk of what I was looking for (and which Gomer has asked me to outline) was actually in the script itself. Not everything, obviously, but enough to make me wonder what George's priorities were when he had the thing edited for the final cut.

 

It was a little kidish not enough dueling with lighsabers like they had at the end. They should had like a showdown like where the sith meets the jedi but escapes and comes back later in the movie like on tatooine where Qui-gon and Maul first met.There should have been more planets. Overall the movie was great.

 

<glances at Plo_Kloon_01> Oh well, I'm late sometimes too.

Go-Mer, why don't you want to hear the specifics of what we'd like "less" of? I don't think I'd simply add and add, as I realize some things have to be cut. Just curious.

Anyway, assuming you don't have a problem with it, I was wondering how I could give a detailed account-by-account list of things I consider to be changeable and how I think they could have been "more" or "less"... without actually re-writing it. Because it would be very long.

 

I can see how that would flow better and add more substance to Palpatine's dual identity. But I think that is the very reason it was cut. As a first time veiwer, you shouldn't be able to instantly figure out that Palpatine IS sidious. I think some of those scenes he cuts helps to obscure that to some degree.

The bit where Palpatine reinforces the idea of the vote of no confidence to Amidala is actually pretty redundant. They already go over this once. Also, the whole Bail Organa thing is really not that important. It would have been nice. But we already have the whole "Mired by baseless accusations of curruption" lines, and the protest from Amidala regarding Vallorum being their strongest supporter.

I can see what you mean about the flow, but I personally don't see this as a major oversight or anything.

Malthus, you can give me whatever you want. I just have probably heard aboout everything that coudl be complained about in this film already. But feel free to explain yourself in any way you like.

 

Well, if you want to talk redundancy, how about extending the "Jar Jar faw down go BOOM" gag throughout the entire movie? How much reinforcement do we need to see of the fact that he's a klutz? Good God, we get hit over the head with that point in every other damned scene. If we're gonna get stuck with repetative slapstick, then why not also give the audience a chance to savor the political intrigue as well?

And again, I'm not saying that it was the "no confidence" vote which needed to be emphasized... it was Palpatine's wish to prematurely end the current session of the Senate which needed to be stated. Two VERY different things with two very different purposes. And unlike the no-confidence vote, his specific desire to derail the current session (to buy time for the TF to get the treaty signed) was never emphasized in the final cut of the movie.

As for the cut ending of the scene, again it would lend texture and atmosphere to the Senate scene and give the audience more of an opportunity to EXPERIENCE that setting and that scenario before being whisked of to another scene. Part of the process of engaging an audience in a story is to give them time to absorb that story. A setting, a situation, an exchange between characters... it's not a matter of getting every bit of dialogue out of the way with as few syllables as possible so that the end of the film can be reached as quickly as possible.

Let's face it... the events of TPM could almost have been boiled down into a five minute story told by Yoda to Luke if you want to get right down to it. The events of the PT are almost completely encompassed by two pages in the ANH novel's introductory chapter. The whole point of MAKING TPM should have been to breathe life into these events and to allow the audience time to savor what was going on, not just to wolf the damned meal down as quickly as possible.

The political story was glossed over in TPM. 10-15 minutes for a primary plotline out of a movie that ran more than two hours is glossing over... sorry. You ask what I want? More political exposition as I've specifically pointed out. More SCREEN TIME devoted to the politics of the story so that the audience had a chance to settle into it. Glossing over the political plot the way Lucas did doesn't make that plot "deeper" or "more mysterious", it merely makes it shallow.

And again, with George wasting NO opportunity to shove Jar Jar's pratfalls in our faces REPEATEDLY, the whole "redundancy" argument in terms of expanding the more meaty, substantial elements of the movie is a moot point at best. There was no good reason NOT to expand the political plotline, especially since it was even WRITTEN that way.

 

As for the Palpatine/Sideous thing, how tough would it have been to have Ian McDiarmid respond to Valorum's outburst with a helpless, contrite "What else could I do?" look? He's a good enough actor to pull THAT off. Or to have Valorum confront him outside the Senate chamber where we could see them actually having a verbal exchange about it where Palpatine could flat-out lie to his FACE and claim that the urgency of the Naboo situation left him no choice. "If you will not brush off your bureaucrats and do what is right help us, then we need a Chancellor who will. Your office is at stake? Chancellor, our entire PLANET is at stake. We simply don't have the luxury of time for more bureaucratic stonewalling. I'm sorry, old friend... but these are desperate times for us."

Yes, the audience knows this. Not every exchange onscreen needs to be expository. In this case we would have seen Palpatine sweet-talking the very man he betrayed, and that man showing his weakness by falling for it. It would have given Valorum's character weight that it simply did not have, and it would have shown Palpatine in action as a political ****** artist. And it would have given the audience more time to focus on the political story.

(And it would have left that air of plausible deniability for Palpatine for those who insist that Palpatine's identity is supposed to be some grand elaborate secret to the audience until later in the trilogy.)

EDIT: Don't swear!

 

Oh, well, I don't feel compelled to do so. I thought you had an open invite for people to explain in exact terms what "more of" or "less of" meant. I certainly don't like to write for no reason.

 

Wow, that's really cool, PR, I wish they had left that in, except I think it was good how Valoruum just slumbs over in silence. The exchange between him and Palp outside the chambers would have been a good idea to follow that scene.

 

I do hear you Patrick. And the reason the film is all about the Jar-Jar is two fold in my opinion. One to obviously keep the kiddies from falling asleep in these more adult segments, and two to help obscure the real events going on in the background. Because of him, many people really beleive there is -no- substance to TPM.

It is kind of like when you do a magic trick. You lead the audience's eyes away from the sneaky hand, by highlighting something insignifigant in the other.

 

"Geez, if your count to count lines how many lines did Obi Wan have in AHN?"

Not many more, in total--but thanks to ANH's tight, focused narrative structure, his role and presence were much, much stronger.

 

Focued, yes. Focused on ONE story and not TWO. Another word would be simple.

 

"Geez, if your count to count lines how many lines did Obi Wan have in AHN?"

Ben was not introduced until about 30 minutes into the film, and died with about 30 minutes left to go. He had less opportunity to say lines, but the role he had, the lines he dilevered, had a huge impact on the OT, and Star Wars from there on out (in EU, and a safe bet Ben's impact would have lasted through an ST).

In TPM, he was in the entire movie, had just as many, if not fewer lines than ANH, and had little impact until the end. However, a point to notice is that he WAS the apprentice. It was QGJ's job to do most of the work, as a master, and a darn good (althought wreckless) master, too. Given QGJ's role, it made sense for Ben to take a back set. However, since he was to one day become the Great General Kenobi, it would have been cool if he'd taken a little more inicative (spelling???). That trait could have played two roles (a) show his wrecklessness and (b) shown his optional to be a great leader and warrior (great men take inicatives).

 

I just watched TPM for about the 26th time(seriously). The more I have watched it the more I have grown to love the characters and understand what GL was doing. The story is not complicated, and very easy to follow which is not a bad thing. We all know the main complaints of TPM,(Jar Jar,too childish,too much CGI,not enough heart,shallow characters). We need to remember and I know many people know this but GL had to establish many characters who will play bigger roles in the next 2 installments. I think he did a fine job. The more I watch TPM I have realized the best way to view it is either through the eyes of Anakin or through the eyes of Palpatine. If you watch it through Anakin's POV it is more child-like to a point, but if you watch it through Palpatine's POV it is a very dark movie. Watch the scene where the heroes first arrive a Coruscant at the landing pad and Palpatine is waiting for them. It is beautiful and Palpatine's facial expression tells it all,(I'm evil,I'm going to be in power and kill the Jedi and you people can't stop me.) When you watch movies you have to look for the subtleties like that and if you watch any SW movie GL puts them everywhere. So to answer the question: Did anyone not like the story of TPM? NO, I did like it.

 

I love that shot, I used it in a Caption Contest on my other board.