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

It is possible that Ep. III could unite "Bashers" and "Gushers."

It certaintly would be nice to have some common ground with more people on this forum. What will the future bring?

 

That's what they said about AOTC.

 

That is what they said about AOTC, Glorian.

And for the record, ROJ started a rift in the fans, along before there was a PT. Being that it was the last film (forever, some thought, for a long time, as it turned out) it was less noticeable. The SW crazy was dying down in either event at that time.

 

Do you not care what happened to Shmi? I notice that a lot of people who are so eager to condemn Anakin and call him names because he took revenge on the Tuskens don't even seem to notice the reason he took revenge, or they think Shmi's life is unimportant.

You say you care about Shmi, but in all your talk of revenge where is Shmi? Would she want her son to be a child murderer?
Those who tortured Shmi were evil. But what Anakin did cannot be excused.

I would have behaved no differently from Anakin. God help any group of thugs who ties my mother to a pole and beats her to death.

So you'd sympathise with the families and friends (of the murdered children) who wish to take revenge?

Unfortunately I am way too short-tempered to make that promise. As I said, if my mother were tortured to death and I had a weapon, I would clean the place out--I wouldn't stop and ask, "OK, which of you killed my mother?"

So you'd kill children?

g

 

PMT99 Thanks for supporting my point that Anakin was a one dimensional goody good and there was not any indication of becoming Vader. But, it is not understandable that you say on one hand, "It wasn't suppose to because the movie was showcasing the "good man" that Obi-Wan was talking about..." and then you say he started on the dark path "as soon as he's seperated from his mother and loses Qui-Gon..." Well, which is it? Where there indications that Anakin was going to be Vader? But he know what the answer is, as you stated, "the "Anakin turning evil" plot point isn't suppose to be established until we get to Episode 3.." Therefore, he wasn't a bad kid and did not start down the dark path.

As for paths Anakin can chose... to indulged your point as being a slave for life or freedom? Is that really a choice? I mean, even my dog knows it better to run around free than to be on a leash. Besides, Qui-Gon won his freedom so Anakin was somewhat obligated to go with him.

I'll give you "Fear is the path of the Dark Side," but it does not compare to the same moral effects given to us by the metaphors demonstrated in the original trilogy. As stated earlier, the Force is glazed over and not given any description as an entity; just instances of its relationship with those with a certain amount of micro organisms.

I'll say something positive towards EP1, it got fans talking Star Wars again and gave me a greater appreciation for the original trilogy.

 

Glorian:

Lastly, I am taking issue with the movie for never showing Padme dealing with this crime of Anakin's...nor giving us any insight into why its okay to marry him.

Oh, I don't know...she loves him?

She doesn't even seem worried or scared by his admission that he butchered children.

Maybe she was horrified by what the Tuskens did to Shmi--as she should have been. We're not talking about cute little Ewoks here. These are murderers, people who tortured a woman to death over a period of a month because they felt like it.

This is the movie's centerpiece moment and it becomes a moot point very quickly. We can only guess why Padme thinks its okay to marry a confessed murderer.

You had to guess. I understood completely--because I would have done the same thing. If my mother-in-law were tortured to death by a bunch of thugs and my husband did an Anakin on everyone in the vicinity, I would think it was a perfectly normal reaction. Why? Because I would do the same thing to the thugs who tortured my mother.

This is not a matter of either TPM or AOTC missing anything. It's a matter of people inserting Tusken innocence where there is none. The Tuskens were not cute little cuddly teddy bears. We see them three times in the films: shooting at podracers in TPM, beating up Luke in ANH because he dared to travel on the Jundland Wastes, and torturing Shmi to death in AOTC.

You guys are inserting something into the film that isn't there: the sweet innocence of the Tuskens, the "surely they must have had a motive for killing Shmi". If the film showed the Tuskens as sweet innocents, then yes, it would be missing something by not showing why Padme married Anakin. But the films didn't show this--they showed the Tuskens for exactly what they were--thugs who got their jollies from beating up innocent people.

That's why I'm going by what I see in the films and yelling "Get 'em Ani!" every time he ignites his lightsaber and gives a Tusken guard a haircut.

What I don't understand is why you insist on inserting Tusken innocence into the film where there is none. The only reason I can come up with is Anakin-hating. If there is another reason, I'd love to hear it. Seems like you care more about murderers than you do about a guy who just lost his mother.

And by the way, I don't understand rape. I understand castrating rapists with dull butterknives.

I don't particularly understand robbery unless someone's family is starving, and I do understand jealousy. However, none of these compare to how someone would react to finding his/her mother tortured to death. I can't promise you that I wouldn't go ballistic on everyone around--and I'm not one to stop and ask questions, especially knowing that the people standing around knew what happened to my mother and did nothing to stop it.

So you'd sympathise with the families and friends (of the murdered children) who wish to take revenge?

Anakin didn't torture the children for fun, in fact, he didn't torture them at all, so no.

As I said, none of you have sympathy for Shmi, and reading constant posts about "Anakin is evil and killed babies!" makes me lose all my sympathy for the children.

Normally I would say that Anakin was wrong to kill the children, but not faced with such a lack of sympathy for an innocent woman who was tortured to death for fun.

Let's not pretend kids are stupid. I teach them, and I know that if any of my students saw their parents torturing someone to death, they would do something about it. A kid can untie two knots, and so can a woman.

That's why I don't get the defense--not because I think what Anakin did was perfectly OK, but because no one gives a rat's ass about his mother and everyone acts like the Tuskens are bouncy little Care Bears.

 

So if a mob hit kills your mother, you'd kill them, drive over to their homes, kill their wives and children while they're asleep, eating, or minding their own business? Since it's apparent guilt-by-association is understandable, they don't need to participate, just know about it.

 

Michael Corleone, "...don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever." The Godfather.

 

Loco: That isn't what Anakin did. He killed all the Tuskens who stood around and watched.

 

While I do find this Anakin discussion interesting, there are a several threads on the subject in the AOTC Forum. That's where the conversation should go.

Again, this thread is about "what did TPM not have from the original trilogy?" So, please steer this thread back on-topic.

Don't ignore the mod. It irrirates him and when he's irritated, he abuses his power (hey, I should put that in my sig).

 

Loco: That isn't what Anakin did. He killed all the Tuskens who stood around and watched.

It's the same thing though, if those people were aware of the hit and didn't interfere, they deserve death. We don't know if they stood around and watched her get tortured. For all we know, the Tusken women and children may have been feeding her and giving her water, or maybe they didn't know what was going on in that tent. It was guarded, maybe they were restricted and weren't allowed to see what the men were doing in there. There could have been any number of variables, but the truth of the matter is, they didn't kill her. And if they had nothing to do with it, there is guilt-by-association, and it is no different than going around and tracking down mob families and cutting their heads off in their sleep.

Again, this thread is about "what did TPM not have from the original trilogy?" So, please steer this thread back on-topic.

Heard and understood.

Don't ignore the mod. It irrirates him and when he's irritated, he abuses his power (hey, I should put that in my sig).

Mod? What mod?

(And yes, that is definately sig worthy!)

 

*Looks at Anakin/Tusken stuff*

Didn't we just leave this party ?

We're also missing the obvious sucess of the OT in becoming such a part of American (and indeed world) National conciousness that a US President wanted to name his space based weapons platform after it.

Hang the fact that Lucas didn't like it, or if it was a bad idea, or anything else- Star Wars affected REAL life and the policy of a US president ! And before you say it was just a name, do you honestly think Reagans advisors would have found such fertile ground in his mind had SW not existed ? It was a thing that spurred the imagination the OT. It helped emotionally support the Space Mania of the 80's, NASA funding agents best buddy the OT was. Just watch Space Camp

Unless someone powerful somewhere is currently thinking of cloning soldiers, TPM and the PT can make no such claim.

Also why has no one made a big fuss about the fact that the OT reveoltionised the merchandising industry and the toy industry ? TPM didn't do that- in fact in attempting to do so it caused a negative backlash.
The toy market of today is a product of the OT, TPM can't match that mark on history.

And computer games, yes ! The SW, ESB and ROTJ arcade machines were extermely popular when released in the early 80's. I loved em' !!
Took a vey pleasant stroll down memorylane the other day 'cause their included as hidden extra's in the Gamecube Rebel Strike 3.

TPM only had that Arcade Pod Racing game, which while I found fun, didn't do all that well. Sure this has a lot to do with the home console market- but it's still an area of sucess TPM loses in.

SHB JR

OT rules ! OT rules ! OT rules ! OT rules !

 

"Thanks for supporting my point that Anakin was a one dimensional goody good and there was not any indication of becoming Vader."

I wasn't trying to support your point, only I was opposing it.

"But it is not understandable that you say on one hand, "It wasn't suppose to happen because the movie was showcasing the "good man" that Obi-wan was talking about..." and then you say he started on the dark path "as soon as he's seperated from his mother and loses Qui-Gon...". Well, which is it? Where there indications that Anakin was going to be Vader?"

Anakin's fear is the indication that he will become Vader later on.

Even though Anakin is a good person, his age and his fear over being seperated from his mom is what makes him dangerous in the eyes of the Jedi Council and Obi-wan according to the quotes below:

Your thoughts dwell on your mother.-Ki-Adi Mundi.
I miss her.-Anakin
Afraid to lose her, I think.-Yoda.
What has that got to do with anything?-Anakin.
Everything. (You know the rest) I sense much fear in you.-Yoda.

No, he will not be trained. He's too old.-Mace Windu.
Clouded, this boy's future is.-Yoda

The boy is dangerous. They all sense it, why can't you?-Obi-wan.

The Chosen One, the boy may be. Nevertheless, grave danger I feel in his training.-Yoda.

We see the results of Anakin's fear in AOTC when his mother dies in his arms and he massacres the Tuskens.

"As for paths Anakin can chose...to indulged your point as being a slave for life or freedom? Is that really a choice?"

If you knew your mother wasn't coming with you to Coruscant, then yes it's a choice.

"I'll give you "Fear is the path of the Dark Side," but it does not compare to the same moral effects given to us by the metaphors demonstrated in the original trilogy."

The OT only showed us the results of taking the Dark Side path whereas TPM tells us the key ingredients that puts you on the path.

"As stated earlier, the Force is glazed over and not given any description as an entity."

You already mentioned that ANH described the Force as an energy field giving the Jedi its power, then a description isn't necessary since we are seeing the Jedi use that power.

 

We're also missing the obvious sucess of the OT in becoming such a part of American (and indeed world) National conciousness that a US President wanted to name his space based weapons platform after it.

That's a bit silly, isn't it? A filmseries is successful if a US President wants to name a space-based weapons platform after it? Right. The prequels are still part of the saga with the same name, so the prequels are still successful by that logic. Unless you expect weapon platforms to be named after the film's individual title, like "The Phantom Menace" or "Attack of the Clones". Makes you wonder where the "Empire Strikes Back"- and "Return of the Jedi"-weapon platforms went.

Also why has no one made a big fuss about the fact that the OT reveoltionised the merchandising industry and the toy industry ? TPM didn't do that- in fact in attempting to do so it caused a negative backlash. The toy market of today is a product of the OT, TPM can't match that mark on history.

Again, that's silly, isn't it? If Star Wars already revolutionized the merchandising industry (which coincidentally has nothing to do with the quality of the movies themselves, but I digress), how can it be revolutionized again? Suppose the OT films were the first to introduce colored film, would you be complaining that the PT doesn't revolutionize film color-wise because it' still the same concept from the OT? IMO, the only way the PT could revolutionize film merchandising was by not having any, which would rather be de-revolutionizing it.

AAnd computer games, yes ! The SW, ESB and ROTJ arcade machines were extermely popular when released in the early 80's. I loved em' !! Took a vey pleasant stroll down memorylane the other day 'cause their included as hidden extra's in the Gamecube Rebel Strike 3. TPM only had that Arcade Pod Racing game, which while I found fun, didn't do all that well. Sure this has a lot to do with the home console market- but it's still an area of sucess TPM loses in.

So having great arcade machine-games constitutes success for a film in relation to its follow-ups? Fantastic. Of course, you have to negate the whole cultural shift in video-gaming of the past twenty years, but as long as you get a (far-fetched) argument, right?

 

"That's why I'm going by what I see in the films and yelling "Get 'em Ani!" every time he ignites his lightsaber and gives a Tusken guard a haircut."

While you're hooping over Anakin's loss of control, I find it interesting that Qui Gonn and Yoda are basically devasatated, foreshadowing what we know will be the fall of the entire galaxy into darkness.

I certainly don't have to imagine innocence on the part of the Tuskens to arrive at my Anakin and Padme disgust.
Don't you get that children (the little tike Tuskens) can't be morally responsible for what their parents do. Is that simple morality beyond you?

Shmi would not have wanted it. Its compassion for Shmi that makes the act all the MORE disgusting, not less.

And most violence DOES take place in the context of imagined or perceived wrongs. It seems only logical that the Sandpeople and humans are locked in a tit-for-tat back and forth conflict.

Your greatest concern seems to be emotionally identifying with these protagonists, no matter what. At some point, I cry foul if Padme's entire moral character is thrown out the window with a single line after the fact.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with this if Anakin keeps the murder of women and children a dark secret.


GL

strilo edit: I wonder if you saw Stryphe's TWO warnings to get OFF the Anakin/Tuskan debate? You need to pay attention when mods post warnings...

 

You totally miss the point Darth_Meul. TPM defender jumps boots first yet again.

I'm talking about cultural impact. With for any piece of art that IS a measure of success. All the things you dismiss, are part of that. The OT had it, TPM does not. That's partly historical, the OT came first, but it is a 'sucess that the OT alone has. Yes ,it's part of the saga,but I was looking at pure measures of difference between the two, regardless of the fact they are paart of a saga.

I made sure that I avoided any quality issues as well, but you chose not to see that, wanting to jump up to the defense of TPM.

*sigh* Once again to be clear :

It's (all the 'silly stuff) a measure of success (cultural sucesses) that the OT has and TPM doesn't. The fact that some of the reasons are good ones and of their time was not missed or my point.

Look at the thread title. Did I offer an example? Yes.

And I did mention the whole change in the video game market, had you bothered to read, not just post.

Well done I'm so put in my place

Think outside the box for a change.

SHB JR

 

I'm talking about cultural impact. With for any piece of art that IS a measure of success.

If having a US weapons platform with the same name, arcade video games and a revolution in merchandising (the revolutionising itself doesn't have cultural but commercial impact) is a measure of success, a lot of films and franchises aren't that successful I'm afraid.

Look at the thread title. Did I offer an example? Yes.

If you've read the initial post to this thread, it asks : "What do you think is lacking/overused in the prequels (e.g. CGI, comedy, script, characters, narrative etc)?". Call me silly for a change, but I don't think having a US-weapon platform with the same name (incidentally, can you call any movie that made a comparable "cultural impact" like the weapons platform, and by this making a statement of its success), arcade video games and a new way of merchandising are arguments what the original author is after.

If you'd say the number of references you hear & see in films and TV programs defines cultural impact, you'd make a point.

Think outside the box for a change.

I'd rather not think about weapon platforms invented by a US conservative, revolutional ways of selling (pointless) merchandise and having a supportive array of arcade videogames as a measure of success for a film (more in all stated cases a measure of abusing the success of the films for political/commercial gain).

 

TPM was never going to better Star Wars, the original was fresh and great characters who seemed to gel and of course there was Vader and a great story.

The scenes in TPM seemed to have short scenes that cut all the time, to me it seems they wanted to show to much to quickly and Darth Maul was in the film for what 5 minutes very disappointing. Hopefully Ep3 can save the Prequel Trilogy.

 

No, I didn't see that "warning" and don't always have the time to read every post prior to the one I'm writing. Thanks for the heads up. I'll step out.

GL

 

PMT99,
whether is was your intention or not to support my points, you did with your comments. So, I offer my thanks.

As for as the talk about Anakin being dangerous, it's just that... talk. There was a gusher many years ago, who's name escapes me that quoted Mark Twain as saying (something to the effect), "it's better to show that someone is dangerous than telling someone." Anakin himself did NOT demonstrate tendencies of a dark lord, within the context of Episode One and thus making Anakin somewhat a one dimensional good man ERRRRRR boy. As you stated previously, "It wasn't suppose to happen because the movie was showingcaseing the "good man" that Obi-wan was talking about". Moreover, Anakin's character did not have any real growth; which is understand since he is not the central figure in Episode One and as the plot does not revolve around his character.

Anakin's mother Shmi would agree that there is not choice in leaving the life of a slave. Being a slave be definition leaves one without choice and opportunity. To think any mother would want thier child to remain a slave is naive at best.

As for fear and the path do the Dark Side, yes the Original trilogy shows the audience, and Episode One tells the audience.

It is necessary for the first chapter of the Star Wars saga to described The Force as an entity as it is the soul and backbone of the Star Wars epic. Without the original trilogy, the knowledge of the Force is vague and lacking depth, which Episode One does so well with it's presentation of The Force.


Darth Meul
It is not silly that the United States President wanted to name Strategic Defense Initiative as the original Star Wars film. If it were silly, Lucas would have not sought a restraining order preventing the President from doing so. Besides, there is still huge percentage of the general population that refers to A New Hope to as Star Wars. It's impressive when a film gets the attention of the President of the United States, members of congress and the general population as a whole.

As for merchandising comparison between Episode One and the original trilogy and it's correlation between the films' quality, being silly? Many sectors of business would disagree. Businesses often want to associate themselves with culture phenomenons and successes. It not good business sense to associate with poor films or unpopular elements. However, I would agree, Episode One did enjoy some success being under the Star Wars saga umbrella.

As for arcade games? Well there is something to playing the original trilogy video game. The attack on the Death Star and having a saber duel with Darth Vader were elements that made the original trilogy so endearing and to playout those elements are meaniful and entertaining to the novice and hardcore Star Wars fan alike. Again, even with video games, there is a direct correlation between the success of a movie and the products that are made, as the video game corporations spend millions of dollars in research and development in what games are likely to be successful based on a movie. It appears the original trilogy is still a strong force in video game industry, as the industry continues to create and distribute based upon them. I'm sure these corporations that produced merchandise using the original trilogy likeness, don't find it silly at all.

 

"If having a US weapons platform with the same name, arcade video games and a revolution in merchandising (the revolutionising itself doesn't have cultural but commercial impact) is a measure of success, a lot of films and franchises aren't that successful I'm afraid."

Don't be afraid, the original Star Wars films did have that success and impact. Not every film can be the next Star Wars.

"If you've read the initial post to this thread, it asks : "What do you think is lacking/overused in the prequels (e.g. CGI, comedy, script, characters, narrative etc)?". Call me silly for a change, but I don't think having a US-weapon platform with the same name (incidentally, can you call any movie that made a comparable "cultural impact" like the weapons platform, and by this making a statement of its success), arcade video games and a new way of merchandising are arguments what the original author is after.

If you'd say the number of references you hear & see in films and TV programs defines cultural impact, you'd make a point."

I'd say the original trilogy made cultural and political impacts.

I'd rather not think about weapon platforms invented by a US conservative, revolutional ways of selling (pointless) merchandise and having a supportive array of arcade videogames as a measure of success for a film (more in all stated cases a measure of abusing the success of the films for political/commercial gain).

You may not think about it, but the people that do are making profits and don't see it as pointless. Moreover, having such things like weapon platforms, revolutional ways of selling merchandise and having numerous video games, in your opinion, constitute the quality of a film, well, it doesn't diminish it either. You say the explotation of a successful film for political/commerical gain likes it's a bad thing. No tries to exploit a bad film for monetary or personal gain, right?

 

It's impressive when a film gets the attention of the President of the United States, members of congress and the general population as a whole.

How does this compare in success to, not only TPM, but any other film out there? Are there other films you deem less successful because they couldn't get a similar honor?

As for merchandising comparison between Episode One and the original trilogy and it's correlation between the films' quality, being silly? Many sectors of business would disagree. Businesses often want to associate themselves with culture phenomenons and successes.

Agreed, but the poster I was responding to didn't state the merchandising itself was the success, but the revolutionising of the merchandising. I can't see how any film can revolutionise merchandising again if it already has been revolutionised.

Again, even with video games, there is a direct correlation between the success of a movie and the products that are made, as the video game corporations spend millions of dollars in research and development in what games are likely to be successful based on a movie.

How does KotOR measure in the equation, being probably the most successful and qualitative SW game both by popular and critical vote?

I still think the cultural impact of a film can only be measured with other people mentioning a film in TV programs, films and books, or when it's mimicked by others. Not with what the creators themselves put on the commercial market. The latter is more an illustration of hyping, while the former shows it touched a lasting nerve with people.

You may not think about it, but the people that do are making profits and don't see it as pointless. Moreover, having such things like weapon platforms, revolutional ways of selling merchandise and having numerous video games, in your opinion, constitute the quality of a film, well, it doesn't diminish it either. You say the explotation of a successful film for political/commerical gain likes it's a bad thing. No tries to exploit a bad film for monetary or personal gain, right?

I'm sure people in the merchandising industry don't see it as pointless, agreed. But I do - I've never been interested in SW the lunchbox, SW the toothpaste and SW the flamethrower (or was that a Spaceballs merchandise-product?). As it has a pure commercial motive, it's stating the same as TPM is successful because it earned a lot of money. The commercial success is indisputable, but I don't think there's a consensus on this site about the critical success (which I thought was the reason behind this thread - talking about the qualities of the films). If not, I suppose TPM was a success over ANH because it was the first film to use a digital camera? And the first to put a trailer on the internet?

 

It is an honor when the President and members of congress use a film to bolster a weapons platform. Does it deminsh the quality of those films that did not received the same honor? No, but Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Carribean don't convey the same sentiments for a Stategic Defense Initiative as the term/name of Star Wars does. However, it was a great honor bestowed on the original trilogy.


As for revolutionising the merchandising industry? If you're saying that Episode One did not (or could not) then I would agree. But, revolution comes from radical ideas that oppose the view of what cannot be done. However, the original Star Wars film did revolutionize that aspect of the industry.

Knights of the Old Republic doesn't really fit into the equation despite it's success as the discussion is between video games based up Episode One and the original trilogy. The point here is, there is a cultural demmand for original trilogy video games. A cultural demmand by your definition is a success. Additionally, it wouldn't matter if the games were put on the market by the creators themselves or another company, the demmand would still exist.

The Star Wars flamethrower was the best gift I ever received. The Star Wars lunch box wasn't that bad either But, if products don't float your boat that's fine by me. What was at issue here was the correlation between a movie and products spawned off by that movies success. The original trilogy did and still does enjoy the success of profits attributed to the quality of itself. I'll give credit for EP1 pioneering the use of a digital camera and use of the internet as it was a revolution of a radical idea.

If you would like to compare Episode One to the original Star Wars film in terms of critical success, plot, characters, story telling, philosophy or cultural phenomeon, I'm game.

 

The Star Wars flamethrower was the best gift I ever received.

It was a rip-off. The Spaceballs one was exactly the same except the packaging, plus it was cheaper.

The point here is, there is a cultural demmand for original trilogy video games. A cultural demmand by your definition is a success. Additionally, it wouldn't matter if the games were put on the market by the creators themselves or another company, the demmand would still exist.

Hm, "cultural demand"? There's a market for it, yes. Maybe it's an American thing to associate success with earning as much money as possible, and naming it "culture". Regarding KotOR : previously I would have said the OT is still a more popular basis for games, but since KotOR I'm not so sure. Any SW period is probably interesting as long as it's a quality product with lightsabers in it .

If you would like to compare Episode One to the original Star Wars film in terms of critical success, plot, characters, story telling, philosophy or cultural phenomeon, I'm game.

Well, I thought this thread did that just fine, until I started reading about revolutionising merchandising and baptising a US weapons platform being an indication of success of a film, while they are singular events that haven't and probably will not be repeated again. Then one thing led to another, and here we are, talking about SW flamethrowers ...

 

Darth Meul
Don't forget about Star Wars lunch boxes.