In terms of success, what did TPM not have from the original trilogy?

I've read lots of discussions on the similarities & differences between the originals and the prequels, and for my media coursework i'm comparing the success and appeal of each 'first' film (A New Hope & TPM).
I think that TPM doesn't have the same magic about it that the old films had. What do you think is lacking/overused in the prequels (e.g. CGI, comedy, script, characters, narrative etc)

chris

 

TPM had the tough task of introducing the major characters, giving a whole lot of plot and backstory needed to set up the next two films, and find a way to have an upbeat ending.

Where ANH you jumped right into the middle of the action and slowly learned what was going on. The only thing you really get history on is Vader....and that is misinformation as it turns out.

 

I would say TPM is lacking in:

1. Characters and their relationships/chemistry. These people are just dull, they don't connect with each other or the audience.

2. Sense of danger/excitement/peril, this was very evident in ANH, it's an important elememnt of SW coming from those old serials. In TPM there's only a couple of moments - when Anakin's podracer starts to malfunction (altho this isn't particularly exciting because I don't care about Anakin). And - when QG is left alone to fight Maul. For an action movie this is a sorry state.

There are other reasons, but I think those are the main 2 for me.

g

 

The relationships seems to be what is clearly lacking in TPM, mainly the one between Padme' and Anakin. I do think the relationship between Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan was the best however, and a very good one at that.


I also feel that the complexity of the story and lack of clear cut, black and white villans/heroes turned alot of people off.

 

one major thing that shocked me was the screen time (or lack of it) devoted to Darth Maul? isn't TPM named after him? He seemed to be the main promotional character for the first prequel.

He wasn't in it much, though his battle skills were impressive and one of my favourite scenes. I Just think Lucas should have had Obi-wan only cause him injury (maybe loss of hand or sumthin) and for him to escape or survive in some way so that he could have made an appearence in ATTACK OF THE CLONES or EPISODE III. it could have given the audience something more to anticipate, rather than just choosing which half of him to watch float down the shaft.

chris

 

one major thing that shocked me was the screen time (or lack of it) devoted to Darth Maul? isn't TPM named after him? He seemed to be the main promotional character for the first prequel.


While I can see how the casual viewer would mistake The Phantom Menace being symbolic for Darth Maul, when in reality it was referring to the return of the Sith, namely Sidious.

The intent of Maul from the beginning I believe was to be the "be all" incarnation of the Sith, and more so give the audience a key face to indentify Episode I with and namely the PT, much like Vader is for the OT and Star Wars in general.

 

Indeed, if Darth Maul was supposed to be the so-called "phantom menace" then the film would have been better called "The In-Your-Face Menace" as Maul wasn't particularly phantom-like in the least.

Personally, I don't think "the phantom menace" actually refers to any particular person but rather to an idea, the idea that the Republic is starting to crumble from within, yet nobody seems to recognize it.

 

I think alot of people would agree that we needed to learn more about naboo and feel for it's safety before we invaded it. I mean, when tanks and droids roll in to capture the queen, I should be thinking:

"Oh ****. This can't be happening."

not:

"Wait...where is this? There's an underwater city? Is this chuckee cheese? Was the usher handing out maps?"


I felt worse when alderaan was destroyed, and I didn't even know what alderaan was.

strilo edit: Please **** out all swearing.

 

I don't think you can really analyze a movie title.. Often times, the meaning of a title comes out- but sometimes only the creator knows what it really means, and leaves other people to assume..Am I making any sense? I can't really explain what I'm trying to explain.


EDIT: Forgot to add this..which is generally the thread topic. In terms of success..are you speaking box office wise- or satisfying the fans wise?

 

In so many words:

Entertainment value.

 

What exactly is this topic asking anyway? Are we supposed to assume that The Phantom Menace was a failure or a success?

 

What exactly is this topic asking anyway? Are we supposed to assume that The Phantom Menace was a failure or a success?

..I think..Was it as good as the other trilogy in box office wise, satisfying the fans..and..elsewhere..right?

 

Another thing that really set TPM back with alot of SW fans and casual viewers was the excessive use of CGI, including entire CGI scenes and characters. People just weren't use to this, especially with something they held so dear to their hearts such as Star Wars. The truth remains that without the CGI, the PT wouldn't have been possible, even Lucas has said this.

 

I remember when Ep1 first came out reading a review of it in my local newspaper. (San Jose Mercury News for anyone who cares) The reviewer gave it a so-so review IIRC but did have a number of complaints. There were the basic "Why dosen't Threepio remember Anakin?" "I thought Yoda trained Obi-wan" etc. (Then again this is the same newspaper that a year later asked "Why does Wolverine have beserker rage? Why is Profesor X in a wheelchair? These questions and more are unanswered in 'X-Men'. But that's beside the point)

The one thing that stuck out in my mind was that they noticed that there was a lack of a Han Soloish character. There's no cynical space piratey rouge. It's all Jedi and royalty. It's great for SW fans like us but for the average viewer who's not familiar with SW that much there's not a character who people can relate too. We need space bums! They said the closest character to Han from TPM was Watto in fact. At first I laughed but when I thought about it some more I realized they were right.

Han was perfect in the OT because frankly he dealt with things the way most people would. He didn't want to be in those situations. He was just looking for his out and watching after his own hide (at first anyway). Honestly, people relate to that. It's human nature. So to answer your question I would say that it was a lack of realistic relatable characters that sunk TPM in it's popularity. (Yet somehow still managed to make over $430 million.)

 

this is one of the things i saw at the end of TPM that related to the OT as a whole, click link.

Here



I was watching TPM the day i wrote that, and I don't know why it came to me, but, i like what i hhad come up with.

 

I think it's a combination of things. For one, today's audience is more "sophisticated" when it comes to special FX. Phantom Menace raised the bar for visual FX, no doubt.

But I also think the people who originally saw A New Hope don't quite remember the feel of the original movie. The magic.

The magic might still be there, but we've grown out of it.

Personally, I didn't much care for TPM when I left the theater, but I'm not convinced it was entirely because of the movie. A lot has changed since 1977, myself included.

 

TPM had the tough task of introducing the major characters, giving a whole lot of plot and backstory needed to set up the next two films

I really don't think GL was trying to introduce characters in TPM. I got the feeling he knew his audience knew who everyone was (even Padme, while new, had the Luke/Liea link). And in reality, he was right. However, a better intro should have been used if he wants people to view it 1 - 6.

Also, the "Han" character was missing. It's a matter of personal taste. I know many didn't mind it, and in a way, it is better without the "Han" character (makes Han that much more special), but in either event, it is a missing element between the two.

 

To be honest, the more times i watch TPM the more i like it, though i still find the political scenes boring. I was impressed with AOTC when i went to the cinema, in terms of an improvement on TPM, but it still had a hint of the depressive tone of TPM.
what happened to all the humour?, that's one of the things i really enjoyed in the OT.
However i think that Ep III has a chance of regaining the respect that (for some people) it lost with TPM, It's the one that everyone's interested in, the link, and i think it's as though through the prequels we're gradually climbing back to the quality of entertainment from the OT.
I've heard that Ep III is something like 80% action, i hope a large portion of the rest is devoted to R2 and C-3PO and their joke-cracking.

 

1. Good acting.
2. Better dialogue (snappier).
3. Better special effects (no cartoons).
4. Better choreographed action instead of massive blurs.
5. Great designs.
6. Gary Kurtz.
7. Marcia Lucas for editing (best editing in the Mill battle in ANH!).
8. Lawrence Kasdan.
9. Better characters.
10. Better story.

 

1. Good acting.
2. Better dialogue
3. Better special effects
4. Better choreographed action instead of massive blurs.
5. Great designs.
.
.
.
9. Better characters.
10. Better story.

I think you misunderstood the question; he was asking what elements TPM didn't have.

Some of the things that made it difficult for TPM:

o 20 years of anticipation - it's hard for any movie to meet wildly overblown expectations.
o Fanbase with preconceived notions - when some some fans see the backstory unfold differently than they expect, they inexplicably conclude that Lucas got it wrong.
o Fans grew up; Star Wars didn't - it seems some folks expected Star Wars to grow up with them, but it remains the same, fun-filled child-like fantasy it has always been. It's worth noting that many of these fans have since sworn alligence to more adult oriented franchises like The Matrix or Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings.
o Different societal conventions - if TPM had been released 10 years ago, it would have been seen as the most wildly successful blockbuster of all time. But today, with huge blockbusters being a dime a dozen, TPM is seen as one of many financially successful films.

 

Off topic there, Durwood. You're taking attention away from the film by placing blame on external factors, such as the hype and the fans, as reasons for TPM being a "failure."

 

20 years of anticipation - it's hard for any movie to meet wildly overblown expectations.

In light of LOTR, that argument is no longer valid.


I would say that TPM lacked heart, and as a result non-fans weren't willing to fully immerse themselves into the world on screen. Of course, the fandom split didn't help matters either.

In terms of material success, the merchandise didn't sell as well.

 

GL started with EpIV because.................drum roll.........that was the easiest one to start with.

 

I like(d) TPM. I mean, yeah, it's not as active as the others..But how can it be? Of course it's going to be a little boring compared to ROTJ and all them, but he's just trying to focus you on the history and how important certain things are and how they developed. I also like ATOC.

 

Podrace: (altho this isn't particularly exciting because I don't care about Anakin).

And, you know what the outcome of the race is going to be anyway, so there's no tension, no "shock."