Prequel Script Writing quality: The whole debate

After reading a million posts on this subject whilst I'm bored at work, a few of my thoughts.

1) Yes films are subjective, but you can't just say that something is the best/ better than something else without backing it up. Being subjective doesn't mean that you can give the reason because it is....

2) I think some of the dialogue is awful (just my opinion - don't diss me). The reason I think it is awful is (as a director myself) I see the whole concept of the love story as being a missed oppertunity. The fireside chat may have been the same as lots of us talk when we are trying to chat someone up, but we are not Jedi's about to give up being the messiah (for want of a better word) for this woman. I would have liked to see Ani stuggling more with this decision. A real Romeo and Juliet situation could have been evoked, and it would have made the love story much more powerful. (Granted it would have also made the movie about two hours longer) Any thoughts?

2)The dialogue is clunky. Yes it may be star wars, but I think to deliver a story as epic as this I would have liked to see real craft in the pacing and the poetics of the dialogue. What's with the can nots, and do nots? Totally breaks up the flow of the scene. Very formal, but not in keeping with the teenagerish dilohue of some of Ani's lines. Cheesy is fine, but if it's all about pacin (and acting)

 

What makes this so difficult for me is that I really enjoyed AOTC. I loved it. I've seen it 5 times, including once in a digital theatre that just blew me away.

The best parts of AOTC are some of the best parts of the entire saga. It touches on emotions and puts its characters in situations unlike any other in the previous four films. It aspires to mature themes beyond even TESB.

Nevertheless, there are some bad parts, and then there are some really bad parts.

Natalie Portman's character has gotten worse with each viewing. She is beautiful, and, at times, she conveys innocence, sweetness and compassion. However, she is given some awful lines to deliver and little room to grow her character. The love story makes no sense, wandering aimlessly without any sense of progression.

While Anakin is motivated by a crush and possessed of great talents, making his character's actions more believable, Padme is given no motivation. Her character is like a young boy pulling petals off of a flower: "She loves me. She loves me not. She loves me..." Her character goes back and forth without the script ever showing us why she would. She does it just because she does it.

The dialogue is, at times awful:

"I've been dying a little bit every day since you came into my life."

Really? How was she dying while Anakin was riding the Shaak? It's cheesy, not in and of itself, but because it doesn't relate to anything we've seen the character experience.

"I truly, deeply love you."

In what is supposed to harken back to the classic tragedies, please, do not give us a line that is so thoroughly contemporary and sounds like it came right out of a pop song.

The more adverbs Padme throws in before the word love, the less impact the word love actually carries. "I truly ...", yes, "deeply ...", what, say it before we're fed to the beasts, "love ..." phew, I didn't know what was she going to say, "you."
Only post-modern man throws so many adverbs in front of love, because the word itself means so little to us, and because we are so infrequently disciplined enough to show it through our actions.

SW should not be saddled with lines like this. I could go on for longer, but my post would become too long. But, let me just say that I have heard snickers almost every time I've seen AOTC, and they always come at these moments that are supposed to be the emotional crux of the PT. Something is wrong, terribly wrong with scenes where this happens.

 

JediStrider wrote:
>Jar Jar is essentially the archetypal "jester," the clown-fool seen in
>most of Chaucer's writings as well as some of Shakespeare's. The reason
>we can say this is because Lucas has used archetypes since the very
>first Star Wars. Hell, if you know anything about mythology and Joseph
>Campbell's "Hero" theory, then you can see the obvious parallel between
>that and the Star Wars saga. So, it's not like Lucas started pulling
>archetypes out of his ass; he's been using them since the beginning.
>For this saga, the innocence of a young farm boy is replicated by a
>young slave. A parallel, yes? But GL needed something else. No, not
>something to bring the kiddies in or anything. He needed another
>embodiment of innocence to A) essentially hand the devil the keys
>to Heaven and B) be a tragic figure that helps show another facet
>of the main hero's fall. Because of Jar Jar's fatal flaw (an
>overeagerness to please), he does A in Attack of the clones and
>will most likely become B in Episode III.
>
>So, any other questions?

Mostly comments. Lets for a moment accept that Jar Jar was created specifically as the so called "jester" archetype and for no other reasons, in order to overtly adhere to certain mythological concepts, and that the archetype was indeed adhered to as prescribed by the mythology. Because of course the whole Star Wars enterprise was created as an exercise in mythological archetypes down to the last detail, as some would have us believe by there ability to fit a mythological explanation into even the most vanilla aspects of the series. You write: "hand the devil the keys to Heaven" in describing Jar Jar. That's grand. (I don't buy any of this but I am rolling with you for the moment) That in fact offers no defense of Jar Jar in the actual film - contrary to what some Jar Jar fans believe. Mythology is no defense of a character that was to many people annoying, to the point of taking them out of the film. Whether or not a character is created by a PHD in mythology or some kid out of film school with a pen and paper - the character has to work in the film. Which is why I pointed out that Jar Jar fans who use the mythology argument to further their cause are in fact misusing it, because the proof of a jester archetype does not make Jar Jar a good character in the film.

But as I said - putting aside the erroneous jester/Jar Jar defense, I do not even buy most of your initial jester archetype argument and it's over-reliance on mythology. GL certainly seems to have an interest in mythology, and I would assume he is familiar with the clown/jester archetype. But so are many others involved with story making and characterizations on a daily basis. You want to inject a humorous character in to the story - you are going to hit up on some comic archetypes because they are so universal. Joseph Campbell by the way has made an industry out of overlaying mythology on just about everything - whether appropriate or not.

Getting back to GL - he knows something of mythology and maybe the jester archetype, and he probably wanted a comedic character in his film, and maybe also wanted something he thought kids would like, maybe something to help with marketing, who knows what else - the end result was Jar Jar. The simple answer is that Jar Jar was a character created for many reasons to inject some humor into the story and it didn't work out so well. He probably bumps up against various archetypal characterizations - some on purpose and some not. But I am sure that obvious answer will not stop PT Cruisers from their grand mythological alternatives.

And how do you know that the creator of Scrappy Doo was not a closet mythology buff, and that he was attempting to create the comic and buffoon archetypes in Scrappy's humor and ability to stumble into crime solutions? Certainly if it was up to Joseph Campbell the whole Scooby Doo series would be one grand exercise in mythological concepts

 

Ded-Man wrote:
>Has anybody ever thought about sitting down with the bashers and
>explaining the whole mythology angle to them?
>
>Maybe they wouldn't be so confused.

You don't have to be a basher to see the flaws in overlaying mythology on every aspect of Star Wars and using that as a defense for flaws in the films. Or the fallacy in assuming that overtly mythological references get a green light when the execution in the film is flawed. This is after all a film and not some academic exercise in mythology. But of course anyone critical about certain aspects of Star Wars is a basher right? If only you could explain all this nasty hard mythology stuff to us poor incompetents, because we are just so confused

 

Jar Jar wrote:
>Well, I don't like The Godfather so I guess it did need it. If you call
>it's way lower than Star Wars' BO for it's sequels and it's general dislike
>of it's third chapter a sign of fan loyalty or quality, then have at it. I
>don't see Godfather toys flying off the shelves either. You talk about
>resonation bettween adults and kids, but the example movie you give is so
>inappropriate for children that it makes no sense to me. Oh well, maybe
>you can explain it.
>

Well I certainly don't agree with your opinion of The Godfather, but that is a discussion for another forum. And I don't know what toys have to do with the quality of a film. You can have a rabid fan of a quality film without any toy involved. After all it's really about the film. I would also advise you to not equate money with film quality - or much of anything else for that matter. Making a good film and having quality fans of the film does not equate to generating some kind of fan base to buy toys and eat up other stuff worked up by some marketing guys.

Finally I would advise you to keep in mind the term "sarcasm" when reading posts in this forum. I'm usually pretty good about adding the "" marker when there might be a question about interpretation - as I did with my sarcastic Godfather/triple fudge sunday spoof. If you think it was a serious example on my part of a film that resonated with kids and adults, well then - I'm not sure what I can do for you.

 

"The dialogue is, at times awful:

"I've been dying a little bit every day since you came into my life."

Really? How was she dying while Anakin was riding the Shaak? It's cheesy, not in and of itself, but because it doesn't relate to anything we've seen the character experience."


Actually I read an interesting interpretation of that line in another topic. When Padme says she has been dying, she might mean the old, stoic Padme. If you look at her character before she falls in love with Anakin, she seems more concerned with politics than human interaction, which is probably why so many people call Padme's character emotionless. That's not actually true, but since she has been involved in politics for most of her life, she's learnt to hide her true feeling beneath a cold exterior. But when she falls for Anakin the cold, detached Padme dies (figuratively speaking) and her true self is revealed.
I'm not saying that was Lucas's intention, but one of the cool things about Star Wars is that even the "bad" dialogue has multiple meanings.

 

Here is some advice let yourself get caught up in the movie don?t sit there and judge it and look for bad lines enjoy the film for what it is a film. Its not saying: this is the ways to do things in all movies. Its just telling a little story about a bad kid so don?t over scrutinize it. I loved this movie had no problem with any of it I thought the fireplace scene was great one of my favorites in the movie along with the arena confession. I can honestly say I didn?t cringe once at any of the dialogue. I think Christopher Lee said it best ?Its not the greatest actors reading the greatest dialogue its just entertainment? So I leave it at that

 

I am also somewhat of a critic of the romance dialogue in AOTC. The last several pages of posts have been some of the most thoughtful comments on the the romance (both pro and con) that I have seen on this board.

One scene that did not work for me is the "lake scene" where Anakin and Padme first kiss. I thought the whole "rough and irritating" dilaogue was well rough and irritating. This scene would been better without that dialogue (less is more in IMO). The lake scene was sufficiently beautiful and romantic buy itself that I could see them kissing in such a setting without any more dialogue. The statement by Anakin that Padme was soft and smooth like her planet was really lame.

 

Revolution,
I never said Star Wars was created with an overlaying mythology from the very last detail. But Star Wars IS and ALWAYS WILL BE Lucas' deconstruction of the 50's matinee serial using archetypal and mythological characters. Deconstruction time everybody! Let's go...

Luke Skywalker: innocent young hero, the template for all mythology since the dawn of man. In this case a farmer (if you want to see a recent example of this archetype still being used, the game Dungeon Siege casts you as a farmer out to save your kingdom) who dreams of leaving (as most heros do) but can't. Then his life is shattered, his innocence lost, and he's left all alone to go with...

Obi-Wan Kenobi: mentor/ teacher archetype. A powerful character in the vein of Merlin to Young Arthur's knight. He teaches Luke the ways of the mythological Force. This archetype can be seen in everything from The Matrix to TPM in Qui-Gon Jinn, where Lucas reverses the role for Obi-Wan.

Princess Leia: Damsel in Distress. Before Lucas decided to make it a more personal affair, Leia was simply a device used for Luke to rescue. There has to be a Princess held to be saved, and Luke did this with the help of...

Han Solo: the Rogue. Everybody loves this character. Cool under pressure, not afraid to shoot first (well, at one point anyway), he's like the Thief in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, wily and untrustworty, until the end where we see the character's redemption.

Finally, every mythological story has to have a villain, so we get...

Darth Vader: Evilness. Embodied by black (the symbol for evil). The antogonist to Luke. He is similar to Darkness in another mythological fairy tale, Ridley Scott's Legend.

The main drive in Luke's quest in ANH is to rescue the princess and stop the bad guy. That's it, very simple, but very mythologically based. Not every detail, but still, impressive nonetheless. Yes, most movies have these archetypes, but not used in the same way as they are so perfectly in ANH. Lucas, after ANH, took the series in a very different (and better) direction with ESB, adding spirituality (not any paticular spirituality, just a mythological one) to the proceedings. He made Darth Vader the proverbial Dark Father (get the name, hehe), making the ties that bind even stronger. Leia becomes his sister, and the story changes from a struggle to save the universe to a very personal saga of one family.

So then we have the PT. It takes us back into the mythological fold, keeps all the same archetypes (farm boy changes to slave, mentor becomes apprentice) and adds new ones, such as the merchant (Watto, and if you don't believe that, read more Chaucer because that IS the template for the character) and the jester. Now, Jar Jar was most likely concieved as a way to make kids laugh, no doubts there. But why do you think that the jester is an archetype? Because for as long as people have been writing stories there has been a need for comedic relief, and Jar Jar is just another one. He still fits the mythological aspects of the saga AND provides comic relief (well, to some, but that's a different thread).

End of explanation/ rebuttle/ rant.

 

I thought Star Wars (ANH) was just a remake of Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress?

 

my 2 cents: the writing in AOTC was pretty substandard.

 

I got ripped apart for making the Hidden Fortress is a remake argument. I've seen Hidden Fortress about 3 times, and I have to say that elements of it show up in all three OT movies (the princess masquerading as a peasant wasn't used until TPM). Some scenes are lifted directly. Some plot elements are shifted around. Luca switches the hidden gold to "Death Star plans". The style of wipes and image composition are also lifted directly from Hidden Fortress.

In his interview on the DVD of Hidden Fortress, George Lucas is at his absolute funniest. Faced with obvious line-for-line stealing of dialogue and scenes, Lucas admits that the two peasant characters were the basis for C-3PO and R2D2. In the next breath, however, he insists that the similarity of the warrior general and the princess to Obi-wan and Leia is coincidental.

So, Star Wars is not a remake of Hidden Fortress. It is sort of a intellectual property goldmine that Lucas plunders freely.

 

I thought it was common knowledge that Star Wars was essentially a remake. Didn't Lucas initially consider purchasing the rights to The Hidden Fortress, as Star Wars was so similar?

 

I think his goal was to change it enough so that he could pay Kurosawa nothing. Early drafts of ANH were much closer to Hidden Fortress. But by the time of the final draft of the script, Lucas just retained his favorite elements of Hidden Fortress. Luke Skywalker's character is the reason Lucas cites for why ANH is not a remake.

 

Did Greedo shoot first in The Hidden Fortress?

 

Wouldn't the romance in Attack of the Clones been better if done like this?

Padme ? I truly, deeply love you.

Anakin ? I truly, deeply, know.

 

"Well I certainly don't agree with your opinion of The Godfather, but that is a discussion for another forum."

Here's the great thing though. I don't like the Godfather, but I'm not a member of a Godfather board where I bash the movie because I didn't like it. I just accepted the fact that I didn't like the movie and I moved on. I guess my question is, why be here if you don't like any of the new films? Isn't there a classic trilogy board for you?

"And I don't know what toys have to do with the quality of a film. You can have a rabid fan of a quality film without any toy involved.

After all it's really about the film. I would also advise you to not equate money with film quality - or much of anything else for that matter. Making a good film and having quality fans of the film does not equate to generating some kind of fan base to buy toys and eat up other stuff worked up by some marketing guys."

Really they don't have anything to do with how good a film is, but I think the point that I was making wasn't that at all. What I'm trying to say is The Godfather has no resonation with kids because it isn't appropriate for them at all. Also, I'm sorry that I misread you, but if you read the post you put that example in I didn't see any indication that you were being sarcastic at all.

Anyway, it still doesn't change the fact that most folks thought Godfather 3 was crap either, so both our sagas have "black eyes".

Besides you know us prequel fans.. We're mindless marketing tools the whole lot of us! I guess I'm the exception because I personally don't actually collect or buy any of the Star Wars toys or other side stuff and I still loved TPM. I just get the movie on home video, the soundtrack(s) and a poster.

"Finally I would advise you to keep in mind the term "sarcasm" when reading posts in this forum. I'm usually pretty good about adding the "" marker when there might be a question about interpretation - as I did with my sarcastic Godfather/triple fudge sunday spoof. If you think it was a serious example on my part of a film that resonated with kids and adults, well then - I'm not sure what I can do for you."

I'm am not from Mars, and I have been here for quite a while, so I am familiar with sarcasm. I know you were being sarcastic but in all seriousness so was I when I said it might help the movie. If this helps I'll gladly do that next time.

 

Jar Jar wrote:
>I don't have any problems defending a character or movie that I
>like, because it's easy. I feel worse for you because you have to
>constantly bash on other's arguments if they like Jar Jar or TPM,
>knowing it won't do d**n thing to change their minds. You had to
>make a decision to suck any possible joy out of the film and throw
>bitter sentiments at folks that don't care. That and the fact that
>10 years from now, grown up kids will outnumber you poor bashers by
>such an awful extreme that it will be impossible to wage a war with
>them makes me sad for you.

I was just reading through some of your posts and especially the above paragraph. Could you get any more melodramatic? Why not just add "and so finally he understood the wreck his life had become due to not agreeing with Jar Jar", and be done with it! Geesh. Let me assure you I am not sad for you just because you have some view points I do not agree with.

As to your specific statements: I'm certainly not waging a war as you put it - just having a discussion regarding some points related to a character and more specifically the use and misuse of mythology in discussions around here. If you think it is a war then perhaps you should step back a bit.

You claim I am "constantly bashing others arguments". My posts to these boards do not support that claim. You state I "throw bitter sentiments at folks" and "suck any possible joy out of the film". Interesting take on a bit of criticism. And you draw conclusions from this limited discussion regarding my opinions on TPM and Jar Jar which are patently false. I happen to have found TPM an entertaining film, with some occasional flashes of brilliance, and equally some problematic areas. It is my least favorite Star Wars film but I certainly don't hate it. My position on Jar Jar is that a little of him goes a long way. He didn't bother me as much as he did some others, but I could have used a lot less of him.

Now as much as I am touched by your concern for my supposed sadness - wouldn't you rather discuss Jar Jar (the character), mythology, and the other topics at hand?

 

"I happen to have found TPM an entertaining film, with some occasional flashes of brilliance, and equally some problematic areas. It is my least favorite Star Wars film but I certainly don't hate it. My position on Jar Jar is that a little of him goes a long way. He didn't bother me as much as he did some others, but I could have used a lot less of him."

Well I suppose that statements like:

"Take a look at ANH. It didn't have some kid running around accidentally flipping levers and destroying the central enemy vessel - and yet kids and adults were both able to enjoy it."

or

"Then I guess any director who plans a sequel should add plenty of kiddy aspects to the film - so as to ensure fans that are not fickle?"

or

[/i]"PT gushers specialize in taking the most inane aspects of the PT and turning them into grand mythological strategies on the part of the director - so I have no doubt that someone somewhere has made the fart joke you mentioned into a mythological example of "symbolizing the expelling of fear that is inside Jar Jar" or some such nonsense."[/i]

Lead me to believe that you had a very general dislike for the film. I'm sorry if I lumped you in as a basher, but your posts are very misleading to say the least.. and I also hope you are not backpedaling on your position.

[/i]I was just reading through some of your posts and especially the above paragraph. Could you get any more melodramatic? Why not just add "and so finally he understood the wreck his life had become due to not agreeing with Jar Jar", and be done with it! Geesh. Let me assure you I am not sad for you just because you have some view points I do not agree with.

Sorry, but that's how I see it, melodramatic or not. If you're a basher, the only reason you or anyone like you is around here is not really to crticize at this point, but to belittle the films, which all have their problems btw, to the point where they cannot possibly be enjoyable. My take on it all is to not bother to bash something that I dislike, but to accept that fact and walk away. I can't seem to grasp why it is that these folks who bash don't bash the OT and PT equally for all of their various problems. Why just isolate the newest movies as targets for "criticism"?

Oh and btw, don't feel too bad for me on a personal level because I have had many great times in my life thanks to mainly my faith in Jesus Christ as my saviour and secondly my many great experiences in the theatre and beyond as a Star Wars fan. It's been a great ride for me, and I've really had a lot more out of this life then I deserve!

"Now as much as I am touched by your concern for my supposed sadness - wouldn't you rather discuss Jar Jar (the character), mythology, and the other topics at hand?"

This is not the only topic I am in right now nor has it ever been so. I have talked about Jar Jar many times and defended him and TPM, which seems to inevitably be the place that any argument over Jar Jar goes. Arguing about it never changes anyone's mind and thus we will always be in a stalemate.

 

Jar Jar - your last post puts in italics things which I did not write - it appears that you mixed up some of your italics. But from what I could tell, you chose three quotes from some of my posts, to show why I am the unrelenting basher you claim me to be. Here are the quotes with my responses:

>"PT gushers specialize in taking the most inane aspects of the
>PT and turning them into grand mythological strategies on the part
>of the director - so I have no doubt that someone somewhere has
>made the fart joke you mentioned into a mythological example of
>"symbolizing the expelling of fear that is inside Jar Jar" or
>some such nonsense."

That was a critique of PT gushers who misuse mythology - understand that PT gushers and the PT films are not one in the same.

>"Then I guess any director who plans a sequel should add plenty
>of kiddy aspects to the film - so as to ensure fans that are not
>fickle?"

And that was a question regarding you, and your odd claim that all films must have kiddy aspects to ensure a good fan base - be they Star Wars or any other film. Obviously a false claim - as evidenced by the fact that there all kinds of films out there, both kiddy and adult, with lots of great fans.

>"Take a look at ANH. It didn't have some kid running around accidentally
>flipping levers and destroying the central enemy vessel - and yet kids
>and adults were both able to enjoy it."

Well you got one out of three - at least you did choose one quote critical of the PT. I am indeed critical about how that was done (Anikin destroying the control ship). But unfortunately for you, it is just a criticism of one scene from one of the PT films - TPM. Hardly supportive of your wild basher claim that I am "constantly bashing others arguments", and that I "throw bitter sentiments at folks" and "suck any possible joy out of the film". I remind you that this is after all a thread about script writing, started by someone specifically asking for pro and con arguments. So your claim that people should only say good things is very odd in this context.

 

I thought the story for AOTC's was excellent! I just did'nt like some of the cheesy dialouge. The only story element I did'nt like was that the Geonosians (that hang out in the walls and hives) seemed rather primitive to me and the fact that they have a part in building "The Ultimate Weapon" seemed a little out of place.

 

I think the script is for the PT is very good, it is just different from the OT (notice I didn't say worse). The OT represents the best part of the SW saga, the grand finale. It makes sense that the most fun and lively parts be played out there. The OT had a more human sounding dialogue, while the PT sounds more mechanical and politically correct. I don't mind, and I actually think it improves the story.

It sort of reflects Anakin's mechanical and cold heart in the OT, and we see how he got to be that way. Also, the PT is made to compliment the OT, so when the PT is finished, we get to see the saga shoot into a grand era of action, wit, and adventure that is the OT. The PT is just the set up, and that is why GL released it last, because he knew he would have to have fans willing to sit through it. There is supposed to be a contrast between the PT and OT, because everything in the PT leads downhill, while the more realistic and human characters arise to save the day in the OT.

A New Hope literally should mean A New Hope, a new hope for the story and a new hope for the human elements. Just because the PT is different, doesn't mean its worse than the OT. And remember, we grew up with the OT, so we were basically Force-fed (haha, FORCE-fed) the dialogue in it and as adults we are not as quick to embrace something new and different.

The main thing to keep in mind with the PT is that it is NOT meant to be the best part of the story. The PT only compliments and sets up the best part of the story. That doesn't mean it has to be of poor quality, I know, and it is of especially high quality in my opinion (with regards to other sequel films currently being released, the PT hold up quite well). Lucas made the OT the best because at the time, he thought that ANH would be the only movie he would make for Star Wars. Naturally, he put the best stuff in that movie so it would sell better. Now that there is a fan base who will support Lucas, he can go back and tell the Prequel story without fear of losing fan interest in the series.

Most reasons that I have heard for not liking the PT have nothing to do with the quality of the films at all, rather only there difference from the old OT favorites. When all is said and done, though, I believe that Lucas' plan will be made clear.

I sure like to ramble on and on, don't I?

 

"I thought it was common knowledge that Star Wars was essentially a remake. Didn't Lucas initially consider purchasing the rights to The Hidden Fortress, as Star Wars was so similar?"

Um, no. That's Flash Gordon you're thinking of.
I rate the screenplays for the five films in this order:
1. ESB
2. AOTC
3. ANH
4. TPM
5. ROTJ

The dialogue in the prequels isn't quite as memorable as in the originals, but I find the stories much more layered. I also think some of the characters are more developed, especially "villains" like Jango and Dooku, who fall into a more interesting gray area rather than the simple black and white goodies and baddies of ANH.

 

I really, really dig AOTC, but I definitely agree that the romance dialogue was a serious weak link in the chain. There's a REASON that Irvin Kershner and Harrison Ford rewrote a lot of the romantic dialogue from ESB on the set... and several of the romance scenes in AOTC illustrate why. The fireplace scene in particular... I've seen AOTC four times and each time that scene has gotten laughs (and groans) from the audience. It's not that the audience "doesn't get it"... it's just that bad. (The fact that Natalie Portman looks bored as hell the whole time doesn't help, but the scene overall is just a stinker.)

That said, I think that aside from a few of the romance scenes, the writing in AOTC is FAR better than what we got in TPM. I won't go into what a disaster I think THAT movie was. But AOTC had a lot more heart and a far greater sense of SW-like fun than TPM did IMHO. Yes, technically TPM had more "humor" than AOTC did, but it all seemed to be laid on top of the story with all the style and subtlety of a bad toupee. The humor in AOTC, on the other hand, was more along the lines of the wry quips of the OT, and IMHO it worked far better than the slip-and-fall gags and scat jokes of TPM.

I certainly have no problem with the political aspects of the PT's story so far, as I think it's a classic Machiavellian plot, and certainly as reflective of the darker aspects of our own current political situation in the U.S. as it is of various governments from throughout history. I really think Lucas has done well in showing how an Empire can be made to grow out of a democracy when nobody's looking. And Palpatine has become a FANTASTIC villain over the past two films.

Erm... what was the question again?

 

Well said, Darth Homer! Just what I wanted to say, and in only a few lines! I agree that the dialogue is not as memorable in the PT, but its not outright blashpemy as the critics believe. The story IS much more layered, and you can get lost in this excellent mythology. The OT was a simple story that needed good dialogue to hold it together, but the story of the PT stands well on its own. Evertime I think about how Palpatine is using the Senate, it gives me goosebumps to know how much thought GL has put into this whole thing!