Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Darth Xalfrea, Jan 2, 2013.
Samuel Vimes. But he didn't.
Exactly! He didn't and AOTC shows that he didn't. I guess George Lucas should have inserted a Jedi interrogation scene at the end of TPM because obviously there are some who can't use their own imagination and common sense. I guess GL really should have just spelled out every little detail on screen!
But its not about having everything spelled out, its about whether the events we are lead to believe occurred make any sense. Lets for one minute accept that the cowardly Neimodians are so fearful for their lives that they'll say nothing (despite that simply knowing what they know they are in danger from Sidious and that their best bet is to seek the protection of their captors - if Sidious wants what they know to stay secret then killing them is the simplest option, after all). They begin AOTC as not only free, but back as heads of the Trade Federation..... They invaded a sovereign planet with an army, treating their captives terribly and they're allowed to go free? They are war criminals. And nobody in the Republic wonders about that? Not only that but they are involved in the CIS, and yet we hear Mace Windu defend Dooku against the accusations of Padmé - while he is in league with the Trade Federation. Why is it a big surprise when they find that the CIS are building a droid army? I mean, think about it. We have the Trade Federation and its leaders who were involved in an illegal invasion - with a droid army - let free to continue with the very same Trade Federation, who then involve themselves with a separatist movement.... and nobody expected they might plan something militarily? Really? Is everyone in the Republic stupid?
So, not only do we have the situation, later, where nobody seems to wonder at the mysterious arrival of this huge clone army, we have the situation where nobody seems too bothered that war criminals have been freed and are involved in a clearly aggressive move against the foundations of the Republic.
I think, what it comes down to is simply this: are the Neimoidians more afraid of the Jedi or the Sith?
For very good reason, I would say they are more afraid of the Sith. The Jedi act according to the law and are much more restricted in the actions that they will or will not take. So while the Jedi might have great battle prowess, the Neimoidians know that they aren't going to be killed unnecessarily or tortured by the Jedi no matter how much they resist. The Jedi are the protectors of peace and justice in the galaxy but they don't control the actual courts. At best, they act as a sort of elite police force for the Republic and serve it in such a capacity. What the Neimoidians have to be afraid of, then, is the Senate and court systems which will be the ones who handle their fates.
And they know very well that Lord Sidious has great influence in these areas -- influence beyond that of the Jedi. And that he is far more ruthless. Attempting to betray him could very well get them killed or kidnapped and tortured as punishment. Moreover, they may not have very much information about Sidious himself in the first place, making the Jedi's interrogation pointless.
I'm sure that many people in the Republic were upset that the Trade Federation was not punished (see Sio Bibble), but I think what's very likely is that the members of the "Supreme Court" were bought or blackmailed either by Palpatine or the Trade Federation directly. There's a great deal of corruption occurring that Palpatine is eagerly promoting and developing.
But, more importantly, since the Trade Federation was not convicted, they are not classified as "war criminals" and thus the Republic will have no pretext to investigate them for the building of an army.
What do you mean the Republic was "surprised"!? Have you seen AOTC!? The whole movie is about the impending war that the Senate knows is coming but their inability to make a decision about creating an army. Also Mace Windu was defending Dooku because be beleived Dooku was beyond evil, regardless of the decade-old actions of his political allies.
Also when he defended Dooku he didn't yet know that he was allied with the Trade Federation. All they knew at that point was that he was the head of a group of systems that were seceding from the Republic.
And who says they didn't?
This is how politics work. It certainly happens a lot in the real world.
It's interesting that one of the reasons why the PT is heavily criticized by certain fans, because the Jedi are not portrayed as all-wise/all powerful beings. Instead, they are portrayed as flawed beings who make serious mistakes. And for some reasons, certain fans cannot deal with this.
Actually from what AotC shows, the big droid army that the seps were building on Geonosis was not know to the republic. At the start of the film some systems want to leave the republic and to counter this the senate wants to create an army for the republic. Padme opposes this and and thinks that IF the seps are threatened then they will turn to the commerce guilds for help. Implying that the seps did not have an army on their own but they could get help from others if need be.
So it did not seem to be a foregone conclusion that the seps will attack. So is this army built just in case things do turn violent or is the senate planing to use this army to keep the seps from leaving? Sort of "Stay in the Republic or die!"
RE: about things not shown. If you leave things unsaid and let the audience fill in the blanks themselves then there is a good chance that the audience fills in these blanks in different ways. Ex if we see a guy that has a crush on some girl but we never see that he asks her for a date. Then later we him, still single. Now we can assume that he did ask but she said no for various reasons or he never got up the nerve to ask or she died or moved away before he could ask her. All of these are possible interpetations. But say that the storyteller wants the audience to think that he never asked but he never shows it. If the storyteller wants the audience to think one thing but doesn't show it and leaves possibilities for a number of other options then the storyteller can't complain that the audience came to the wrong conclusion.
In the instances in this thread we have things not shown and the audience are left to fill in the blanks themselves.
So if some in the audience fills in these blanks one way, others can't say that they are wrong and they should fill in the blanks in another way.
Say that we see a man loose his wife and kids but is never shown crying or mourning.
One can assume that he cried and mourned off-screen sure but it is equally possible that he didn't. So if someone interprets the lack of shown mourning to mean that this man didn't much care for his wife and kids or that he was cold in general then one can't say that this isn't a valid interpretation.
So we can assume that the Jedi did question Nute and he kept quiet or we can assume that the Jedi didn't question him so his bravery was never tested. We can assume that the Jedi investigated the clone army and found that Sifo-Dyas ordered it, despite the movie saying mostly the opposite. Or we can assume that the Jedi investigated and found that Bail Organa ordered the army and since they trust him there was no further digging. Or they investigated and found out that Jabba the Hut had ordered the army but they thought that made no difference so no worries.
Or they didn't investigated the clone army because they didn't have time or because they didn't think it was needed.
It is open to interpretation.
But if some in the audience interprets the lack of things shown one way and this affects the way they view certain characters and events. As long as that interpretation doesn't conflict with what IS shown then others can't say that their interpretation is wrong. If Lucas wanted the audience to know that very specific things happened but never gave any evidence that they did then he can't complain that the audience have come to the wrong conclusion.
Ex Sifo-Dyas. We are told he ordered the army but we are also told that he was already dead when this happened.
Based on the movies we have no way to determine wheter or not Sifo-Dyas did order the army.
So IF Lucas wanted the audience to think that Sifo-Dyas DID order the army then he did not convey that message very clearly.
A complaint that have been directed against the OT is that Leia doesn't show enough grief over Alderaan but then one can counter with that she did all her crying off-screen so there is no problem.
Bottomline, if things are left unsaid then any interpretation of this silence is valid as long as it doesn't conflict with what IS shown. So one can ask, has Luke ever been drunk? We never see him drink himself silly so either option is possible and neither can be dismissed as not valid. Did Luke and Leia get it on between ANH and ESB? Again no direct info but here one option is a bit more likely than the other. Did Luke and Leia get married between ANH and ESB? Still nothing concrete but the possibility that they did runs counter to much of what happens in ESB and RotJ that is becomes very unlikely.
Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark
But we know that Nute Gunray never told the Jedi anything. Otherwise Obi-Wan wouldn't have been surprised when Dooku told him a Sith Lord was controlling the Senate.
I don't know where your going with the man with crush and Luke being drunk theories though man, you lost me lol
Maybe he wanted the audience to not know one way or the other.
To the original question:
Smart? It's the whole point, isn't it?
As an artist, you don't really want to have to repeat yourself, unless you've got new territory to roam over, new things to say; and, indeed, new ways to express the old and the familiar.
It's often said that poetry -- artistic language: the heightened everyday -- is the act or process of defamiliarizing the familiar, so that it can be studied and regarded anew.
If you don't like some elements, fine. How can a person like everything equally, anyway? It's something philosophers and mystics have been toying with and trying to find an answer or a solution for down the centuries.
I admire the audacity and the eccentricity of the undertaking, myself. Newness always perturbs and frustrates a lot of people. And then there's the Lucasian spin. I don't mean marketing spin; I mean the little twists and rivets he gives everything that he puts within the frame.
Then again, I've always struggled to see what's particularly outrageous about many of the design and story elements inserted into the PT, from prophecies to midi-chlorians, imperfect Jedi and upstart inductees, to bluescreen work and digital cinematography. I mean, I can understand some of the disdain and upset, within reason, but a lot of the complaining and contempt seems melodramatic, if not totally overblown and ridiculous. But then, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
For me, the prequels are very lavish and quite extraordinary. Perhaps there are lots of little things that throw people; and many small lead to a great. They don't throw me, though: they charm and engage me. I'm always left curious and addicted, even overwhelmed. And more as time passes. That's largely been my way into the films: liking them more and more. Yet everyone must walk their own path.
But is the reason that Nute didn't tell the Jedi anything that he kept his mouth shut or that the Jedi never thought of asking him anything?
Both options are possible.
Or he did tell them but they didn't belive him. Also possible.
Or he told the JC but they didn't tell Obi-Wan about it. Also possible.
My comments about Luke etc was that one can use absence of information to argue essentailly anything. And that has been used many times here "Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen." is a common argument. So while the movies never show Luke getting drunk one can say that he has been, we just don't see it. And since the movies don't prove he has never been drunk it can't be disproven.
The other comments was about if the author, artist, creator etc wants to convey SPECIFIC information to the audience then it is not a good idea to leave the whole thing up in the air. The guy with the crush, if the author wants the audience to know that the reason he is still single is that he never got up the nerve to ask the girl out then it is a good idea to actually show that in some way. Letting the audience fill in the blanks anyway they want is not the best way to achive this.
Take Sifo-Dyas, his involvement with the clone army is questionable and is never resolved onscreen. If Lucas wanted the audience to think that he really did order the army then he should have made that clear and not just ignore the whole thing.
Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark
About the PT and "new" elements.
Firstly I think that Lucas has repeated himself quite a bit with the PT, sometimes too much.
I don't mind new things if they have some purpose or add to the story/characters. Doing something new just for the sake of doing new things isn't terribly interesting.
These new things like the prophecy doesn't throw me. To me it just feels thrown in there, not developed enough and thus becomes uninteresting and wasted time that could have been better spent elsewhere. Anakin is a moving force in the movies given all that happens to him, he doesn't need a prophecy to be interesting or dramatic. Had the prophecy been used more or in a new and different way then it might have been good. As it is, it just feels tacked on to make the story seem more Epic. If you are going to do add something new then do something with it, doing a half measure can be worse than not doing anything.
Same thing with the politics, I like political subplots if they are interesting and well developed. I would have liked if the seps motives/demands had been made clear and they had been slightly less obvious bad guys.
The OT is a rather simple story while the PT is more complicated. Simple by itself doesn't mean bad and complex by itself doesn't mean good.
It all boils down to how well the story is told. But in general, with a simple story you can keep things, well simple. If you want an Evil King then have him be called that and shown doing some evil things and that character is established. With a more complex story and/or characters you often need more time to establish them and explain things in more detail.
Take the Matrix films, the first film is fairly simple and straight forward, the machines are the bad buys and Neo is the chosen Hero.
The sequels made the story more complicated and added lots of new things. But to me, they didn't always do a very good job of it and as a result I liked the sequels less than the original film.
I certainly don't hate the PT or think that they are bad films, they are slightly better than average with some good bits and some bad bits. the bad bits are common enough to drag the films down and the good bits aren't good enough to make me ignore the bad bits.
Oddly enough they feel less cohesive than the OT does, which is odd as Lucas had way less controll with those and added/changed lots of things between films
Bye for now.
Sifo-Dyas ordered the clones then Dooku killed him.
Insert unexplained elements? Why not? All stories start somewhere. The OT was also unexplained.
It was Count Dooku who had convinced Nute Gunray to allow the Trade Federation become a part of the Separatists Movement. And it was Count Dooku who had guided Gunray through the four trials, enabling the latter to avoid imprisonment before the events of AOTC.
And where are these things established in the films?
If they are from some book then how is the regular audience supposed to be aware of them?
Yes but much of it was later explained.
In ESB we hear about some "Other" but we don't know who that is but RotJ explains that.
In ANH we hear about the Emperor, in ESB we see him as a hologram and in RotJ we get to see him and see the power he vields.
In ANH we hear about the Force and imideatly get an explanation about what it is and some of what it can do.
In RotJ we learn that Leia is Luke's sister and we get a quick explanation as how that could be.
Imagine if the identity of the "Other" had never been dealt with in RotJ. Wouldn't people wonder about who that was and why that was included when there was no pay off? I would think so.
Imagine if the issue about Vader being Lukes father was never adressed in RotJ. Luke and Vader meet but they never mention it. Luke meets Yoda and Obi-Wan but never asks about this.
I have no problem with adding new things, new things can be great if done well. Skyfall is a very different Bond film and one of the best ones to me. It had many new things for a Bond film but did it very well.
In Nolans Batman films several new things were added, like Bruce wanting to stop being Batman or Alfred leaving Bruce's side. But these films did those things well, they introduced them and developed them so that the pay off felt good.
If they really wanted to make things less confusing, they could've inserted a number of things in earlier points of time and have things tie together.
Sifo Dyas and Dooku introduced in I. Have shades of what's to come in II, like Dooku's fall, Sifo's ordering of his clones, and his death.
Small cameo of Grevious in II
The rest of the stuff listed probably could be still left up to mystery.
I know it's not thoroughly explained in the films but if your a Star Wars fan then it's common knowlegde. And the little mystery that they leave to it does add to the story. It makes the Sith even more mysterious. Like how did Palpatine know that about Anakin's visions?? I think that is an important mystery that is never addressed, but I'm not mad at it being left a mystery and speculation in the films. I WOULD like to see it fleshed out in the EU however.
I can say the same about several plot lines regarding the characters in the Original Trilogy. Apparently, this has happened in both trilogies.
First question, is this film made to be seen by general audience or by die hard SW fans only? All film should be able to stand on their own and not require the audience to read X amounts of books or having played Y amounts of computer games. Ex. I am a fan of Terry Pratchets books (Big suprise) and some of his books have been made into miniseries on TV. One of the first was "The Hogfather" and that had many nods and winks to the readers and had many concepts established in the book series used without much explanation. As a fan of the books I liked it but I was also aware that someone that is new to this would be a little lost and confused and this would make the series hard to to follow.
Second, setting up a mystery then not bothering to answer it does not really add to a movie in my view. Based on what the film shows us the most likely explanation is that Sifo-Dyas had nothing to do with the army, Dooku or Palpatine just used his name. If we for some reason assume that he did order the army, since we know that the Sith had a hand in it then we could wonder, was Sifo-Dyas also a fallen Jedi like Dooku? Why did he do this?
The clone army is vital to the plot of AotC and RotS and so leaving the creation of this army to some Jedi that we never see and know nothing about isn't very satisfying to me.
As for Palpatine knowing things, no big mystery, Anakin probably told him. We know that Anakin had told him about the Tusken massacre so it seems he often confided in Palpatine.
Something that would have been nice to know is why the Sith wants revenge, afterall we have a whole movie called "Revenge of the Sith" but we never learn why they want this or what happened between the Jedi and the Sith.
To me, having characters do things for unknown or unexplained reasons isn't a good way to make films.
Giving a character motivations and explain why he or she does things adds to the character and often is to the benefit of the movie.
Bye for now.
Bye for now.