Saga OT or PT?

Right, and the story in the PT is told well. In fact, if you agree that the story in the PT is as well told as the OT, then the PT would win by default given that one trilogy was able to tell a much more complex and rich story equally well. Asking why my first statement is time-wasting; you've consolidated your opinion and discussion will not change it. Objectively delving into the reasons why, is simply going to hit an iron wall of subjectivity sooner or later.

Argument yes, worthwhile no. I don't believe that the ardor of my arguments will sway OT fans who are all too grounded in their opinion. You asked me a question here that I already answered multiple times, but I'll re-affirm it; the PT executed it's story fabulously.

"Many" people might prefer the OT because they feel the story is told well, you say? I would actually root it in the luminous impression the OT made on them which slanted their view of Star Wars to a certain lens. I would root it in the stark difference of the two trilogies causing an aversion to the prequel trilogy due to a love of the originals. I would root it in the Prequels discontinuation of some of the narratives and memorable characters that people enjoyed in the OT crowd; the Prequels established itself as a different entity to an overarching saga, not as an extension of the OT. All understandable reasons but the problem lies in the aversion caused by the aforementioned reasons being passed off as a poorer told story, an antipathy to certain characters, etc, in the PT.

The PT is a gemstone in that it does tell it's stories (which are very intricate) well. Flatly put, George Lucas applied his same masterful story-telling abilities into a richer and thicker context. And it is because of this masterstroke that the PT trumps the OT; the story execution has never been weaker, but George Lucas, probably as a testament to his own growth and evolution between the two trilogies, took his abilities one step further as evidenced in the PT.

The fans come and go; biases circulate as they always have. But objectively, the nucleus of the PT's superiority lies in the sentiments expressed above. Much as one of Star Wars themes is growth and improvement (which I also believe is one of the seven characteristics of life), this same theme would be witnessed in the two sagas, which is why I will never apologetically say that the two trilogies are indeed equal; the PT is better than the OT.

There is no "engine" at work here in my post you quoted. My initial post affirmed my position in response to the OP; I didn't write it to construct a persuasive argument, knowing that persuasion will be an impossible task with many.

But yes, you are right on execution of the story being essential to any film. And I ask you to look above to see my thoughts on the execution of the PT.

 

^^^^^This.


edit to add:

Substitute "PT" with "TESB", and you'd have an "argument" that people who were "slanted" towards Star Wars (1977 film) would "stumble" over TESB and never accept it (or any subsequent sequels) as worthy. Of course, as an iron-clad 'rule', it doesn't survive close scrutiny. So it goes with your theory of fans who are PT critics. Speaking of critics, this "nostalgia" argument would fail against those critics of the PT - whether professional or casual movie-goers - who were NOT fans of Star Wars in the first place.

Darth_Articulate practically handed you a ready-made argument here, and you squandered it. A pity.

It's not an 'argument' or 'debate' anymore. It's a cross-examination, with a Star Wars attorney-lawyer, who is both defense attorney pro PT, and the prosecuting attorney contra the OT. It all sounds familiar.....

btw, this attorney doesn't seem to realize that if 'dropped' points are 'conceded' points, then saying 'right' is agreement with one's opponent.

 

part II

Why not accuse him of 'dissembling' too? That would really seal the deal. Though I hear that the "throwing things under a bus" meme, is real popular too.

Translation: "You're not arguing the way I want you too. You're supposed to admit defeat!!!"

 

I am not placing any sort of burden upon Lucas as to what sort of story he should have been telling. My point was with regard to the idea that the PT was more complex, and showing that the political ideas were actually rather simplistic - so we have on the one hand a normalised 'western' view of 'democracy' (a central, 'representative' Senate) and on the other, greedy individuals who wish to topple that.

To clarify; it is not in any way a discussion about what should have been, or how it could have been, it is an attempt to show that under what appears to be a complex story lies - in reality - very simplistic set ups.

 

The "deal" had been sealed; I don't press for redundancy. Speaking about hearing things, I hear people like to bring up discussions that are long since over ... wait a minute...

Er, no. Not only is your statement derogatory of our actual discussion, you've taken a leaf out of the false misrepresentation book. But you've taken it one step further, it's rather insulting to see how you try to slander my statement. Here's a refreshingly correct translation of your post:

Translation: Komodo9Joe came out on top so I'm going to try revisionist defamation to belittle him and notify him by quoting, thereby, ensuring that he gets a receipt of my post.

 

I see your point but I think that Yoda from Episode II is essential for Yoda from Episode V. Without the PT in mind, a lot of Yoda's words sound like Yoda just finished reading "Wisdom for Beginners". Without a witnessed context, it seems flat. "Wars not make one great" is only powerful when thinking about the Clone Wars. The Jedi lost, the Separatists lost, the Republic lost. No party was made great. And Yoda, the best of all the Jedi, thought he could fix all things wrong just with his lightsaber in a fight against Sidious.

I don't think so. Not much of an independent motivation???
You do realize that the TF is an integral part of the Separatists, right? The portrayal of the TF's motives in Episode I also served as back story for the Separatists in Episode II and III. Basically, the TF tried to get their things done for themselves and when that didn't turn out very well they formed a military-econimical cartel with other corporations under the lead of Count Dooku to make it better.
And I don't think Dooku should have been introduced in TPM. Why? Just to sit around as a random Jedi? There is no point. I thought his introduction was quite fine because - without knowing the film - he alliances are not made clear until the end. I just wished the extended library scene was left in the film to give Dooku more background.
There was no point for Boba Fett in ANH, too, wasn't it? Maul had about as much character as Boba Fett. Maul wanted revenge, Boba wanted money. They are both loved.

 

Might I suggest you refrain from intruding; it would help avoid these contextual misconceptions in your post about what is and isn't my argument. If you want to converse with me, fine; just don't attach yourself to preexisting conversations that have clearly delineated one recipient, i.e, Darth_Articulate. Discussing with multiple people on a single post simultaneously is nonsensical; you would want my full attention, not a partial one, on a post to truly engage in an earnest conversation and vice versa.

I find it a pity that you place so little trust in Darth_Articulate's abilities to respond for himself. Darth_Articulate, not you, replied to me and I, not you, replied back to him in turn. Not to mention this reply is more evidence of confusion regarding my position; see the above reply on how to remedy this. It's rude and wasteful to leech and pile onto others.

While I appreciate the compliment, your last sentence is profoundly wrong. There is a difference between agreeing on common ground and conceding a point. An elementary example of this would be a person stating "The sky is blue" to which I might respond "You're right" (agreement with nothing having been disputed) and "I admit that you're right" (concession of a previous standpoint).

Of course, I can clearly see your intent to try to both undermine me and offer ancillary support to those I'm discussing with. Neither practice is okay.

Quick Note: Predictably, I see how a small group of OT-posters are banding together as evidenced by likes of posts that outright pervert the meaning of my sentences.

 

The line existed pre AOTC and was memorable in its own right. It did not seem flat; nor did Yoda's words seem like they came from "Wisdom for Beginners". The background being that Yoda was a very, very elderly and revered teacher who had taught Obi-Wan (being, himself, an elderly and wise teacher).

In a retrospective world-view (after the PT) one might imagine that his words only have power because of the PT but...they held out on their own without it.

 

We must remember that because it is two different situations with Yoda. In TPM, TESB and ROTJ, Yoda is the guru of the Force. The one who has spent hundreds of years training Jedi in the ways of the Force and he imparts this knowledge to Anakin and Luke, the latter for training purposes. In AOTC and ROTS, we have a Yoda who was active in political affairs and then in the war. The dialogue would be different because of this. Just like in TPM and AOTC, Palpatine speaks as a political leader versus the other films where he does that, but he also speaks as a master of the dark side. That doesn't mean that the OT and the PT have the better portrayals of Yoda, just different ones.

 

Character is a word that gets thrown around way too often, frequently neglecting the fact that everyone, as humans, have qualities that define them. Darth Maul is menacing, powerful, and predatory; metaphorically similar to a nightmare. One of his first sentences, "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi, at last we will have revenge" drips with feral emotion, with vengeance, with thrill at the idea of conflict. Not to mention that Star Wars is a film, so imagery can just as easily convey emotion and traits. Just look at Darth Maul's debut as the blast doors opened:




Almost, like a sleeping and hooded dragon rising to meet it's awaited foes, i.e. next victims, the point that was clearly being put across here: Maul means business!
Not only an excellent character, in and of himself, Maul introduces us to the Sith, effectively characterizing them as well: A merciless, powerful group of Force users who are clearly in opposition to Jedi and in fact, seem to stand as a foil for everything the Jedi represent. But Maul is also a character that embellishes the statement, "less is more." Although hardly given dialogue, Maul is portrayed as an obedient and relentless attack dog, silent in inaction, and explosive when in action. His pause after he bests Obi-Wan, those few moments where he savors the victory and looks down contemptuously down at Obi-Wan, jaded in his arrogance, only to have his overconfidence lead to his downfall, quite literally, in the Naboo pit again add another chunk of characterization to him.

Even without all the deleted scenes, Christopher Lee delivers an excellent performance of the venerable and fallen Jedi, Count Dooku. Count Dooku is introduced in early exposition as a political idealist<<<there's some immediate characterization for you, and is constantly painted in ambiguity until the end. Dooku is both very charismatic and very manipulative. In one of the most dialogue-rich scenes in AOTC, Dooku's conversation with Obi-Wan, we get to see all of this come out. Dooku is a masterful manipulator, effortlessly weaving a tapestry of lies and truths, planting confusion on his own allegiance as he invites Obi-Wan to join him. Holding a regal charisma, Dooku seems to be 'not so bad' as others, even offering to spare the Jedi in the Geonosian arena, but the facade is dropped upon the confrontation in the hangar. Even in the duel, Dooku is characterized as mocking, self-assured in his superiority, and lethal with both the blade and the Force. In ROTS, Dooku's look of shock and unmitigated dread is clear as he looks upon the eyes of the two men who will decide his destiny...

General Grievous, unlike Maul and Dooku, is described as a coward and we even get to see him fearfully running for his life on arachnid legs after being blasted by the Force with Obi-Wan. Grievous is shown to represent the essence of the CIS's part in fighting a sham of a war; unlike the Sith, Grievous thinks that the war is the real conflict. Thus, he reveals concern of what he considers to be the fundamental matter, the Separatists' side of the Clone Wars, to Sidious, noting that the turn of the war seems unfavorable "with the loss of Count Dooku." The aforementioned fact that Grievous is just a cog also gives symbolism to the fact that he is a machine, a tool in a greater game, while also serving as a forerunner of Darth Vader.

The above statements are preliminary comments and only scratch the surface of the characterization, of which there is plenty, of each the villains in the PT.

The audience instantly learns of a key trait of the Trade Federation in the TPM opening crawl: they are greedy and later described as cowards. Simply put the fact that they are a business and are greedy together; it's not difficult to see that they are driven by profits and other less-than-admirable virtues. Their goal and intentions are backdrop to the leading casts' goals and intentions just as the Moffs' purposes in ANH take backdrop to the goals and intentions of the OT heroes. In fact, ask yourself, why are the Moffs part of the governing rule of the Empire if there is man in a black suit who has no qualms about suffocating them in front of their peers? The obvious answer is that the Moffs are motivated by prospects of self-bettering themselves by serving the Empire just as the Separatists probably expect to profit themselves by winning such as war, perhaps by abolishing those taxes that sparked them to start the invasion of Naboo. In fact, we have more to work with regarding the Separatists' intentions over the Moffs' intentions but it's inconsequential either way; the movie does not and naturally, should not, delve further into the ambitions of the Trade Federation (who are part of the Separatists) when there is limited screen time and a lot that needs to be told regarding the main story.

The amount of times a character does not equate to the amount of characterization a villain receives; these two things are not mutually exclusive. So this statement is a fallacy of which nothing can be solely built from.

 

In TPM the TF are working with the Sith, what are they hoping to get out of it? The opening crawl mentions a tax dispute so presumably the TF want that tax gone. Note however that at no point do any of the TF guys mention this tax or what Sidious is doing to get rid of it. Sidious at one point says that he will keep things as they are in the senate, bogged down in procedure. But the TF want this new tax gone so they would want the senate to act in this matter and vote it away.
So what Sidious is doing seem to work counter to what they want. The TF had planned to invade Naboo and they probably thought that they would get control of it. Why? TPM established that the TF already control quite many planets so why would another be of interest? Does Naboo have anything of value? Nothing is ever mentioned.

I know that the TF is a part of the seps and the rest mostly seem to be other greedy business people. They have demands but what those are is never said. Sure it might be less taxes but if they are breaking away from the republic then they won't have to pay republic taxes anyway. If they are going to set up a new kind of government, separate from the republic, then taxes is something they can't really avoid. Unless they think a government can function without money. But perhaps they are planning to conquer the republic and make themselves the rulers of the galaxy, or they are planning to loot everything they can and enslave the population.
See my point? What they actually want is never established, we can speculate all we want but their motivation is not very clear.

Also both the TF and later the seps mostly just do what Sidious/Dooku tells them to, he tells them to invade Naboo, they do. He tells them to make a big droid army with which to attack the republic, they do. They lack their own motivation in much of what happens. The best example of an independent motivation is Nute's desire to kill Padme in AotC.
Why he feels this way makes some sense given TPM, but it is passing strange that he for some reason never tried to have her killed in the ten years after that.
I know that the TF/Seps are just meant to be patsies for the Sith, someone who causes trouble while the sith get what they want and once they are no longer useful they are terminated. But, to me, if the seps had been established independently of the sith and we know what they wanted and that their desires where not totally unjust. Then how the sith used and later killed them could be more tragic than it was.

There is plenty of point to have Dooku in TPM. AotC tries to have some kind of mystery about who is behind the hit on Padme and it also tries to blur the lines whether or not Dooku is a bad guy. But since the opening crawl makes him seem up to no good and Padme quickly accuses him of trying to kill her, the audience would think that he is a bad guy and, no surprise, he is. So the lack of an introduction in TPM combined with what AotC establishes early, there is not much doubt that he is a bad guy.
Had he been in TPM and established his friendship with Qui-Gon and that he was fed up with the corruption in the senate and argued that the Jedi should stop serving such a corrupt body. Then at films end he leaves the jedi order.
So in AotC the audience knows who Dooku is and in TPM he was shown to be a good man who was passionate about fighting corruption so we might think that he was one of the good guys still. Then at the end we see that he was not and this could be a surprise. Also if Dooku was in TPM and we saw that he was a good person but later Palpatine used him and corrupted him and finally had him killed, then his fate could also be more tragic than it is now.

About Boba Fett, he is in ANH but that wasn't how it was originally. Personally I think his cameo in ANH is rather pointless.
But he does not really compare with Dooku in regards to his overall importance to the plot. He tracks Han to Bespin and gets them captured. Dooku, along with Sidious, is responsible for the seps and the outbreak of the clone wars, which drives the plot of AotC and RotS and is a big part in the formation of the Empire. He is also a Jedi turned to the dark side, that is a big deal with Anakin and now here is another jedi that also fell. Why? We don't know.

Maul I found to be uninteresting as he didn't have much of a character and he was a disposable villain, there to look cool, fight well and then die. Boba worked well in ESB, felt redundant in RotJ and I don't really love either character.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

There was no "discussion".
Pontificating about the PT being better than the OT, is not a "discussion".

Only in the minds of those who prize rhetoric above dialectic.....

Not enough of a long-winded sentence...needs even MORE words.

 

More confusion... the discussion was prompted with his reply about the complexity of the PT, not of pontification. And you're still trying to chalk up the past to bandage wounds...

 

I see that you've yet to answer the above point from post #337.

Remember.... "dropped points are CONCEDED points".

 

...except I'm not debating anything with you, merely responding to posts. What and whom you considered prized is your opinion. Glad you shared it.

 

First, that scene is not Maul's debut, we first saw him as a hologram together with Sidious.
Maul's traits is all surface, he looks evil, so he is easily identified as a bad guy.
He wants revenge against the Jedi, tough for what isn't said in the film.

Powerful? We don't see much of Maul over the course of the film until the final fight.
We saw him fight Qui-Gon briefly and he did well but until that final battle, he has never killed anyone or shown that he is this unstoppable force. Ex. compare with the first Terminator and Predator films. There the main antagonist is shown again and again as very deadly, taking out opponent after opponent. So there is a real fear in the protagonist in how they are going to overcome this deadly foe.
Same thing in the first Matrix film, we see agent Smith totally destroy Morpheus, whom we saw fight quite well against Neo. So when Neo decides to stand his ground against Smith, we know what Smith is capable of.
Maul fights well, no argument there, but that fight, while done well, was less interesting to me than most of the OT fights because those had more character to them.

Next victim? Maul hasn't actually killed anyone yet. If he had killed Qui-Gon on Tatooine, then you might have a point. As it is, we are told he is a sith, what they are isn't really explained other than they are bad guys. And how is he a foil for everything the jedi represent? He is a bad guy and they are good guys but beyond that? He can be calm, something the jedi also can be. He is skilled but so are the Jedi. The OT films had recurring villains, ex Vader, that were built up over the films and that made more effective as villains. The PT had more disposable villains, Maul gets killed in one film, Dooku lasts two but has limited screen time and is killed of early in the third film. Griev is likewise killed in one film.

Lee's performance is good yes and I wished there was more of it as I feel he is underused and killed of much too soon. However I disagree that there is much ambiguity about whether or not Dooku is bad guy. The opening crawl makes him sound ominous. The first time we hear his name, Padme accuses him of trying to have her killed. Both those things indicates that he is a bad guy. One jedi tries to deflect the issue by saying that he is a political idealist but that is too little, too late. We have no reason to doubt what Padme says, and the first time we actually see Dooku, we learn, no surprise, he WAS behind the attempts on Padme. That makes it very clear he is up to no good.
Also he works with the TF, one of the bad guys in TPM, that is another strike against him.
Then you have the name "Dooku" and him being played by Christopher Lee, that doesn't make it very hard to figure out that he might be the bad guy. And before you say it, I know he has played good guys as well, I own some of those films. But he is mostly known for playing bad guys.
And if you have seen some or the trailers, you see him with a red lightsaber, the weapon of a sith.

So I admit that there was an attempt to make Dooku ambiguous but that didn't really work as the film quickly made him out to be a bad guy, which we later see is correct the first time we see him.

Yes he is a coward but since much of the plot in RotS is the Jedi trying to kill him, the biggest obstacle is that he runs away all the time. We have a scene where he decides to stand and fight Obi-Wan and he tries to show off. But he is quickly beaten and runs away again. So he isn't established as a very capable threat. We also don't see much of his skills as a general nor why he is so important to the seps or why his death will end the war.

Yes they are greedy, cowardly and not too bright. Not very deep or complex characters there.

The person Vader chokes in ANH, Motti, is an admiral as I understand it, at least the ANH script calls him that. EDIT: My mistake, he is apparently a general.

Tarkin and the others are a part of the military hierarchy of the Empire. Why? Power would be my guess rather than self-bettering themselves. With the removal of the senate, the regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Motti gloated over the power of the DS, which caused Vader to rebuke him. Some of the imperial officers in ANH did not seem to hold Vader in very high regard but Tarkin did. He seemed to respect Vader and could listen to him and what his plans were. They seemed to treat each other as equals mostly. Aslo, why would the one event of Vader choking one of them when he was being arrogant and disrespectful, cause the others to leave the service of the Empire?

Yes the time is limited in the PT.
But, to me, some of that time was not well spent and some things were left unresolved. Like who really ordered the clone army. RotS also feels rushed, that so much has to happen in one film in order for the OT to work.
I think that the prophecy, as it is used in the films, could have been removed with no loss and that time could have been spent elsewhere. There is enough going on with Anakin as a character so you don't really need this as well. Having Anakin be a kid in TPM, I know Lucas reasons but to me, it had too many drawbacks and some things had to be moved to AotC before they could be developed.
It also causes logical problems of why Qui-Gon brings a little kid into a war zone.

The separatist movement could have been established in TPM, then in AotC we learn that it has grown. Same with Dooku.

[/QUOTE]

Hardly, establishing a character takes time, how much depends on how complex the character is.
A rather simple character can be established fairly quickly, a more complex character will take more time. Sure a character can be undeveloped even though they are on screen a lot. But if a character is not shown or spoken of, then they can't get much development.

Build up towards a confrontation also takes time. This was done in the OT with both Jabba and the emperor. Sure neither character is very deep or complex but there was a build up of them.

Compare for ex Vader and Maul in ANH and TPM respectively. Both serve the role of the villain, but not the head villain. Both look intimidating. But with Vader we see his power and ruthlessness early on. We get some backstory on him, he was a pupil of Obi-Wan and he betrayed the other Jedi, most esp Luke's father. So when Obi-Wan and Vader face off, we know some of the back story between these two men and the fight between these two men has been built up. The actual fight isn't great, due to technical limitations and other things. But it was still effective due to the build up of the characters. Maul, I found lacking and uninteresting, he is surface and style, very little substance. So the fight, while better done, is less interesting to me. So Vader, while not getting a huge amount of screen time is built up and developed quite well. In ANH he isn't very deep or complex but an effective villain.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Komodo9Joe stop trying to pick fights and belittling every single opinion that doesn't match yours.

I've had enough of this thread. Locking