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

Yeah, AOTC is my least favorite SW film. You are the second person in 24 hours to call me weird. Wait a second, JohnWilliams00...are you my wife, posting under the name of a film composer?

 

I fail to see what his views of TPM have to do with his views of AOTC. There are plenty of people who like TPM more. Please refrain from comments directed at posters. You know better, JW00.

 

PMT99,
Dude, I have paid attention but thanks for your concern. Let me return the favor and advise you to tone down your comments as they maybe be consider as flamming material or troll baiting.

However, to clarify my comments I'll respond to you last post.

From my point of view and others, it far better to show foreshadowing than to talk about it. Take the Episode One teasor poster where Anakin casts the shadow of Darth Vader for example. To be cliche' a picture speaks a thousand words.

My points and comments in previous posts were NOT that Lucas needed to show Anakin have dark tendencies, but rather than Anakin was a one dimensional character and had as much depth as Jar Jar. Moreover, my posts were within the context of Episode One and NOT through the evolution that takes place through the rest of the episodes.

As far as the words of Obi-Wan, you brought up the point.

Again, with the logic that facial expressions lead to the Dark Side, then it could be reasoned that Qui Gonn and Obi-Wan were well on their way.

In regards to Shmi and Anakin leaving the slave life, yes I did say it myself there's isn't a choice between slavery and freedom (as Shmi didn't want Anakin to live a life as a slave). What were we arguing about?

The Duel of Fates an illustration of the path to the Dark Side? If you think so. Obi-Wan dividing Darth Maul into two pieces was definitely a form of attack rather than defense. Something a Jedi should not do, right? Not quite the same illustration to avoiding the Dark Side as say throwing away your lightsaber and saying "I will not fight you."

Again, the Living Force and Unifying Force is dervived from speculation and conjecture. In fact, there is no mention of the Unifying Force in the context of Episode One. My point, initially and now is that the Force is vague within the parameters of Episode One.

 

Maybe if you payed close attention to the quotes from the opening scene with Obi-wan and Qui-Gon, then you would know what the Living Force and Unifying Force are and how different they are:

QUI-GON: Keep your concentration here and now, where it belongs.
OBI-WAN: But Master Yoda said I should be mindful of the future.
QUI-GON: But not at the expense of the moment. Be mindful of the Living Force, my young padawan.
OBI-WAN: Yes, master.

Qui-Gon's quotes gave a description of the Living Force and Obi-wan's quote gave one for the Unifying Force and are seperate for these reasons:

Living Force=here and now
Unifying Force=the future.

When you watch AOTC, you'd see that the Living Force is the better discipline since Palpatine/Sidious is using the Dark Side to cloud the Jedi's ability to see the future and the Jedi's overreliance on the Unifying Force is what's making them too slow to act on what's happening in front of them. Then when you get to the OT, you'd see why Obi-wan made that description of the Force and why Yoda criticized Luke for looking into the future; "This one, a long time have I watch. All his life as he looked away to the future, to the horizon, never his mind on where he was and what he was doing."

It's all written on-screen, you just have to pay attention.

PMT, none of those terms, "Unifying Force" and "Living Force," are ever mentioned in the films. At all. You're applying fan definitions as though they were canonical. How can we "pay attention" to what's "written on-screen" when it isn't even there in the first place?

 

strilo: I fail to see what his views of TPM have to do with his views of AOTC. There are plenty of people who like TPM more. Please refrain from comments directed at posters.

Sorry about that. I just thought it was strange to be asked why people continue criticizing a "4 year old movie" when the person asking the question has problems with AOTC. I would think they could empathize with why people may not like a movie. I just think it doesn't matter if the movie is four or two years old. When one has problems they will discuss them regardless of the movie's age, esepcially for Star Wars since the story is still on-going.

On topic: Regarding TPM, I did not see this concerted effort by the general media to try to sink or ruin TPM's box office success. Much of the criticisms in the reviews have been the same things that fans have mentioned too -- the acting style, Jar Jar, the humor, etc...
And let's not forget the sensational boost the very same media gave TPM before it was released. TPM did make a lot of money, but one has to wonder, if there was no media boost or even an OT, what numbers (and impact) would TPM have made? I'd be interested in hearing some thoughts on this one.

 

Loco for Lucas-
"PMT, none of those terms, "Unifying Force" and Living Force", are ever mentioned in the films. At all."

The term "Living Force" was mentioned several times by Qui-Gon in TPM and while your correct about the "Unifying Force" term, it has been referenced by Obi-wan and Yoda.

"You're applying fan definitions as though they were canonical."

It's not fan definitions if both Qui-Gon's and Obi-wan's quotes have already described both of the terms "Living Force" and "Unifying Force".

"How can we "pay attention" to what's "written on-screen" when it isn't even there in the first place?"

I've already pointed out the quotes and scenes that show the proof.


Sith_Sensei_Prime-
"From my point of view and others, it far better to show foreshadowing than to talk about it."

It can still be foreshadowing if it involves something you least suspect. Case in point, O.J. Simpson: When he was selected to play the "Terminator" back in 1983-84, James Cameron and his film crew thought he was too "nice" to be a killer, well he proved them wrong 10 years later with the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Just because one looks all goody-goody, doesn't mean they won't turn evil somewhere down the road.

"My points and comments in previous posts were NOT that Lucas needed to show Anakin have dark tendencies, but rather than Anakin was a one dimensional character and had as much depth as Jar Jar. Moreover, my posts were within the context of Episode One and NOT through the evolution that takes place through the rest of the episodes."

If you ignore the other episodes, then you are right but, again, if one seems all goody-goody doesn't mean they won't turn evil.

"As far as the words of Obi-wan, you brought up the point."

To counter your opinion that all the talk of Anakin being dangerous doesn't mean anything.

"Again, with the logic that facial expressions lead to the Dark Side, then it could be reasoned that Qui-Gonn and Obi-wan were well on their way."

I'm not saying that facial expressions can lead to the Dark Side, i'm saying that they reveal what a person is feeling and Anakin was feeling a bit angry when Mace told him he won't be trained.

"In regards to Shmi and Anakin leaving the slave life, yes I did say it myself there isn't a choice between slavery and freedom (as Shmi didn't want Anakin to live a life as a slave). What were we arguing about?"

We're arguing that it is a choice if Anakin learns that his mother is NOT coming with him to Coruscant and you saw how hesitant Anakin was once he was outside.

"Not quite the same illustration to avoiding the Dark Side as say throwing away your lightsaber and saying "I will not fight you."

Well, Obi-wan didn't have a choice because he was in a "fight or die" situation. Obi-wan doesn't want to end up in the Jedi afterlife like Qui-Gon has and he knows that Maul was in no mood for talking so he had to take him out.

"Again, the Living Force and Unifying Force is derived from speculation and conjecture."

No, it is derived from Qui-Gon's constant preach of the living force throughout TPM and the darkside clouding the future as mentioned by Yoda in both TPM and AOTC.

"In fact, there is no mentioned of the Unifying Force in the context of Episode One."

But it is referenced by Obi-wan: "But Master Yoda said I should be mindful of the future.

 

pmt99,

The Orenthal point, is not related to the use of forshawdoing in the art of storytelling and is hearsay under the court of law and cannot be used as evidence.

Anakin in Episode One is a one dimensonial character, which excludes (meaning ignore) the rest of the episodes which was the original dicussion. Afterall, this is the Episode One forum.

But, yes... Obi-Wans words just became all talk with the addition of Episode One.

Yeah, Anakin was a bit angry and the common human trait response is to have and angry face. As you stated "I'm not saying that facial expressions can lead to the Dark Side." That was my point all along.

Anakin leaving for freedom was no real choice. Your previous sentiments have already argreed with mine.

Right, the Duel of Fates wasn't the best illustration of chosing between the good and Dark Side of the Force, as the moral value is kill or be killed. Incidently, that is why Luke failed in the cave in ESB.

Yeah, Qui-Gon's preaching is the bases for much conjecture and speculation of the Living Force.

Obi-wan did reference Yoda's teachings, aha "But Master Yoda said I should be mindful of the future." but there is no substantive link to the Unifying Force or even if there is such a thing call the "Unifying Force." Since you've have paid close attention to the movie, please direct everyone to the exact quote the contains the term "Unifying Force" within the context of the Episode One movie.

 

There were a number of differences.

1. Lack of newness. SW was fresh, new, innovative and like nothing before seen in 1977. It was difficult to be as revolutionary in 1999.

2. Need for lots of exposition. The very beginning of a story, the ending of which is known, is a difficult thing to tell in an exciting way.

3. The main character is a little boy. Difficult to make such a character have depth.

4. No-one with anywhere near the charisma of Han.

5. SW had Chewie. TPM had Jar Jar. Need I say more?

6. CGI. Something that isn't a solid object can never have the same authentic feel to it as something that is, no matter how dazzling the technology involved is. Props are limited, but they're real!

7. And most importantly ... 30somethings expecting to be moved in the same way as they were when they were 10. Not gonna happen, no matter how brilliant TPM was.

 

Well made points, DarthDuckie.

 

Well, there's no Darth Vader. And the Saga is expanding, therefore the presuppositions people have of what Star Wars is about has been implanted with the Trilogy, is not as applicable as once thought.

But hey, Im no psycho analyzer.

 

The Phantom Menace is a masterful peice of work. The reason for negative fan reactions is simple: People just dont like what George Lucas is setting out to do. Any good critic says that they prefer to evaluate a movie based on what the movie sets out to do, not on what I think it should have set out to do. Unfortunately, fans dont have to and shouldnt have to go by this phylosophy in evaluating films because they are the ones shelling out the bucks. They just want a carbon copy of the OT with better special effects. But GL said all the way back in 1982 what he was intending for the prequel trilogy:

The First Trilogy
STARLOG: 1982
Source: STARLOG Magazine #48, July 1982

"The first Trilogy will not be as much of an action adventure kind of thing. Maybe we'll make it have some humor, but right now it's much more humorless than this one...a little more Machiavellian - it's all plotting - more of a mystery." George Lucus

So far the PT is turning out exactly like what he said it would.

From the Lard Biscuit's masterful defense of TPM:

"It's not nearly so easy to sum up the plot of The Phantom Menace that way, but here's my best attempt at it: Anakin begins his journey to becoming a Jedi, and Darth Sidious, a.k.a. Senator Palpatine, becomes Supreme Chancellor of the Republic by secretly manipulating a bunch of smokescreens, including a trade blockade and planetary invasion, that distract everybody from his grand scheme for the Sith to rule the galaxy and destroy the Jedi.

I think it's an ingeniously crafted plot. Lucas was faced with the challenge of establishing Anakin and Palpatine's beginnings, two unrelated story threads which are not really suited to fill the forefront of Episode I's action, since they're both in embryonic stages at this point. So Lucas concocted a dramatic entanglement of invasions and battles that he overlaid on the Anakin and Palpatine developments, and actually creates an indirect cause-and-effect relationship between those two crucial plotlines.

That's a hell of an accomplishment. The Phantom Menace tells an exciting action-adventure story while surreptitiously setting all the pieces into place for the eventual horrific advent of Darth Vader and the Empire. Most people don't even notice the greatest tragedy in the movie, which is the collapse of the Republic. If you missed it, it's in there, all right, toward the end of the movie -- but it happens offscreen. It's the election of Palpatine as Chancellor. That's the really significant thing that's going on while we're watching a minor skirmish on Naboo. Most people think The Phantom Menace has a happy ending, with the Naboo celebration parade and all the smiling faces, but it most certainly does not. Many people think the movie has a silly, dorky, little-kiddie plotline. They just aren't paying attention. "



In terms of what it set out to do, TPM was a massive artistic success. It took a very complicated plot and presented it in the best way possible.


This is why I really think the PT will be seen in a much more positive light in the future.

 

They just want a carbon copy of the OT with better special effects.

Sure, its not a copy of the OT at all. By the way, here's a summary of a film below. Try to guess what movie I'm describing:

The story starts out with two characters who escape danger aboard a starship, while a girl of nobility is captured by the bad guys. The two escapees wind up stranded on a desert planet and through a series of events meet a talented boy who is a native of the planet. Together the group eludes the enemy sent to the planet to look for them and they escape. The girl of nobility is rescued by the protagonists and eventually leads a plan to launch a counterattack against the enemy. The Jedi master of the group is killed by a Sith lord, though not before introducing the boy from the desert planet to the Force. The boy from the desert planet blows up the enemy space station and we end with a celebration of all the characters looking into the camera.

 

Oh sure, there are similariteis, but there are also huge differences, and the overall pacing and flavor of the movies is completely different. With that line of reasoning I could tell you how Braveheart and Gangs of New York are carbon copies of each other.

 

I'd agree. It's very simple why people don't like Episode One and it is the direction Lucas has taken with these prequels. However, I doubt people wanted a total rehash of the original trilogy but rather the same elements that made the original movies epics and classics. The Force was used as a guideline and metaphor for moral values; moreover, it was the basis for philosphical and theological debates. It not a carbon copy that is desire with the prequels, but the traditions set by the originals.

Thus far, Episode One and Episode Two are bogged down in subplots and trying to set up future events, which leaves many of the storylines of the prequels fragmented. If critics find that entertaining, so be it.

 

And which of the two films executed virtually all of these similar story elements more effectively? Which did a better job of motivating the audience to care? Be honest now.

 

They just want a carbon copy of the OT with better special effects.

That simply isn't true.
Look at TESB - one of the reasons it's so admired by fans is that it wasn't a carbon copy of the original. It expanded on everything and had a different structure, different feel etc. and it had the most surprising ending of all the films so far.

There are many reasons why fans dislike the PT.

g

 

I don't really think too much about what George Lucas set out to do, it's his execution that stinks sometimes. How many of us really thought that much when going into TPM on opening day? I'd say we all just sat down with pretty open minds waiting to be awed. Some stuff was actually pretty good, some was okay, and then there was stuff that no one can ignore.

Michael Bay said he set out for "Pearl Harbor" to be the most realistic and honorable depiction of events in WWII. Something must've been lost along the way, because I and many others thought the movie was cliche-ridden, clumsy, empty-headed, and dishonorable to veterans. Countless inaccuracies and liberties were taken, filled to the brim with Hollywood cliches and with yet another fated star-crossed lovers plot amidst war. Sounds like another SW movie I know of. Sure, some of the effects were actually pretty sharp in Pearl harbor, but the way so many scenes played out, you can really see that it's a music video director behind the camera and not an artistic one.

If you are so hung up on intentions of a filmmaker, that must mean you should be able to love every movie out there, because doesn't every filmmaker set out with the best of intentions? PJ had the highest intentions for LOTR. Why don't you love his movies? What's wrong with you?
Ang Lee had the best intentions for The Hulk. How come it received so much flack?

Ideas on paper is one thing, the final execution of it all is what is chiefly judged.

 

JohnWilliams00,
Don't forget about the intentions of the director of "Show Girls."

Did that movie ever drop a bomb.

 

1. good acting
2. good dialogue
3. personality
4. good plot

 

I agree that films are sometimes unfairly criticised based on people's expectations of the film, rather than what the director has tried to achieve. I do think, though, that all fims are subject to assessment on a few key points. Convincing performances by the actors, engaging characters, pacing, well written dialogue etc are almost always important. I'm a huge SW fan and overall I really enjoyed TPM, but I have to admit that in a number of these crucial areas TPM didn't compare well to The OT, irrespective of what GL was trying to achieve.

 

I agree that films are sometimes unfairly criticised based on people's expectations of the film, rather than what the director has tried to achieve. I do think, though, that all fims are subject to assessment on a few key points. Convincing performances by the actors, engaging characters, pacing, well written dialogue etc are almost always important. I'm a huge SW fan and overall I really enjoyed TPM, but I have to admit that in a number of these crucial areas TPM didn't compare well to The OT, irrespective of what GL was trying to achieve.

 

Thankyou everyone for contributing to this topic, i appreciate all of your views and opinions.

I think that there are no correct or incorrect views on the success or failure of these films, and the verdict ultimately comes down individual opinion. Both A New Hope and The Phantom Menace exceeded financial expectations and made revolutionary changes to merchandising and film culture.
The re-occurring negative receptions that greet film sequels is familiar in all modern cinema, as original films form a basis of comparison and judgement for its successor(s).
No film, no matter how successful, can flawlessly please 20 years of anticipation, for something that was originally innovative and record-breaking.
Peter Jackson?s The Lord of the Rings adaptation was a remarkable achievement, though the success was based rather on years of imaginative expectations concerning its initial literature and not film, therefore this argument is not validly linked to the task of the prequels.

Many of TPM?s criticisms neglect the changes in film history, technology and society over time, and often scrutinize their diverse findings unfairly.

Lucas and his production crew achieved everything that they set out to achieve, and this was a highly pressured situation concerning what their product had to live up to. With multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters produced and accessed by the dozen in modern cinema, it is understandable that The Phantom Menace would have never been able to achieve the overwhelming success with both young and old audiences that A New Hope did in 1977.
For the young audience of today, the success of the original trilogy is only understood by shared experiences of the initial cinema releases and their own personal interpretation of the old films. More importantly, the original mind-blown fans of the seventies have grown up, whereas Star Wars has not, and still retains its youthful appeal. This makes trilogy comparisons extraordinarily difficult to make because films affect audience members individually and in our own special way. It is therefore up to us to make the ultimate decision and measure our own personal verdict on the film?s level of success.

thanks again for everyone's posts.

chris

 

More importantly, the original mind-blown fans of the seventies have grown up, whereas Star Wars has not, and still retains its youthful appeal.

I still say this wasn't a factor. For TPM not to have some youthful appeal would have made it glaring against the OT, and likely would have turned off a lot of fans.