Prequel Script Writing quality: The whole debate

"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'm not much of a writer or able to comment on the writing quality of the prequels. I will say that I enjoyed AOTC and I thought it was definitely more "Star Warsy" than TPM. Thus I had to quote Patrick Russel as he is better able to articulate upon that point than I am.

As far as the dialogue goes, I thought some of it was rather bland and the love story dialogue was "off." Lucas might have wanted to convey how uncomfortable his characters were, I mean Anakin and Padme, but their actions on screen were enough and the dialogue was unbearable 50% of the time I have seen the movie. I even timed a restroom break to avoid the fireplace scene .

I thought the AOTC story was very interesting, and I also think this thread has been very enlightening as to alternative plot elements/lines that Lucas could have gone off on as well. Sometime I hope to read the whole darn thing just to see what everyone thinks could have been done differently, etc. Anyway, nice thread, from what I've read of it so far.

 

I have 2 (two) words for anyone who thinks the writing is bad in AOTC, or the acting is terrible, or there is no character development... TEEN WOLF...

My god... I was watching it on the family channel last night, out of nostalagia (I haven't seen it since I was 11) and dear lord is it ever bad... yet I remember loving it as a kid... hmmmm... a lesson this might be to those who wax poetic about the 'good ole days' of the OT perhaps???

 

For me, "Showgirls" is the gold standard of bad writing/bad acting. AOTC comes close in a few places, but it could not steal the crown.

 

TokyoXtreme writes:

---

[b][i]
"Pay no attention to what the critics say; there has never been set up a statue in honor of a critic."[/i] - Jean Sibelius

There are numerous statues of critics like Napoleon and Buddha. Salvatore Dali was incredibly critical, and he has a statue. And lest we forget Mt. Rushmore, home of four larger-than-life critics. [/b]
[hr]

Well, Napoleon, Dali, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt were not [i]remembered[/i] for being critics. Napoleon was an Emporer and military stragegist, Dali was [i]mainly[/i] an artist, Buddha a teacher, Washington a General and US President, and so on.

Of these, only Buddha and Jefferson come close to being critics. [b]But that's not what they're remembered for.[/b] People get statues built of themselves for achievement, for adding to knowledge, for building something significant, for being great leaders. Critics never add, they always subtract. While criticism is important for correcting oversights or mistakes, criticism alone is generally not admired.

[i]Note: there have been some writers of satire who are remembered and loved (e.g. Voltaire, H.L. Mencken, for example) but they are few and far between. Nobody will ever build a statue to Roger Ebert[/i]

 

Keep in mind I haven't read much of this topic. Only the first page of so.

Here is my view:

The Script of AotC in it's purest form was very mediocre. A tsunami of cliche`s and unbelievable lines spoken at unbelievable times. For example, why would Anakin say something so shallow as "I have a bad feeling about this" when his life is moments away from being ended and he has no plan of escape? Also when Obi Wan says "not good" during the Jango fight, just before his assumed imminent death. Those are merely catchphrases that state the blindingly obvious, and that is not good script writing technique.

Another aspect of a script is plot flow and whether to include any subplots, whether numerous or seldom present. The already mentioned B-Grade movie dialogue, complete with forgettable lines, cliche`s and soap opera-esque scenes and dialogue, doesn't help the main plot flow at all. Also, Lucas' elementary school understanding of political systems and their complexity is rather pathetic.

Lucas is a competent writer when it comes to adventure films, Indiana Jones and the Original Trilogy for example, but when he delves into political espionage and intrigue, he falls dramatically short in substance and emotion.

The actors are all a competent bunch, with Christopher Lee and Samuel L. Jackson being the best actors in their own right. However, Lucas' chaos of soap opera dialogue, shaky political speech and predictable cliche`s drastically limit their (the actors) ability to create a competent character out with the substance they are given.

Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman are fairly, fairly talented yet their performances were rather dull and lifeless, lacking emotion and believability. Samuel L. Jackson had some of the worst dialogue in the film, and although he tried his very best he could not be saved. Same goes for Christopher Lee.

When a group of reasonable and good talent turn out such forced, unbelievable performances, the fault must be laid on the writer. Lucas.

And why, in the defense of AotC's script do people come back with "we'll it is supposed to be a B-Grade script". If Lucas is making B-Grade movies on purpose, he had better get his head out of his arse and put in some effort, because come Episode III time, if reviews aren't atleast good, then only die hard Star Wars fans will see it more than once, and most not at all.

In conclusion. AotC had a good team of actors, who were hampered down by a B-Grade, cliche`d, soap opera like, emotionless and flat script. Any layman can praise AotC's script. But those who actually have respectable standards when it comes to quality film making, would most definately realise the script writing and acting was consistently mediocre, and even at key times, downright bad.

 

((Nobody will ever build a statue to Roger Ebert))

Instead of "building statues," they give people statues to honor them now, and Ebert already has gooten one.

 

((I have bluntly pointed this out to several people that post regular and hated both prequels. I have yet to get an explanation.))

I've seen explinations multiple times, I've even explained it twice myself. Foxbat has been heavily involved in those threads, which makes me really question his involvement. Since he saw the reasons stressed as to why people that dislike the movie still post here (to defend and discuss their viewpoint like anyone else, which is infinitely more interesting than agreeing with people all day - only people with a lack of reasoning ability would want to do that all of the time), why does he still pretend like he doesn't know why the so-called "bashers" still come here.

Someone asked if Spider-Man/other movies got people coming in "bashing" the lovers of the movie. Not to the same degree - Star Wars is more "Internet popular," and those forums don't have many people with the gall to say that those are the "best movies ever," and trying to gloss over and add merit to things that are pretty much universally accepted as flaws. The fans are not as...blind...as SOME of the people here are, and thus encourage less strong responses.

 

TOKYOXTREME: "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?"

DARTHHOMER: "Um, no. That's Flash Gordon you're thinking of."


Here's the link, fresh from theforce.net.

In case you don't feel like clicking:

"EPISODE 4: There were seven different drafts of the film. At one point, they pursued buying the rights to Hidden Fortress because of the strong similarities."

 

That statue debate still lingers? I don't think most critics are vain enough to lust for a statue built "in their honor". That special breed of egotism is reserved for ruthless dictators and classical composers.

 

I find it interesting that in a discussion about the quality of the SCRIPT, people are defending it with the broad plot.

This isn't a "plot treatment writing" debate, but a screeenwriting debate.

 

I meant that Lucas's original inspiration for Star Wars was Flash Gordon, not The Hidden Fortress. Though he did "borrow" some plot elements from it later on, obviously

Brodie, you're entitled to your opinion, but you make the same mistake as nearly every other prequel detractor by assuming that anyone who's knowledgable about film thinks that the script and acting suck in the new films. There are plenty of writers and film experts who think Lucas is doing a fine job with the prequels. As a screenwriter myself, I think Lucas did an adequate job with TPM and a very good job with AOTC. I certainly couldn't construct an epic saga with so many characters and make it all fit together as well as Lucas manages. I doubt many other writers could, either.
As for the "I have a bad feeling about this" line, I agree it was corny. But if you didn't have a problem when that line was uttered in all FOUR previous films, why would you have a problem with it now?

 

prof_frink wrote:
>I have 2 (two) words for anyone who thinks the writing is bad in
>AOTC, or the acting is terrible, or there is no character development...
>TEEN WOLF...
>
>My god... I was watching it on the family channel last night, out
>of nostalagia (I haven't seen it since I was 11) and dear lord is it
>ever bad... yet I remember loving it as a kid... hmmmm... a lesson
>this might be to those who wax poetic about the 'good ole days' of
>the OT perhaps???

I've only seen bits of "Teen Wolf" - but how about "I Was A Teenage Werewolf" with a young Michael Landon as the hairy one?

Ok - some people earlier in this thread asked for an example of poor writing in the PT, and I briefly brought up the Anikin control ship destruction storyline, but then got sidetracked into a discussion about mythology, and responding to Jar Jar's (the human not the character) wild claims. So here goes - let me know your opinions:

In TPM we have young Anikin destroying the control ship and saving the day, similar to how we have Luke in ANH destroying the Death Star. Both films are the first in their respective trilogies and there is a strong parallel in the story line of father and son both destroying the central enemy vessel - so the two storylines can be legitimately compared. Also these two story lines are major parts of the respective films - not just some inconsequential side shows. So any critique of them should hold a decent amount of weight compared to a critique of some lesser aspect of the films. With that foundation I will begin.

Now if you want to have a character go from point A to point B in order to accomplish something (both actual and figuratively), you can do it in one of two ways. You can have good writing, that provides background motivation, and legitimately sets up the character as believable and able to make the move. Or you can drop the proverbial 800 pound cow so that the character has to move - meaning you didn't do the homework in the writing department, but since you want to have the character move and accomplish something, you just have him move. In my opinion, the TPM sequence is the 800 pound cow, compared to the ANH sequence which is good writing.

Lets look at the ANH sequence. Luke is a young adult nearing college age physically able to pilot a ship designed for an adult. He actively makes the decision to join the rebel attack on the death star. He knows the battle plan, how the vessel can be destroyed, considers the odds, and decides he is going to help. He also has the added incentive of his attraction to Lea, who kisses him before he leaves, and who will certainly be killed if he fails. In the attack on the death star he works with the other fighters and friends, and with the active use of the force as clearly evident on film - he accomplishes his mission. The story line was well laid out with motivation and drive, made believable with skills, teamwork, and use of the force.

Now lets look at the parallel TPM sequence. I assume the fighter is designed for an adult of normal stature? Can Anikin physically pilot it? Debatable - but lets move on. Anikin doesn't really know about any attack plan on the control ship, at least he hasn't sat in on any pilot briefing explaining how it can be destroyed. Does he even understand the significance of the control ship in relation to the battle and why it is essential that it be destroyed? Lets face it he doesn't even know he is going to the control ship when he takes off. We don't even have the love motivation because it doesn't really start until ATOC. About the only limited motivation we can assume is that Anikin would seem to naturally want to kill bad guys in some manner, and of course wouldn't want his friends killed.

But the writers obviously wanted Anikin to destroy the control ship - so how do they get him up there and accomplish the feat? He is told to hide and happens to choose the fighter as a hiding place. He clumsily hits a control and the fighter takes off. The fighter happens to take him to th

 

I think the way Anakin's piloting was portrayed in the Battle of Naboo was a necessity of his young age. If Anakin had been in his teens, I could have believed him purposefully joining the battle at the end. But a nine year old, no way. So Lucas set it up as an accident. Anakin just wanted to help his friends by shooting the destroyer droids, but ended up taking off and the autopilot did the rest.
I agree that there should have been more indication of the force working through Anakin, though, if that's what Lucas intended.

As for Luke in the Battle of Yavin, it's always bothered me why they let a farmboy with no combat training (apart from shooting one of the guns in the Falcon) pilot an X-Wing in such an important battle. Was one of their regular pilots off sick that day, or something?

 

I look hard at the prequel scripts and try to see why they're so disliked. I don't think they're half as bad as people write them off to be.

 

I agree. You can tell Lucas tries his best, even when he fails.
Look at the screenplays for films like Batman & Robin, Tomb Raider, Austin Powers 2, etc. The writers didn't even try.

 

"Brodie, you're entitled to your opinion, but you make the same mistake as nearly every other prequel detractor by assuming that anyone who's knowledgable about film thinks that the script and acting suck in the new films. There are plenty of writers and film experts who think Lucas is doing a fine job with the prequels. As a screenwriter myself, I think Lucas did an adequate job with TPM and a very good job with AOTC. I certainly couldn't construct an epic saga with so many characters and make it all fit together as well as Lucas manages. I doubt many other writers could, either.
As for the "I have a bad feeling about this" line, I agree it was corny. But if you didn't have a problem when that line was uttered in all FOUR previous films, why would you have a problem with it now?"

Everytime that line is uttered, even in the OT, it is and unnecessary and completely unbelievable. Although I greatly prefer the OT, they did come with their flaws.

Nice try, but the great majority of people who review AotC and have a good understanding of what makes a good script, admits that AotC's is bad or atleast highly average. Sure, some layman reviewers who think anything with an explosion and cleavage is good may have given it a good review, but the vast majority of critics and writers alike thought it was mediocre to downright bad. Your a scriptwriter yourself? Well, your standards must be pretty low to actually think AotC's script and characters were "very good". Watch a movie like Schindlers List, The Godfather and countless other brilliant movies and you will see what patronising crap AotC's script is.

Want to see what the majority of critics think? Go here http://movies.go.com/movies/S/starwarsepisodeii_2002/index.html

I can already hear the answers: All the critics (all 4 of them!) that liked AotC are brilliant writers and critics alike, and all the ones that disliked it "don't know what they're talking about".

 

I think the way Anakin's piloting was portrayed in the Battle of Naboo was a necessity of his young age. If Anakin had been in his teens, I could have believed him purposefully joining the battle at the end. But a nine year old, no way. So Lucas set it up as an accident.

And that is simply lazy writing. If he put a bit more effort into this part of the movie, he could have figured out a more believable and less insulting (to the intelligent audience) means of Anakin destroying the vessel. Just off the top of my head, Anakin could've had some sort of "intuitive moment" where he became silent and attuned with The Force, and then proceeded directly toward the ship. Perhaps a line of dialogue would go: "No R2, I'm all right. I know what I'm doing." And then Anakin would figure out exactly what he had to do to destroy the ship.

That's just one possible scenario of many that are far better than having the victory "all by accident". Deus ex machina.

 

Brodie, nice try, but that site you linked hardly offers a comprehensive sample of reviews.
Rotten Tomatoes (while not perfect) at least offers a much larger and more varied sampling of reviews. Out of the 166 reviews of AOTC there, 104 are positive. But I suppose all of those reviwers were film illiterates, right?
I honestly can't understand how the people who despise the prequels ever enoyed any Star Wars film. If you really expect the writing and acting in a Star Wars film to be on the level of Schindler's List or The Godfather, you're going to be disappointed every time, I'm afraid.

 

Want to see what the majority of critics think?

I can already hear the answers: All the critics (all 4 of them!) that liked AotC are brilliant writers and critics alike, and all the ones that disliked it "don't know what they're talking about".

I could care less what any critic thinks - I only care about what I think... If I enjoy something, why do I need to read what a critic wrote to validate and/or tell me how terribly wrong I am...

I still have yet to read even one review of SW II other than those posted here on on other SW sites written by fans...

 

If critics could think there'd be none of us here

 

Did anyone find it odd that there's no mention of how the Sith construct their lightsabers? That would strengthen the script considerably.

 

Did anyone find it odd that there's no mention of how the Sith construct their lightsabers? That would strengthen the script considerably.

Are you kidding?

 

DarthHomer wrote:
>I think the way Anakin's piloting was portrayed in the Battle of Naboo
>was a necessity of his young age. If Anakin had been in his teens, I
>could have believed him purposefully joining the battle at the end. But
>a nine year old, no way. So Lucas set it up as an accident. Anakin just
>wanted to help his friends by shooting the destroyer droids, but ended
>up taking off and the autopilot did the rest. I agree that there should
>have been more indication of the force working through Anakin, though,
>if that's what Lucas intended.

Given Anikin's young age there were not too many reasonable options for getting him into the battle and having him destroy the control ship. That's why it probably should not have been done. It seems to me the writer wanted to have it both ways - he wanted to have a young Anikin in order to delve into the early years, but this made the character ill suited for the later control ship storyline. Having to put so much reliance on clumsiness and chance occurrence to move this storyline along, with little motivational setup and self determination, indicates a character not well written for this particular part.

 

Revolution: I think people are ignoring your very fine post. And it is very fine, very well argued.

I like TPM. A lot. Better than ROTJ.

I agree, however, that Anakin's destruction of the Trade Federation ship is an 800 pound cow. But, for me, that's perfectly fine. A major theme in the movie is the distinction between fate and choice. Qui Gon was meant to find Anakin, Anakin was meant to win the pod race, etc. Such a belief in fate supercedes all of the seemingly important gambling and games of "chance" that are taking place on Tatooine. Along that line of thought, Anakin was also meant to destroy the control ship and save Naboo. Sure, this can be understood as a lame narrative crutch, but, why not? See it instead as a window onto the mythological framework upon which the story was constructed.

 

It is when one uses language like "800 pound cow" that others seem to turn blind eyes.

Nine year old Anakin is not and should not be like 20 year old Luke. Anakin should not be able to intentionally destroy anything. He should not be able to become "in tune" with the force in a moment of Zen and miraculously destroy the Trade Federation ship. He just pushed the right button and hit the right spot. Call it one funny and fortunate accident. Call it fate. Call it destiny. Call it subconscious use of the force (which is probably what I'd call it).

He is not the mythic hero that Luke would be. If a "weakness" were known to exist on the Trade Federation ship then the Naboo fighters would have been targetting it the way the Rebel fighters targetted the death star. Instead, the Naboo were just trying to destroy it like they would anything else. By firing at it in what they hoped would be key spots.

Anakin should not behave like a twenty year old man on a mission to destroy who purposefully taps into the force and uses it. He behaves like a child who is told to hide but who wants to help his friends in danger and thus tries to figure out how to work the ship and use it as a weapon against the droids targetting his friends.

He wasn't trying to win a battle like Luke. He was just trying to "blow up stuff" and then when the ship started blowing up he got the hell out of dodge.