How is the story bad?

The story of AOTC is bloody good and my favorite.

i personally think the story is bad because its 'STAR WARS'.

 

You aren't following what I'm saying

Just because Palpatine is the boss of the badguys does not mean that the movie does not need a visible villian. We do not see Palpatine much, and the heros don't even know he is bad, there is no direct conflict between them.

The heros are unaware of the true danger they are in, we need an immediate danger to add suspense, and drama, to make the movie worth the time it takes to watch.

By the logic (or lack of) that you are employing, Palpatine is also the main good guy of the prequels, since he is the boss of the republic.

 

Just because Palpatine is the boss of the badguys does not mean that the movie does not need a visible villian. We do not see Palpatine much, and the heros don't even know he is bad, there is no direct conflict between them.

Because there not supposed to.

The heros are unaware of the true danger they are in

Because they are not supposed to know about the coming danger. That's the whole point. Only Palpatine and Dooku know what is really happening

we need an immediate danger to add suspense, and drama, to make the movie worth the time it takes to watch.

We do the heros trying to figure out what is going on. Who wanted the clones made and why?

But the thing is the PT is not balck and white it's gray. Are the Seps really bad guys? Is the Republic really good? The whole point is to show two different armys think the other sides is the bad guys.

Well the really bad guys stay in the back around.

By the logic (or lack of) that you are employing, Palpatine is also the main good guy of the prequels, since he is the boss of the republic.

No I'm not. The thing you missing is that in AOTC the clones the heros Obi-wan, Anakin, Padme, Yoda, etc are not supposed to know that Palpatine is a bad. They are not supposed to know who order the clones and why. They are not supposed to know everthing.

Palpatine is using the Dark Side to cloud and hide everthing. To the good guys he seems good. This is where the gray area comes in. In the fact that those who look good are really bad. Those who look bad are really good and so on.

In fact the only people in the PT that are good guys are the Jedi, Padme, Yoda, Obi-wan and Qui-gon. Anakin is good to a point. That point is Ep3. But I won't go into that.

The Seps are good and bad. The Republic is good and bad. Jango is good and bad.

Dooku he is bad. But I don't know what he will be like in Ep3 yet.

Palpatine and Maul are the only one who are really bad in the PT. But what was shown of Maul in TPM was fine. He was a powerful side kick who was a Tool and went out the same why Boba and Jango did a bad***. To make Maul in more then what he is would bring up this:

Ok he is so powerful why does he just not kill Palpaitne? The reaosn Palpatine is far more powerful then Maul.

 

anidanami124,
I have read and understand your points. I don't this method of "offscreen" villainy makes for a good screen play.

Personally, I think Episode II suffers from the same fundamental flaws as it predessor, Episode One.

 

I don't this method of "offscreen" villainy makes for a good screen play.

Personally, I think Episode II suffers from the same fundamental flaws as it predessor, Episode One.


You may not like it but it works. The PT is not supposed to be black and white, good and bad. The movies are all in the grey area. The good are the bad the bad are the good.

There are storys that do this. Instead of having it all black and white they make it into a who is the really bad guy and who is the real good guy.

One movie I saw that used this is Identity(sp) it to used it ever well. You never know who the real killer is until the very end.

Edit: Phone Booth also does this. Is the shoort really a bad guy? Or is he a good guy, and so on.

 

Identity was a kick @$$ flick, that I truly enjoyed, much like Se7en, Frality and others in the like. However, it's doubtful that many would argue that Episode II is suppose to be a suspense thriller. Moreover, Episode II screen play does not resemble an Alfred Hitchcock film.

Identity was a kick @$$ flick, that I truly enjoyed, much like Se7en, Frality and others in the like. However, it's doubtful that many would argue that Episode II is suppose to be a suspense thriller. Moreover, Episode II screen play does not resemble an Alfred Hitchcock film.

You may not like it but it works. The PT is not supposed to be black and white, good and bad. The movies are all in the grey area. The good are the bad the bad are the good.

There are storys that do this. Instead of having it all black and white they make it into a who is the really bad guy and who is the real good guy.

One movie I saw that used this is Identity(sp) it to used it ever well. You never know who the real killer is until the very end.

Edit: Phone Booth also does this. Is the shoort really a bad guy? Or is he a good guy, and so on.

I will not argue whether the prequels are supposed to be black and white, but will agree that they are not, which is my point on how these Star Wars films differ from the Originals, and thus lacking in the essential elements that make the Star Wars epic into the modern myth. For a certain point of view, the ambiguity of the character in the prequels does not work.

 

but will agree that they are not, which is my point on how these Star Wars films differ from the Originals, and thus lacking in the essential elements that make the Star Wars epic into the modern myth.

Here's the thing though the PT is not supposed to be like the OT. They both take place in different times. Because they both take place in different times they have to have different elements.

 

Here's the thing though the PT is not supposed to be like the OT. They both take place in different times. Because they both take place in different times they have to have different elements.

Which is exactly my point in regards to these Star Wars film not being up to par to the Original.

The setting is different, the elements are different, the story telling is different.

From a certain point of view, different is not good. The moral values of the Force and the struggle between good and evil in the prequels are blurred in areas gray. I truly do understand it, but for many it doesn't make for good story telling and compelling drama.

 

Which is exactly my point in regards to these Star Wars film not being up to par to the Original.

The setting is different, the elements are different, the story telling is different.

I don't want to get into a PT vs OT argument here.

But the whole reason the PT is different form the OT is because it needs to be that why. I and other don't want the PT to be like the OT in ever way.

I don't need a Han character.

I don't need a chartacter like Chewbacca ether. If GL made the PT with all the same elements as the OT it would be like watching the same movie all over again. Sagas SW that show two different time areas need to show different elements. So that Anakin can be shown how he became bad. How Palpatine got all his power and so on.

This will be my last post about the OT vs PT because again I don't want to go any deeper in it. I like both the OT and PT any ways.

 

I don't want to get into a PT vs OT argument here either.

But the whole reason the PT is different form the OT is because it needs to be that why. I and other don't want the PT to be like the OT in ever way.

I don't need a Han character.

I don't need a chartacter like Chewbacca ether. If GL made the PT with all the same elements as the OT it would be like watching the same movie all over again. Sagas SW that show two different time areas need to show different elements. So that Anakin can be shown how he became bad. How Palpatine got all his power and so on.

I with you on not seeing a carbon copy of the OT in these prequels. However, the morals values of the Force and the struggle of good and evil should not be grayed out. Why? Because the Force is the backbone of the Star Wars saga, and should not be cast aside to make way for "backroom" dealings. Which brings me back to the presentation of the prequels, having the scum and villainy do all their dealing off screen isn't really all the intriguing or compelling. I mean, that's what every Star Wars fan imagined before the prequels hit the screen.

BTW, I don't need Han or Chewbacca type characters in this Star Wars flick either. Personally, I could have done without C3PO and R2 as well.

 

I mean, that's what every Star Wars fan imagined before the prequels hit the screen.

I would just like to say that not ever fan imagined it like that.

As for the force being the back bone. Sure it is. But it's not the hreat of the story it's self.

Which brings me back to the presentation of the prequels, having the scum and villainy do all their dealing off screen isn't really all the intriguing or compelling.

Which is why ever deal should not be made on screen.

 

But at what point does it stop being starwars?

How much can you subtract from the original recipee before it isn't SW anymore? Is any movie with the StarWars in the title a SW movie? What if there was no lightsabers? What if there was no JW music? what if it had cursing and nudity?

At what point does it cease to be one thing, and become another???

"Because they are not supposed to know about the coming danger. That's the whole point. Only Palpatine and Dooku know what is really happening "

Well a movie without conflict is kind of pointless, as is a hero without a nemesis, and an action movie without danger.

"No I'm not. The thing you missing is that in AOTC the clones the heros Obi-wan, Anakin, Padme, Yoda, etc are not supposed to know that Palpatine is a bad. They are not supposed to know who order the clones and why. They are not supposed to know everthing.

Palpatine is using the Dark Side to cloud and hide everthing. To the good guys he seems good. This is where the gray area comes in. In the fact that those who look good are really bad. Those who look bad are really good and so on."

Yes but there still has to be a threat on top of that for them to face. We have dooku and Jango, but they are not empasized enough. If we as the audience know too much more then the heros, it makes them look dumb.

there has to be a visible villian directly in conflict with the heros, regardless of the puppet master behind the scenes.

"The PT is not supposed to be black and white, good and bad. The movies are all in the grey area. "

but thats the problem, it is black and white, there is nothing grey about it.


"One movie I saw that used this is Identity(sp) it to used it ever well. You never know who the real killer is until the very end."

yes but now the fundemental flaw of your arguement has been exposed, because in a film like Identity the heros are under direct threat from the killer, even if they don;'t know who it is, they are trying to find out, trying to stop them, if they don;t they will die.

But in the PT the heros aren't even looking, they don't even know what they are suppose to be looking for.

Se7en is a better example then Identity. In se7en, the killer only appears at the very end, in perhaps 3 or 4 scenes. However what makes the killer in that film an excellernt villian while Dooku is a crappy one, is that throughout the whole movie, we feel the killers presence, and the heros are always talking about him, and trying to find him.

there is no talk of dooku in AOTC, except for one short silly scene. Dooku is the last thing on their minds.

 

I agree with the notion that the PT is black and white in its intent.
Lucas wants us to like the Republic. He wants us to like the Jedi, the Naboo, the Gungans, all of them are meant to be the heroes.
On the other hand the Seperatists, the Trade Federation, the Sith, Dooku, Maul, the Geonosians, the Battel Droids are clearly meant to be the bad guys. There's nothing grey about this. Even Anakin is not grey in his characterisation. He starts out as being 100% good in TPM and ends up being 100% bad in Episode 3 and susequent episodes (until he throws a guy over a railing and all the genocide is forgiven). That's not grey, it's going from one extreme to another.
So in other words - Lucas paints the world of the prequels in black and white. So why do so many people on this board believe the portrayal of certain people is "wonderful ambiguity"? Because Lucas makes mistakes in storytelling and many fans confuse "lack of characterisation" with "ambiguity".

 

But at what point does it stop being starwars?

It doesn't Star Wars is Star Wars. We have five Star Wars movies.

Well a movie without conflict is kind of pointless, as is a hero without a nemesis, and an action movie without danger.

There is conflict. In the start of the movie someone is trying to kill Padme. The 2nd time it is done both Obi-wan and Anakin go after the person. Zam dies before she tells them who she was working for. It goes from there then.

When Obi-wan finds Jango he knows that there is something up with him. Not just because of the clones but because he knows he was the one you tried to kill Padme.

But he needs to know why Jango wanted to kill Padme. So he takes to him and Jango attacks. Two different times. So you say the heros are not in danger and don't have conflict. Well they have that for the whole movie.
who look bad are really good and so on."

Yes but there still has to be a threat on top of that for them to face. We have dooku and Jango, but they are not empasized enough. If we as the audience know too much more then the heros, it makes them look dumb.

Sure they are. Jango is empasized as the one who was paied to kill Padme. But Obi-wan is not supposed to know about that right away. He is supposed to think it was still Zam. Once finds out it was Jango and that it was the TF who wanted her dead and that Dooku paid Jango to do well that's all you need. You don't need them in ever scene. You don't need them being talked about all the time. You have to different storys going on. Anakin/Padme's and then Obi-wan's. Anakin need to be shown giving into the dark side a bit and fall in love with Padme. But they don't need to have a love story like Han and Leia. Because they are not Han and Leia. Nor should they be. I don't care if it was good in TESB.

AOTC is not TESB.

there has to be a visible villian directly in conflict with the heros, regardless of the puppet master behind the scenes.

There is 1st it's Zam, then it's Jango, then it Dooku and the Seps.

but thats the problem, it is black and white, there is nothing grey about it.

It is very grey.

there is no talk of dooku in AOTC, except for one short silly scene. Dooku is the last thing on their minds.

Because the thing that is on there mind is keeping Padme safe. Then trying to find out who Zam was working for. Then trying to find out who Jango was working for and so on.

There is a lot of danger and conflict in this movie.

 

>>>>In fact the only people in the PT that are good guys are the Jedi, Padme, Yoda, Obi-wan and Qui-gon. Anakin is good to a point. That point is Ep3. But I won't go into that.

Depends what you call "good"- good actions, or good intentions.

Yoda is the one who leads the clones in to attack, and lets Dooku escape because he chooses to save his friends, instead of what they fought for.
Padme is the one wearing corsets in front of a young, hormonal Jedi who obviously has the hots for her.
Qui Gon is a liar, cheat and thief...

>>>Dooku he is bad. But I don't know what he will be like in Ep3 yet.

And Dooku wants to destroy the Sith...

>>>>However, the morals values of the Force and the struggle of good and evil should not be grayed out. Why? Because the Force is the backbone of the Star Wars saga, and should not be cast aside to make way for "backroom" dealings.

I disagree 100% that the morality of the Force is being "cast aside." It's central to the PT- probably more so than in ANH.

Yes, we are seeing characters take morally questionable actions and making morally questionable actions- but we are also being shown the consequences of them. Qui Gon lies and cheats- Darth Vader is born. Yoda leads an army into battle- the Jedi get wiped out.

The big difference is that while the OT was the story about Luke's journey, and refusal to turn to the Dark Side, the PT's story is about Anakin's choice to turn to the Dark Side. The audience has to understand why Anakin makes this choice, otherwise the PT will have failed. They don't have to agree with it, or have predicted it- just understand it. (Interesting to note along these lines that more people complain about Padme's sympathy with Anakin after the slaughter than the slaughter itself- because although it was obviously a BAD thing to do, the audience understands why he did it.)

The Dark Side, as presented in the OT, has relatively little appeal. We never really understand why Vader turned to it- it's the equivalent to a "smoking is bad" campaign, in that the message is simply that the Dark Side is bad. You wouldn't understand why anyone would ever even touch a cigarette if all you knew about smoking was anti-smoking adverts, because you'd be entirely focussed on the bigger picture- the consequences of the action.

The PT, on the other hand, is like telling a story about why Anakin starts smoking. Rather than understanding the lung cancers, bronchitis and tracheotomies, it's the realities of it for a kid who gets offered a cigarette, which is as far removed from the old man who needs a machine to breathe- the "cigarettes make you look cool", "they're nice and relaxing", "everyone else smokes- why not try one?" side of the story as Anakin in TPM is from... well, the old man who needs a machine to breathe...

If it didn't present that side of the story, highlighting the weaknesses of the Jedi and the strengths of the Sith, then not only would Anakin's turn make no sense to the audience, but the Jedi's destruction wouldn't be believable either.

 

"I agree with the notion that the PT is black and white in its intent.
Lucas wants us to like the Republic. He wants us to like the Jedi, the Naboo, the Gungans, all of them are meant to be the heroes.
On the other hand the Seperatists, the Trade Federation, the Sith, Dooku, Maul, the Geonosians, the Battel Droids are clearly meant to be the bad guys. There's nothing grey about this. Even Anakin is not grey in his characterisation. He starts out as being 100% good in TPM and ends up being 100% bad in Episode 3 and susequent episodes (until he throws a guy over a railing and all the genocide is forgiven). That's not grey, it's going from one extreme to another.
So in other words - Lucas paints the world of the prequels in black and white. So why do so many people on this board believe the portrayal of certain people is "wonderful ambiguity"? Because Lucas makes mistakes in storytelling and many fans confuse "lack of characterisation" with "ambiguity"."

Exactly.

VAGUE does not equal MYSTERIOUS

COMPLICATED does not equal COMPLEX

INCONSISTENT does not mean MULTILAYERED

A movie with Politicians in it, is not nessesarily political.


"It doesn't Star Wars is Star Wars. We have five Star Wars movies."

Please read more carefully before answering.

I'm asking, at what point would a SW movie be so different that it would cease to be a SW movie other then in name only.

What if ep3 was in black and white and was a spanich musical? But it was still called SW episode III. Would it still be a starwars movie?

"Jango is empasized as the one who was paied to kill Padme. But Obi-wan is not supposed to know about that right away."

Yes but 2/3rds into the movie, Jango and the assassination plot cease to be of any importance, they basically dissappear and we have to start all over again with a new main badguy.

And while Obi-wan and Jango are having their story, Anakin and Padme are basically on vacation. There is not tension, the movie just bascially stops. Even in a standard romantic comedy, there is still stuff happening as the romance blossums, a plot, but Anakin and Padme just sit around romantic locations and talk about how he loves her and she doesn't love him. The movie grinds to a hault.

"And Dooku wants to destroy the Sith."

Dooku is a sith, the only reason he would want sidious destroyed is so he can be the new sith master. If you think its any more complex then that your in for a dissappointment.

 

What if ep3 was in black and white and was a spanich musical? But it was still called SW episode III. Would it still be a starwars movie?

If that's the way GL want's to do it then yes.

And while Obi-wan and Jango are having their story, Anakin and Padme are basically on vacation. There is not tension, the movie just bascially stops. Even in a standard romantic comedy, there is still stuff happening as the romance blossums, a plot, but Anakin and Padme just sit around romantic locations and talk about how he loves her and she doesn't love him. The movie grinds to a hault.

If that's the way you feel ok. But for many others it works very well, and before we get into the opinion argument which I don't want to. I will say you don't feel it works. That's ok if you don't feel it works. But that does not mean it does not work for ever one.

 

there has to be a visible villian directly in conflict with the heros, regardless of the puppet master behind the scenes.

There is 1st it's Zam, then it's Jango, then it Dooku and the Seps.

Multiple villains of equal stature cancel each other out?see Batman and Robin.?and the problem only grows when the film discards each villain at the first opportunity and starts over with a new one.

Developing your villains is like raising crops. Plant your seeds early on, nurture them as much as you can, and soon you'll have a hell of a harvest. But if you neglect them, overcrowd them?or, worst of all, continually rip them out of the ground and plant new ones in their place, they're not going to grow nearly as strong as they otherwise could.

If that's the way GL want's to do it then yes.

Ah, yes, the old "George Lucas is infallible!" defense. No one's infallible. That argument is a cop out.

 

Ah, yes, the old "George Lucas is infallible!" defense. No one's infallible. That argument is a cop out.

Did I say that. No I just said if that's the way he want's to do then that's the way he wants to do. It's not a cop out.


Developing your villains is like raising crops. Plant your seeds early on, nurture them as much as you can, and soon you'll have a hell of a harvest. But if you neglect them, overcrowd them?or, worst of all, continually rip them out of the ground and plant new ones in their place, they're not going to grow nearly as strong as they otherwise could.

Dooku is not need in the start of the movie. Jango and Zam are. They are both working together. Zam get's killed Jango get's away Obi-wan goes after him so as to find out who he is working for. He then goes after him again when he get's away and then finds out who he is working for.

 

Did I say that.

You implied it. Let me ask you this: Can George Lucas ever make a mistake as a filmmaker? Further, is it possible that he can break from the spirit of the original films?

Dooku is not need in the start of the movie. Jango and Zam are. They are both working together. Zam get's killed Jango get's away Obi-wan goes after him so as to find out who he is working for. He then goes after him again when he get's away and then finds out who he is working for.

Obviously, the crop analogy didn't get the point across. Let me try this again:

Just as people in real life need time to build solid relationships, so too do audience members need time to build relationships with the characters on screen.

Imagine passing a man on the street, never to see him again. You wouldn't be likely to think twice about him. Now imagine witnessing a heroic fireman scaling a building to rescue a family, or witnessing a mugger robbing an old lady. Those two people will stick in your head the way ordinary people won't, and if you see those same people in action repeatedly, they'll become all the more memorable.

In AOTC, the role of the villain gets split up five different ways?and, since movies have a very finite amount of time to get everything across, that means that each villain gets roughly one-fifth of an already small pie. Whereas most cinematic villains menace the hero throughout the film, thus gaining plenty of direct attention from the audience, each of AOTC's baddies gets a few scant minutes, then disappears. That's hardly enough time to even register, let alone stand out from the crowd.

People today remember Darth Vader. They remember Jack Nicholson's Joker. Hell, even Dr. Evil was distinct and prominent enough to warrant a spot in his viewers' memories. Do you think anyone in ten or twenty years will remember Count Dooku, except maybe as "that guy Yoda fought?"

 

Can George Lucas ever make a mistake as a filmmaker?

Yes he can. But that does not mean that what you see as a mistake will be a mistake to ever one else.

Please note that no one person will take away the same feelings when comign out of a movie.

Further, is it possible that he can break from the spirit of the original films?

Oh I'm not even going to answer this. You don't feel the PT live up to the OT fine. Others do feel it lives up to the OT.

 

Oh I'm not even going to answer this.

Answer it. I challenge you. It's a simple question. Yes or no. Is it possible?

But that does not mean that what you see as a mistake will be a mistake to ever one else.

I'm curious; what's your definition of the word "mistake?"

 

Answer it. I challenge you. It's a simple question. Yes or no.

No I'm not going to answer it DG because what you feel the sprit of the OT is not going to be the same thing that I feel.

 

Don't run away from this one, ani.

If Episode I had been a Saving Private Ryan-style gorefest, or included more cussing than Goodfellas, or?hey, why not??included a ten-minute sex scene, could anyone reasonably argue that that was in the spirit of the OT?

What if he'd made Freddy vs. Jason and called it Star Wars: Episode I? "Well, someone might think it was still in the spirit of the OT?" That someone would be wrong on every level.

 

DG no I'm not going to answer it I don't have to answer it ether. I know what you will do if I even try to answer it so I'm not going to.