ST Less is More

Spread out over one itty bitty space is still a cluster.

 

Leia mentions the planet being blockaded, so I imagine the Imperial Star Destroyer blockade of Hoth was similar to the Trade Federation blockade of Naboo--so, just a few ships, in a ring around the planet.

 

It's Star Wars. It should be grand in scale but not too grand.

 

Great thread so far. To get back to the original topic...

Or sparkling vampires. *cough-Twilight Breaking dawn 2 - cough*

Not all "new" or unique Force powers have to deal around hurting someone. With Jedi originally being peacekeepers and advisors, I could see them having traits that makes them excell in everyday life. Like, why not a jedi, who entertains small younglings with beautiful singing? Or a jedi creating some gorgeous art? Maybe a jedi connected more to the living Force and loving to spend time in the gardens, surrounded with lovely plants?

 

I like it... Jedi powers that enable vacuuming and dusting to be completed as if on steroids...

 

I'm all for it. Not all jedi need to act as wooden as they're having a stick up in their butts. Funny and weird jedi are welcomed.

 

Absolutely. I really don't want to see any more stiff Jedi so to speak. Unless it's a minority and the point of difference brings drama with the other characters. I want engaging characters this time around.

 

I don't think that we'll see any pompous and stiff Jedi in Ep VII - that was kinda the point of wiping them out in Ep III...

 

Let's hope so, but I'm not completely convinced the reason most of them are so unlikeable is because it was intentional.

 

What makes you think that when it was actually referenced in the dialogue of AOTC and ROTS? It was pretty much spelt out that they were part of the problem/cause of the Republics fall.

 

Because I honestly think that part of it was down to poor writing by GL, and I think it was a poor choice to make them virtually all unrelatable and poor execution further muddied the fact that as you say, the Jedi Order was blinded by its own flaws and complacency. I'm in no way against the overall vision, but I think his (by his own admission) flawed screenwriting ability lessened the point he was trying to make.

 

But he wanted to make them (the Jedi Order) appear cold, unemotional, pompous and bureaucratic... that was kind of the point wasn't it? And if Lucas achieved that, then he pretty much nailed it I'd argue. Saying that - I still think Obi-Wan, Yoda and Qui-Gon were all pretty likeable characters in the PT - I certainly didn't dislike them as the main Jedi characters in the prequels. Where I think Lucas could/should have made a character more "relatable" was with Anakin... and I think that was a consequence of having him be so young in TPM and emotionally immature in AOTC... but that's another discussion.

 

I disagree, I'm sorry. I think GL's thinking was muddled. I think he wanted us to like the Jedi at times, but not others. His nuts and bolts screenwriting wasn't up to the subtleties of his vision. For a tragedy to really pack a punch, you have to really care about someone, and I think (for me, not the plenty that were satisfied) that's where he fumbled it.



Why do I think GL's thinking is muddled? To give a specific example - in ROTS, after Anakin's dream/ vision he goes to see Yoda to tell him about his fears. And Yoda tells him that he shouldn't miss or mourn those that pass away. Now while that may be very zen and detached, it's so detached from real human behaviour/ experience that I think it makes Yoda come across as especially cold, distant and blind to what Anakin is going through. Now that might be the point, and would totally put us in Anakin's shoes, but, on the commentary, GL essentially states that he agrees with Yoda, and that Yoda is right on this. So GL seems to me like he's coming at it from a philosophy/ anthropology angle, which is fine and also interesting, and I kind of like that there are no black and white easy answers in the world. But it's just not how humans react, nor should they. And for me, it's that kind of detached thinking that hampers the PT. I think it's the kind of thing that Kasdan was talking about when he said the originals were more about people whereas the new ones are more about ideas, and I hope the ST goes back to be being more about people (which is not to say I don't want ideas explored either).

A lot of what makes a script, or a film work, comes down to choices, then execution. And I think, by all means show that the Jedi are blinkered, complacent and arrogant, but you have to show that some of the Jedi (our core group of hero Jedi) can see that and actively clash with that attitude/ ideology. Sure Yoda points it out a couple of times, but he does't really do anything about it. And Anakin's beef is never about that, it's about him not getting his own way. So while the point is in there, it's buried, only poking its head out when Yoda tells us that it's an issue. Qui-Gon being switched from Obi-Wan in the early drafts of TPM is a major part of why this doesn't work as it should, and which also ties into your point about Anakin being so young. I would argue it's a poor dramatic choice that cripples the characters until ROTS.

If Anakin is Luke's age in TPM and he is discovered by a more maverick, reckless Obi-Wan in that first film you can pretty much keep the same basic plot but get stuck straight in to what are going to be 2 absolutely pivotal relationships across the PT:

Anakin's friendship with Obi-Wan and Anakin's love for Padme.

Now, I get that GL's point was to show how a good kid can turn into Hitler (basically), and while that's interesting, as a choice it totally derails those key relationships in a way that AOTC struggles to recover from. Because he spends no time in TPM developing them in a believable way we have to be told rather than shown everything in AOTC, and because we've yet to meet Hayden as Anakin in a situation where he's presented as really likeable, he's kind of given a pretty thankless task.

It's kind of like Padme dying because she loses the will to live. I kind of get the overall point - that Anakin's fear to avoid his destiny is precisely what's led to it - there are certain things we cannot change (at least I think). Because if not, not only is the idea that a mother with two-newborns would just give up on life horrific to me, it's also an abysmal line. If you want to show that destiny could not be changed, either have Anakin's injuries directly lead to her death, or just remove the will to live line and leave it with "for reasons we cannot explain, she is dying". Then at least it falls into "the lord moves in mysterious ways" vagueness with jarring you out of the plot. Padme's decision to die from a broken heart (despite the fact she thinks Anakin still has good in him) is so far removed from what most people would relate to it's not true.

So while certain things may be precisely what GL was trying to achieve in terms of overall vision, sometimes his screenwriting choices are working against him.

 

The problem Diggs is that your assersation is based on major assumtions that negatate both actual narrative and dialogue within the films themselves. I'm not of course suggesting that you don't feel unengaged (you clearly do) or that the characters/story shouldn't be engaging (they obviously should), but I think you're placing too much emphasis on assuming Lucas 'did it wrong'. I think he made certain choices in depicting the Jedi in an unfavourable light to... 1) Demonstrate that those involved in mechanics of democracy become complicit in the rise of totalitarianism/faschism, when the mechanics fail. 2) Give Anakin a reason to foresake the Jedi order.

I personally feel Lucas 'got it right' in the way he portrayed the Jedi as a failing institution... their legitamacy, both publically and politically, was in question... and Palpatine used their own failings (and the failings of the Senate) to usurp them.

You also mention Yoda's seemingly 'coldness' in ROTS... do I need to quote TESB - where he believed Luke should not try and rescue Han? He seems quite consistent to me in his detachment.

P.S. I agree about Anakin in TPM. He should have been older and he should have, ideally, been played by Hayden... and I think it meant too much requirement for catch up in AOTC. But as I say... that's another conversation.

 

You make a good point re Yoda in ESB being consistent, and one I edited out before I made my original post. It is only Luke that goes beyond this - but - my point was more to illustrate that certainly by the time of ROTS, GL himself no longer thinks Yoda is wrong, hence my assertion that GL's thinking is muddled by that stage.

Maybe my point IS wrong above. You're right, maybe GL did achieve exactly what he wanted to. I guess I'm complaining that, personally, I feel failings of the Jedi between PT, and OT and eventually Luke, could have been executed much better than they were.

 

While I do agree with you in many posts, I'll just state my opinion about Anakin.
To me, he's the only fully developed character in the saga and I dare to say, the most human. Yes, he's young in TPM, but he still has likeable personality and he's not boring. He works for Watto, he's building his own pod-racer, he knows people in Mos Espa and he's the coolest kid in the town, all the other children come to see him making a pod-racer. No, he's not relateable because he's been manipulated and ordered to, but his inner conflicts in AOTC and ROTS made him truly the most interesting character in the saga. I find a trilogy driven by characters' inner dilemma's and desires much more interesting than... Well, let's leave that.
In his trilogy, 1-3, George Lucas achieved everything he wanted to. Including young Anakin in TPM.

 

It's Lucas' story so you have to respect him for the way he wanted to tell it... However, I think by having TPM set circa 10 years before the events of AOTC, it actually breaks up the overall narrative. I understand that Lucas wanted to show the innocent young boy who is taken from his mother... and it's certainly interesting to see... but in relation to the other 2 films of the PT, I think this is less significant to the audience (and the flow of the overall story) than Lucas thinks. It also, IMHO, makes TPM seem somewhat seperate from the bigger story (the events of AOTC and ROTS) and makes TPM almost seem like a prequel to the prequels (if you get what I mean). Finally - from an acting perspective, it doesn't allow Hayden enough progression as an actor (given that he's not there to act in a 3rd of the PT).

I certainly think TPM is given a somewhat unfair rough ride, but for me it works better as a standalone film than it does an 'act 1' in a 3 act play... and as a consequence, act 2 and 3 (AOTC and ROTS) seem a bit rushed in terms of the Anakin/Obi-Wan and Anakin/Padme dynamic. If Hayden had been playing an older Anakin in TPM, I think Anakin's relationship with Obi-Wan and Padme would have evolved more organically on screen... and the audience could have still had a sense of a 'good kid gone bad'. But that's just my take on it...

 

Agreed. Effectively, you're resetting after episode 1.

 

I thought that GL's decision to make Anakin a 9-year old boy was a good one, at least intellectually. I thought it raised the stakes on Luke's call to action in ANH. As I've grown older, I've come to realize that leaving home is a biggie, and thst maybe that's what the SW films were all about at heart... So it's tough to fight Lucas on that one. But,yeah, I agree that this choice on GL's part hampered Anakin's character development in the PT. Having said that, I've always felt that a major reason as to why Anakin's eventual tragedy didn't resonate as it should have is because he never had to face the kind of opposition that Luke faced in the OT. As others have pointed out before, in the PT Anakin squared off against too many adversaries who contributed too little to his character arc. Anakin fought, nay, butchered, Sand People, had a couple of sword fights with Dooku (with whom Anakin had no interaction otherwise), then finally Obi-wan. All of these antagonists felt too much like... red herrings. You can say the same for the Trade Federation and the role it played in the larger framing story of the Fall of the Republic. Not that the TF was an arbitrary presence in the PT or anything. I just felt that GL tipped his hand a little too soon by forcing the TF into action so soon in TPM. To me the TF felt too much like a red herring, right off the bat. GL didn't give me enough time to invest emotional or psychologically in the TF as a real, viable threat. As a result, the PT mostly worked on an intellectual level for me.

 

It could be argued that the Trade Federation is the true Phantom Menace...

phan·tom also fan·tom (fntm)
n.
1.
a. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.
b. Something elusive or delusive.
2. An image that appears only in the mind; an illusion.
3. Something dreaded or despised.

In a sense, the threat posed by the Trade Federation is the illusion without real substance, i.e. the phantom menace, while the real menace is Sith Lord who's pulling the strings behind the scenes. I think that title has multiple meanings including Anakin of course, but this is also a valid interpretation that I haven't seen very often.

 

[/quote]t could be argued that the Trade Federation is the true Phantom[/quote]

That's a nice interpretation. I'm feeling it. Speaking of which, that's just the thing. The TF always felt too much like an unsubstantial presence to me. Atleast it did during TPM. I guess I'm basing my argument on the assumption that the TF was a red herring. For red herrings to provide a big reversal at the end of a tragedy they ought to feel like legitimate threats at some point. The way I see it, anyway.

 

Yeah. And in that sense the Sith (and possibly Anakin as well) becomes the phantom menace. So in actuality it can equally refer to two entirely opposing concepts. I have no idea if that was intentional, but I do think it's interesting that the usual (and probably more correct) interpretation can be so easily turned on its head and still work just as well.

 

Yep - there's definitely an intellectual justification for Lucas depicting a 9 year old Anakin being removed from his 'home' and in terms of setting him up for a feeling of guilt, alienation and anger... it's just that by the time AOTC comes around, Anakin feels like a totally different character, both physically (obviously) and in terrms of personality... they are almost unrelatable. The Harry Potter films achieved this more successfully, as we had more screen time to see character/actor mature over several films... and I'm sure if the PT had been like that, Anakin's character would have been portrayed with more success. However, Lucas only had circa 6 hours of screen time... so the effect is diminished and Anakin's story (the real story) seems to get unnecessarily condensed.

Well I suppose they are 'red herrings' because the enemy is very much 'the enemy within' i.e. Palpatine. And Anakin's battles are much more subtle than the Luke versus Vader dynamic of the OT. Anakin's demons are painted in a very Shakespearian way - in terms of underlying tone and objective... which I thought was very clever on Lucas' part and worked really well for me. The strength of this is demonstrated in that, prior to the PT, I was fanboy eager to see Anakin's fall and see him being a 'proto-Vader'. However, due to Lucas handling of the events on screen, I was no longer thinking "good - Anakin is about to go darkside", but rather "don't do it Anakin". For me Lucas succeded in making the PT (specifically ROTS) a real Shakespearian tragedy... I understood why Anakin was doing what he was doing, and I thought they depicted him as being a very sympathetic and sad character... which is an achievement given that we (the audience) view Darth Vader as probably cinema's greatest/most iconic villain.