Do you feel Qui-Gon's importance in the film is necessary?

Discussion in 'The Phantom Menace' started by DarthTorgo, Apr 4, 2002.

?

Do you feel Qui-Gon's importance in the film is necessary?

Poll closed Mar 22, 2012.
Yes. 160 vote(s) 69.0%
No. 63 vote(s) 27.2%
I have no idea. 9 vote(s) 3.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EnforcerSG Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    Yeah, i guess i did start it. Forgive me...

    Well, it didnt have the same impact on Luke. Oviously not givent that Luke did not turn to the dark side for it, or go on a (spoiler) after it.

    I think that nexus was more of a chance thing, not really planed out.

    I dont really fear the same thing (well, i do fear it) but I fear more that it will simply appear not to be Ani's fault for turning to the dark side. That people will again split on it is or is not his fault, and from what i have seen of spoilers, that fear is growing.

    A little joke, why will Palpatine need to be burried 12 feet when he dies?
  2. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    mmmmm....

    I don't think that's neccesary, he already had a cremation...

    on the fault issue: it's really simple to me, there is NO excuse possible for what Anakin did, what so ever, so there can only be softening cirumstances, which can make it more understandable, but I'll say it again, are NO excuse for what he did.

    The only excuse is one that Anakin himself makes at the end of ROTJ, saving his son and bringing balance, and that's what this whole saga is about IMHO.
  3. Patrick Russell Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 4
    If there's no excuse for Anakin's actions, then why go to the trouble to write excuses for his actions into the story?

    (I agree that there's no excuse for what Anakin will ultimately do, I just think Lucas is wasting an awful lot of time setting up these ridiculous "environmental" excuses if he doesn't expect them to be taken into account.)
  4. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    It will be his flawed character after all, the circumstances work as an accelerator.

    I'm trying to see it from the perspective of first time viewers of the saga: if Anakin turns out of the blue, he will totally alienate the audience, they will be disgusted with him in the OT. But Lucas wants him to be seen as a "tragic figure". The circumstances will provide that he will be seen with a mixture of 90% disgust and 10% pity (I'm only guessing), and the audience will be rewarded for still having some credit in him, at the end of ROTJ (for the perceptive viewer the redemption will already begin in TESB). For those who get the wrong message, Luke will prove that the circumstances are no excuse after all.

    Skipping spoilers into pure speculation: I think Padme will provide the final push over the edge for Anakin, and even here we have a strong parallel with the OT: It's not until Vader threatens to turn Leia that Luke goes totally bezzerk, and tends to the dark path. (This is very recognizable for me, and I think for all males: DON'T touch my woman/sister/mother!)

    I think we're hitting the core of the issue here: the moral of starwars.

    Will it be line with our own morals? I'm not naive, I'm well aware that episode III will still have to make it or break it... But as you may have noticed, I'm trying to see things positive and I'm trying to withold judgement until I've seen all evidence.

    Where's Darth Geist?
  5. EnforcerSG Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    That actually calms me down a little bit Plo, what you said. If it is Amidalla that sort of pushes him over the edge, or someone using Ami in such a way, then it wont be so bad, but at that point, why have all the circumstances. It would be more tragic in my mind if he was stronger than everything, but has one thing that brings him compleatly down, rather than have him whinning and what not.

    And the answer to my tacky riddle....because deep down, everyone is good.
  6. SomeRandomNerd Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 20, 1999
    star 4
    Terrible joke... Love it!


    I'm a bit confused by these "environmental excuses" for Anakin going bad... If it was because he was taken away form his mother, lived as a slave etc, then wouldn't he be turning bad in TPM?

    I think Plo Koen is right though- just about every "excuse" that Anakin has faced/apparently will face applies to Luke, only more so. (eg, "too old", "lost parents at an early age", "Jedi master killed and replaced by one who didn't want him" etc.)

    It seems to me that the power of the Force will simply be too much for power-hungry Anakin to deal with. He will CHOOSE the power of the Dark Side.
  7. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    I was not kidding when I said Lucas is telling the same story twice, sometimes literal, sometimes virtual and sometimes completly reversed.

    The parallels between Anakin and Luke are evident, but it goes much further: another small example to get back on topic: is Qui Gon necessary?

    I see old Ben in Qui Gon in his interactions with young Anakin.
    But when Qui Gon and Obi Wan are together, I see them as them as ANH's R2 & 3PO, advancing the plot.

    I think it's all part of the big "symhony" that Lucas is working on. I don't know much about drama but I do know a thing or two about music and I know the strength of a good composition is repetition.
  8. Patrick Russell Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 4
    "If it was because he was taken away form his mother, lived as a slave etc, then wouldn't he be turning bad in TPM?"


    Certainly not. He's nine years old in TPM and he's got people telling him that he's the biggest thing since blue milk. What's to turn to the Dark Side for at that point?

    But obviously Lucas made him a slave for a reason, obviously he separated Anakin from his mother at nine years old for a reason, and obviously he wrote Obi Wan as not believing in Anakin for a reason. He's been pretty clear about the fact that he made Anakin a nine year old kid so that these factors would set him up for his eventual turn to the Dark Side. I think he's even said as much in interviews. So clearly he IS going for the tired old P.C. "victim of childhood environment" trip.

    That he made Anakin's slavery look like a picnic says more, IMHO, about his obvious need to sanitize his story for five year-olds than it does about his intentions to give Anakin a comparable childhood to Luke. Luke was never a slave. That's not exactly a small distinction there.

    Yes, obviously Lucas has fallen into the trap of being overly-literal with his mirroring of the OT (to the point where the battle scenes in AOTC seem to be pretty much the same thing as those in ESB... a ground battle with walkers and an asteroid chase) but he's gone out of his way to give Anakin all sorts of justifications for the P.C. crowd in a way he never did with Luke. I just think he could have made Anakin a much more compelling character if he DIDN'T set all these emotional time bombs for him in order to justify his eventual turn to the Dark Side.
  9. SomeRandomNerd Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 20, 1999
    star 4
    >>>>Certainly not. He's nine years old in TPM and he's got people telling him that he's the biggest thing since blue milk. What's to turn to the Dark Side for at that point?

    Well the Dark Side isn't really an issue, as he's got no control over the Force yet, but if being a slave etc. was what made him evil (as you seem to be saying Lucas is aiming for) then why did it only make him evil after he left?

    But obviously Lucas made him a slave for a reason, obviously he separated Anakin from his mother at nine years old for a reason, and obviously he wrote Obi Wan as not believing in Anakin for a reason.

    Yes, but I think you're looking too hard for Vader in Anakin. My guesses;

    1) The "slave" thing- he's a slave to the Force until he's trained in the Jedi Arts, when he gains control over them. The freedom/power that gives him is more than he can handle, and he is corrupted by the Dark Side.

    2) Obi Wan not believing in Anakin- because Obi Wan has such faith in Qui Gon that he puts his beliefs above his own. With Qui Gon dead, that's a probable plot point for Episode II- especially if he doesn't appear as a spirit. Who will he turn to instead? He seemed to side with the council when Qui GOn was alive, but stands up to them after he's dead...

    3) Anakin being seperated from his mother. A reason to return to Tatooine in Episode II. (How else would they get C3P0 back in the story? ;))

    >>>>Luke was never a slave. That's not exactly a small distinction there.

    No, but Luke wasn't allowed to leave Tatooine and do what he wanted to (ie. join the Academy), so there's some degree of parallel there. (I don't know if he was ever paid for his work either...)
  10. Darth Geist Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    I'm back. :)

    Plo_Koen, regarding the way other characters besides Obi-Wan spend time offscreen, you said...

    - afore mentioned Obi Wan and from a certain point of view Padme in TPM
    - Han in ANH (battle of Yavin)
    - Vader throughout the OT (shortest but sweetest in TESB, re-appearring on Bespin)
    - Han and Leia in ROTJ. (Dagobah sequence)

    (granted, there isn't any schwung to Obi Wan's re-appearance)

    Then you have the +/- 25 minute absences (some counted trans-episodal), which seem exclusive to the Skywalkers:

    - Anakin before his introduction in TPM and 3 times in the OT.
    - Luke and Leia between TESB and ROTJ.

    Then you have the rare 40 minute absence of Han between TESB and ROTJ, which almost imminently will be copied by Obi Wan between episodes III & IV.



    Now of course, with multiple story arcs unfolding all at once in different locations, not every character is going to be onscreen all the time. However, there remains a significant difference between not being onscreen and not having anything to do.

    Even when ESB cuts away from Han and Leia, their stories continue to move forward. They still have goals to accomplish, and obstacles to overcome. Luke feels their absence, and as their story unfolds, it drives his story back in their direction.

    Vader, throughout the OT, is a constant threat; onscreen or off, he's constantly at the forefront of the heroes' struggle. They fear him--and, by extension, the Empire he stands for--and constantly work to elude or fight against him.

    Han, when he leaves the Yavin base, spends ten minutes away from the action, but his absence leaves a mark on the other characters; they miss him, and wish he were back. Additionally, Han's character arc continues its path offscreen, and he completes his journey from a self-centered mercenary to a true friend.

    TPM's Obi-Wan gets none of this. For all but the film's last six minutes, he has nothing to do, and his absence for the entirety of the middle section goes virtually unnoticed by the rest of the cast. (Up until the endgame, no one in TPM ever said, "Man, we could really use Obi-Wan right now." He has no character growth until the film's closing minutes, no goals or obstacles to deal with--he's a non-entity, and a dull one at that. It's a shame, and it's as far removed from the OT as can be.

    - Where exactly do you consider the climax of starwars to begin? (I consider it the arrival at Endor, which makes a perfect 1/10 of the story, counting 13 hours for the saga)

    I would say that the climax begins in ROTJ's briefing room, when Mon Mothma announced, "The time for our attack has come." Often, when a story's heroes spend the bulk of the story on the defensive, the story's climax revs up when they finally get a chance to take the fight to the villains.

    - What do you think of the fact that Lucas disconnected TPM from the timeframe of the rest of the PT, which wasn't mandatory? (I think it's nice it divides the saga in 3 eras, making the saga a trilogy in itself)

    I think it's a mistake. Because of it, TPM's Anakin was too young to be interesting or believable, and most of the characters' (minimal) growth is wasted, as many of them have to be completely re-introduced in the next film. Additionally, Anakin's training, and the formation of his friendship with Obi-Wan, happens entirely off-camera; they're strangers at the close of one film, and close friends at the start of the next. From a writer's perspective, that's cheating, and it's hard for an audience to get involved in a friendship you're only told about, and never shown.
    Valairy Scot likes this.
  11. Patrick Russell Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 4
    "Well the Dark Side isn't really an issue, as he's got no control over the Force yet, but if being a slave etc. was what made him evil (as you seem to be saying Lucas is aiming for) then why did it only make him evil after he left?"


    That's the whole "victim of childhood environment" thing coming back. The idea is that the foundation isn't built strongly, or is built with inherent flaws, and then once years pass and a house is finally built on that foundation it collapses.

    As for Anakin's separation from his mother merely being a plot device to get Threepio back into the movie, I realize that you're probably joking, but Lucas has said flat-out that Anakin's issue with his early separation from his mother is going to be a factor in Anakin's eventual fall to the Dark Side, and that's specifically why he cranked Anakin's age from 13 down to 9.

    And I'm fairly sure he's also said that making Anakin a slave rather than a daydreaming farm boy was also intentional. (I assume you can see the basic difference between being a slave and being a farm boy?)
  12. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    What is "Watto" in TPM is "Owen" in ANH. That's all there is to the slave "label". Really. There is nothing bad about anakin's childhood, and again: Anakin was not taken away, he went by choice. It was his own decision to leave his mother.

    Good your back Darth Geist, I've got a lot of thoughts to share, but I'm gonna sleep now, nite!
  13. Patrick Russell Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 4
    So you honestly see no distinction between being a slave and being a farm boy?

    And when was the last time you saw a nine year old boy make a life decision, let alone in the space of five minutes like that? No, he wasn't kidnapped... but he did have a shiny new toy dangled in front of him and made the "choice" to take it. That's not too terribly different from luring a kid into a car with a lollipop, when you get right down to the issue of a nine year-old making his own major life decisions like that.

    (I'm not calling Qui Gon a child molester, before anyone starts on that tack... just pointing out that this "choice" was a bogus one. Offer a small child something shiny and he'll take it... at that age it's not exactly a question of "choice".)
  14. EnforcerSG Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2001
    star 4
    Well, to a point, they are the same thing. It is not like very kid with a strick parrent becomes evil, nor do i see Luke being too close to his aunt and uncle. Also, the old thing with Ani was more impactiful than it was for Luke. Yoda was just being annoying i think in ESB, and he used "too old" and a last attempt to not have to train Luke, whereas Ani was somewhat upset about it all.

    Come to think of it, is it really that believble that a kid as nice and charming as Ani would become DV? I mean, look at evil megelomanics of recent history, Hitler, Pol Pot, others, do you think they had a nice cushy childhood, or do you think that their life as a kid was close to hell? Yeah, if done well, making Ani such a sweet charming kid, it could be sad, but the way it seems to be heading, it seems tacky, and confirms the Counsols desision not to train the old wonder-brat.

    That is a good point DG, about the charictor develoment. I see it as a sign of the dumbing down of TPM, and maybe the PT in general (of course i wont know till E3). Stuff went on behind the sceens in the OT, which made it feel more natural and not as rushed in my mind, where as i fear the rest of the PT will feel rushed and akward. You could look at TPM as a waste of time by introducing everyone, and showing very little develoment of anyone (there was some, get the magnifing glass out...)

    I have ranted and gone off topic too much. But it is an intresting topic.
  15. dolphin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 1999
    star 5
    Weirdly worded question but I think he means:

    "Was Qui-Gon necessary for the saga, was he important?"


    Very good point. He was Obi-Wan's master and he discovered the boy's importance but I think Obi-Wan could have done the latter and the former(who was Obi-Wan's master) didn't necessarily have to be answered in the films. So yes, I don't think he is that important of a character although if it was up to me I would leave him in TPM and AOTC(*wink*...pm me if you want info)
  16. naw ibo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 5
    TPM's Obi-Wan gets none of this. For all but the film's last six minutes, he has nothing to do, and his absence for the entirety of the middle section goes virtually unnoticed by the rest of the cast. (Up until the endgame, no one in TPM ever said, "Man, we could really use Obi-Wan right now." He has no character growth until the film's closing minutes, no goals or obstacles to deal with--he's a non-entity, and a dull one at that. It's a shame, and it's as far removed from the OT as can be.

    Once again, Darth Geist you get right to the heart of it. Lucas really did a poor, poor job with his handling of Obi-Wan's character in TPM and I really don't see how that can be remedied. We were talking about this on another thread and the fact is, if you'd never seen a Star Wars film before TPM, what Obi-Wan does in the last few minutes of the film basically would seem like a cheap plot device. We really have no sense of why he does what he does or even what it means, to him as a person or as a Jedi. We don't know what might have been going through his mind in those final moments hanging in the pit, in large part because prior to this we've learned next to nothing about what makes him tick.

    And when it comes to his relationship with Anakin, why should we care about the failure of friendship we've never really seen? I just can't understand why you wouldn't use the first film to set up what motivates him when he's going to be a central character of the next films.
  17. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    Good morning!

    <<<So you honestly see no distinction between being a slave and being a farm boy?>>>

    Not in starwars...

    But if you keep digging for reasons behind the slave concept, you may find them elsewhere: Anakin had a dream he came back and freed all the slaves. This may refer to episode III, but I think it's Luke who fulfils this dream symbolicly by destroying Jabba the Hutt in ROTJ.

    - Darth Geist, I'm not defending Obi Wan's apparant lack of development, let me clarify further:

    Of course temporal absence of main characters is a necessity, but Lucas seems to do it in a structured fashion, making it a pattern in his symphony. Like silence also is a musical value, and is not used randomly. I think he started it in ROTJ, introducing Vader in the opening and Luke not until 20 minutes into the movie, like in ANH. Anakin makes a late appearance in TESB, and again in TPM, so episodes being odd or even seems a factor in this (and other patterns), but Obi Wan's 15 minute absence is linked to Han's in ANH, as the podrace is a mirror to the battle of Yavin.

    To me it seems that Lucas is writing the PT around a structure that is determined by the OT. One could wonder how far he can take this before he starts hurting the story (or if he's done it already). The PT might become too "stylistic", more package than content. But as a musician I can appreciate the "musical" values it has.

    Or maybe I'm looking too deep into it, but that's also the fun of starwars for me: you can make it as deep or as shallow as you want.

    - About the climax:
    I'm glad the climax starts well outside the 1/10 border (unless Lucas makes episode III over 3 hours), at least that's balanced.

    - About the disconnection of TPM:
    <<<they're strangers at the close of one film, and close friends at the start of the next.>>>

    I'm gonna regret comparing this, but take a very objective look at TESB's opening quarter again, it's really nothing more than a plot device to establish the friendship between Han and Luke.

    I love how TPM shows the pre-empiric era, giving the saga depth and history. Showing Anakin as an innocent kid has it's payoff in ROTJ for me.
  18. Patrick Russell Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 4
    "but take a very objective look at TESB's opening quarter again, it's really nothing more than a plot device to establish the friendship between Han and Luke."


    Uh... actually the opening segments of ESB were designed to account for the fact that Mark Hamill had been subjected to bargain-basement reconstructive surgery after his 1977 car crash and looked different. Certainly it showed that the friendship between Luke and Han, which had already been established in the first film, had deepened... but the whole Wampa attack/lost in the snow thing was prompted by a need to justify why Luke looks different in ESB. (Again, Lucas himself has said this much.)

    And if you honestly can't see the difference between having a strict uncle and being a literal piece of property to be bought and sold... well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.
  19. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    I'm glad you're finally catching my drift Patrick Russell, everything in starwars happens for at least three reasons, there is no such thing as luck...

    Let's lay the slave thing to a rest for now.
  20. SomeRandomNerd Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 20, 1999
    star 4
    Let's not forget the sly introduction of telekenesis either...
  21. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    ...and the obligate monster, and Ben's appearance, and the early and unorthodox use of the lightsabre, which is now a pattern in the odd episodes.
  22. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    Uh... I think what we're trying to say here is that it won't be much different in AOTC. Sure there will be some re-introducing, but it will all happen "along the ride".
  23. DarthTorgo Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2002
    star 4
    <<- What do you think of the fact that Lucas disconnected TPM from the timeframe of the rest of the PT, which wasn't mandatory? (I think it's nice it divides the saga in 3 eras, making the saga a trilogy in itself)

    I think it's a mistake. Because of it, TPM's Anakin was too young to be interesting or believable, and most of the characters' (minimal) growth is wasted, as many of them have to be completely re-introduced in the next film. Additionally, Anakin's training, and the formation of his friendship with Obi-Wan, happens entirely off-camera; they're strangers at the close of one film, and close friends at the start of the next. From a writer's perspective, that's cheating, and it's hard for an audience to get involved in a friendship you're only told about, and never shown. >>

    I agree 100%. That does seem a lot like cheating to me. This is a huge reason why I think that, despite what the gushers claim, AOTC will not make TPM into a good movie, because the characters are completly different, when so much time was spent hammering these aspects home in TPM. At the beginning of AOTC, Jar-Jar will probably not be a complete moron like he was in Episode I, Anakin won't be the happiest kid in the galaxy, and Obi-Wan won't be a non entity, yet all this was hammered home in TPM. When all that change happens off screen, in sort of strengthens my argument that TPM was pointless. BTW, I do have a problem when it happens with Luke in ROTJ, but at least then it wasn't like Luke was this static, boring character in ESB.

    This decision not to show the early relationship between Obi-Wan and Anakn in depth in TPM is probably the biggest problem I have with the movie. Making Obi-Wan discover/insist upon Anakin's training quite easily changes things, and this is the way it originally was in TPM. This is one reason why I think Qui-Gon was unnecessary. Not to mention that it also gives you a good job of showing Obi-Wan's recklessness, something hinted about in ESB and ROTJ, but seemingly ignored for the most part in TPM. Too bad. We wasted a third of the prequel trilogy exploring a pointless character, when one who already existed needed to be explored instead.
  24. Plo_Koen Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 4
    It's getting quiet here...

    I don't really care what AOTC will do for TPM, that's thinking in the wrong direction. I'm interested in what TPM did and will do for AOTC, for as far as we can judge that objectivly.

    TPM introduced us to the "new style" starwars, AOTC won't have that "shock" effect, because we've gotten used to it and reached a degree of peace with the fact that the PT won't be like the OT.

    I also have my personal issues with TPM, but I can also enjoy the good parts, and I will never discard it as a part of the saga, that's like mutilation.
  25. Duckman Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2000
    star 4
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.