Lay Off Lucas & Co. Already!

George Lucas is probably the best visual/CGI man of our day. I don't think a human alive can touch him in that department(my opinion).

But he blows as a director when it comes to people and his dialogue writing has to be the worst in history,simply *BAD*

He has accomplished more good that bad in his lifetime but at the same time his *BAD* cannot be ignore.

I think Lucas should stop directing for the rest of his life because he's obviously not going to get any better and let either Peter Jackson or Spielberg direct Episode 3 while he concentrates on the one thing he's good at: special effects.

Du365
June 30,2003

 

I still think Sauron from LOTR is one of the bad guys with the least amount of backstory ever. I mean, on what's in the film, what do we know about him? He used to be a big evil guy, got killed, now he's an eye on a tower. He wants the Ring for ultimate power. He's just the Big Bad with no personality.

Oop, but I better not get this turned into SW vs LOTR again

 

Speaking for myself, Im very particular to see the "end product" where I think we can satisfy ourselves whether the Love Story, Padme interaction with Anakin, etc etc worked or not. Buts Its no secret Im a proponent of GL's work in the PT, but I also feel that the potrayals work really well IMO and enough for Part II.

For example, I see from the very beginning for AOTC that Padme has feelings for Anakin. So to skip later to see that she reveals her love for him, without worrying about the repercussion, don't seem off the mark. Especially when its clear that the Separatists are playing dirty and that there is no way the Republic can reason with them. Therefore, what better time to tell Anakin that she loves him is when there seems to be the end of all she had hoped for being politician.

In my eyes, all of the "weaknesses" see we think we see, are not really weaknesses. The story is working for what it is and that there is still one more chapter to go.

Off the soapbox, carry on

 

"From AOTC, we can see that Dooku is overconfident, tricky, deceitful, ruthless, mysterious, and a traitor."

Wait; he's both tricky and deceitful?

Seriously, though, those are all the traits of a boring, generic villain, and he never gets a chance to move beyond that. Compounding the problem, inexplicably leaving him out in the cold for most of the film makes him seem more like an afterthought than a force to be reckoned with. For its first hour and a half, the film focuses its efforts and attention on everything but Dooku, and on that level, he's such a low priority that he barely registers. For an hour and a half, he has less screen time than Queen Jamilla by a factor of infinity.

While we're on Final Fantasy, think of 8. Our supposed villain spends all but the last five minutes of the game in absentia, getting talked about behind her back. (Yes, she occasionally possesses other characters, but even then she only engages in run-of-the-mill stock villainy.) By the time our heroes finally meet her, just in time for the fight scene, we still have no idea who she is, why she wants to do what she's trying to do, or anything of the kind; the closest thing to character development she ever exhibits is her inexplicable problem with the letter C. Sephiroth; now there was a villain. He had a purpose, he had a motive, he had a long-standing personal rivalry with the hero; that's how you generate tension and drama. Tossing two strangers into a room, dressing one in white and the other in black, making them fight and calling it a climax doesn't come close.

"A film is only as good as its villain," Hitchcock once said, and generic villains don't do their films any favors.

DamonD:

Sauron does have a backstory, if you know where to look, but more importantly, his power as a villain comes from what he represents; he stands for all the evil in the world. To fight Sauron is to fight not some generic man in black, but the concept of evil, with all its power and allure--and to many, such a battle rightly seems impossible.

Such a powerful villain benefits the story in that he requires the heroes to rise to the challenge, and grow greater in overcoming it. A weak villain makes the heroes look weaker in turn ("It took them the entire movie to beat that guy?"), and an absent villain, or near enough, simply removes or marginalizes the challenge, stunting the heroes' growth and greatness in the process.

On that level, Sauron works well, and with his all-sweeping vision and status as evil personified, his various orcs, nazgul and other such henchmen are less his minions than his manifestations. Whether or not he makes any personal appearances, his presence is everywhere, at all times.

The same cannot be said for Dooku.

 

Sauron does have a backstory, if you know where to look

That's very true, but the same can be said for Dooku. You can find much more out about them outside the movie.

Maybe I just find a straightforward black-and-white evil character just a bit...well...dull...I found Saruman (sp?) more interesting than Sauron, for starters.

But, I'm sorry, I'm getting way off-topic here.

 

Ok but DG did you knwo ever thing about the characters with in the Frist disc on the FF games. No you did nto you need room for development.

As to Dooku you say he was jsut like other bad guys. Well last night I watched T2 on the Sicif channel. Any ways the T-1000 was also just like other bad guys. Heck he had very little development Dooku had development where it was needed his development had character will finish up in the last movie and that will be that.

 

DamonD

"That's very true, but the same can be said for Dooku. You can find much more out about them outside the movie."

Which is odd, if you recall Lucas' non-interest in the EU. Since when has extra reading been necessary to understand a major character in a Star Wars film? You've just pointed out a major problem with characterization - or lack therof - in the PT. Granted, Ep.III could explain this, but Lucas' desire to hold back on everything until Ep.III is leaving TPM and AOTC rather bare-boned.

"Well last night I watched T2 on the Sicif channel. Any ways the T-1000 was also just like other bad guys. Heck he had very little development"

Very different example. The T2 was generally lacking in emotions to begin with due to its very nature (Dooku didn't have that excuse ). The development occured between him and Sarah and John. We watched him grow, as a learning machine, and it was this development that led to his final act of sacrifice.

I thoroughly enjoyed the T2's portrayal, especially when Sarah compares him to the "perfect father" - he'll never get drunk and beat John, he'll defend John day and night, and would willingly give his life for John. Not only did this point out key character traits of the T2, but it also gave us insight into Sarah's past experiences. Heady stuff, indeed.

 

But you see the point is the t-1000 no character development. The T-800 had a lot of character development. Some times the bad guy does not always need a big development. Some times simple is best. With Dooku simple is best.

 

Oops, I see your point! (I didn't think about the numbers.)

But again, it's a robot, designed with a single purpose. the T-800 had been specifically programmed to do otherwise, and all of this was explained (though more so in the deleted scenes, which should have stayed in, IMO.)

Dooku does not have a single purpose. In fact, his purposes seem to contradict each other at first glance (and in fact confuse many people.) I can understand Lucas not wanting to give away too much, but Dooku just comes off as someone simply following orders, like an automaton . There's not much of himself in the portrayal.

He doesn't come off as being a bad guy, unlike the "emotionless" Terminators. Intentional? perhaps, but it stunted his portrayal. In every scene with Sidious, YOU KNOW he's a bad guy. Why couldn't Dooku have "cut loose" a little in that last scene, just to give you a bigger hint? He just comes off as a lackey - debonair, but a lackey.

 

I agree with anidanami124, some times the bad guy does not always need a big development. As I said before, OT Palpaltine and Tarkin have no character development.

Besides, Dooku isn't the ultimate villain of Star Wars, he's just a passager or a subordinate "bad guy". On the other hand, Palpaltine (the real villain of the whole saga) is a very intriguing and intelligent character.

 

Ok but DG did you knwo ever thing about the characters with in the Frist disc on the FF games. No you did nto you need room for development.

ani, if you're just going to repeat yourself, without responding to any point I raise, I'm going to lose interest in this discussion very quickly.

As for the T-1000, we know practically everything there is to know about him. We know his mission, we know his motive, we know his methods; he's not a very complex character, but he's painted in very broad strokes, and as such, regardless of how much there is to know about him, we know who he is.

The T-1000 also has ample time to make his presence known, thoughout the film; again, an effective villain needs to be both powerful and prevalent to pose a tangible threat.

 

ever noticed how with every new James Bond film that gets released the actor who plays the respective villain always says in interviews how "this villain is so different from all the previous Bond villains" and the reason they took the part was that their villain had so much more complexity than all the previous ones? Yet every single time in all those 20 films we get the same cartoony, over-the-top villain in his underground lair?

Sauron has no character. If you read Tolkien's book you find out as much about Sauron as the viewers of Jackson's film do - nothing. There's some addtional Sauron backstory in the Silmarillion but it doesn't go into character. Actually Jackson has already provided us at least with some kind of visual idea of Sauron, something Tolkien never did. He never appears in the book (thereby totally destroying the usual outcome of romantic Fantasy stories that ALWAYS end with the unlikely hero defeating the villain in a climactic duel) and when I first read the book as a child I always thought of Sauron as not really existing. I saw him more as an "idea" than an actual character. Many people see the return of the previously defeated Sauron as simply an allegory on the returned threat of the previously defeated Germany. in any case it works to the advantage of the story that we know nothing about him at all. The story, despite named after him, doesn't hinge on him. Saruman, the orcs and Denethor are the real villains of the piece and they're extremely well-developped (well, apart from the Orcs maybe)

 

"an effective villain needs to be both powerful and prevalent to pose a tangible threat."

Correct. This threat was very prevalent in Tarkin (more so than Vader in ANH), both terminators, Sidious, and even Maul, to some extent. I did not get this from Dooku, either as a Separatist or a Sith. He was certainly good with a saber, but the battles themselves were weak. He was good with Force lightning, but it wasn't very effective (though I will admit I think this was on purpose on Lucas' part - not Dooku's )

Dooku simply wasn't an effective bad guy, much less a lackey. There's too much up in the air about him to really decide - I would have liked to have seen more both ways, what may have been construed to be walking a fine line comes across as ambivalence.

 

Has it occured to anyone that the prequel villians aren't supposed to represent a tangible threat?

 

"He was good with Force lightning, but it wasn't very effective (though I will admit I think this was on purpose on Lucas' part"

"There's too much up in the air about him to really decide"

Gee, no Durwood. It never crossed my mind.

You'd certainly better hope your assumption is the case, for the sake of your precious trilogy.

 

Has it occured to anyone that the prequel villians aren't supposed to represent a tangible threat?

Powerful, threatening villains generate tension and conflict, and conflict is what drives a story forward. For a huge chunk of AOTC, the only threat against the heroes is that something bad might theoretically happen in the future. Dramatically speaking, that's dead weight.

There's simply no good reason to have left Dooku out of the film until the last second. Does keeping him "mysterious" take top priority, to the exclusion of everything else, including giving him a role in the plot? Think of what that does to the rest of the film, and weigh the pros and cons.

 

My precious trilogy? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

Powerful, threatening villains generate tension and conflict, and conflict is what drives a story forward.

At least that's one way to generate conflict, but it's not the only way nor is it necessarily the best way.

Does keeping him "mysterious" take top priority, to the exclusion of everything else, including giving him a role in the plot? Think of what that does to the rest of the film, and weigh the pros and cons.

I agree, it could have been done differently, but different isn't necessarily better.

 

"I agree, it could have been done differently, but different isn't necessarily better."

not necessarily better, but probably better.

that "different isn't necessarily better." favorite of yours doesnt really mean a damn thing, so save your fingers and stop typing it. or are you hoping to start up the old "opinion vs fact" hogwash again?

 

Hi, Dr.E. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it.

 

Whoah! Sheesh!

I guess my whole objective for this thread has been stamped to jelly! Back to the armchair pundits again already? It only goes to show how tough it is being a Star Wars fan - especially amongst other Star Wars 'fans'!

Opinions, backlash, bickering, finger-pointing... you'd think the JC forum was full of typical know-it-all Canadians (I'm allowed to say that )

Better watch out, folks, or this forum may be taken over by someone who should make you all agree... someone wise!

 

This threat was very prevalent in Tarkin (more so than Vader in ANH), both terminators, Sidious, and even Maul, to some extent. I did not get this from Dooku, either as a Separatist or a Sith.


The reason why Dooku doesn't seem as menacing or threatening is because we're not even supposed to know he's a villian until the very end of the film, when he fights our heroes ("The Dark Side I sense in you.") and confirmed when by talking to Darth Sidious, is revealed as a Sith. In fact, Dooku is seen almost in a sympathetic light, fighting against a corrupt Republic. I'm sure in Episode III, now that we know he's evil I'm sure we will see Darth Tyranus as more menacing.

 

that "different isn't necessarily better." favorite of yours doesnt really mean a damn thing

If you say so, slick. Now, did you have anything to add to this discussion, or did you simply wish to spew a little vitriol my way?

 

So we're not meant to root for the good guys.

And the villains aren't meant to be much of a threat.

Pretty soon someone will say:

"And the dialogue is meant to be bad."

And "it's just a sci-fi film."

And "SW films were never as good as you thought they were."

Really - what is the point in continually making excuses like that?

g

 

gez, that has already been used before, in defense of the PT. Pretty sad, huh?