What does TPM even have to do with the rest of the PT?

ferel, that was in the Time magazine Lucas interview around TPM's release. I have the mag, let me go check.

 

NO, it was in the Star Wars original trilogy Annotated Scrennplays. Lucas wrote it as a note to explain the ghost thing.

That is a very popular quote by Lucas that fans always reference when discusing the whole jedi dissapearing and reappearing debate. Trust me, I know that one well.

But it still doesn't mean that we won't find out in Episode III. Yoda can learn about it in Episode III for himself and then teach it to Ben offscreen after Episode III.

 

"Was TPM's plot more clever than the almighty ESB? Yes, indeed it was. ESB may have been a better movie. But its plot conisisted of a big batlle at the bigining and the empire chasing the Falcon around the galaxy and Luke getting trained on Dagobah. While ESB is a great movie, its plot isn't nearly as clever as TPM's. Sorry my friend."

Sorry, my friend. ESB is the film that turned "Star Wars" into a saga, as opposed to a simple series of films. It has the most depth of any of the films, both in terms of plot and characterization (something almost nonexistant in the PT). It is the film that shows us the inner workings of the Empire, the film that introduces Luke's lineage as the focal point of the OT and it is the film that shows us that doing good is not always enough. It sets up Luke's problem of how to deal with absolute evil without resorting to that evil and then it twists the knife with the father revelation. ESB introduces symbolism and subtext into "Star Wars". It contains loyalty, deceit, betrayal, a burgeoning romance (a GOOD one ), a journey of discovery, rebellion, victory, defeat and despair. It is the most complex of any "Star Wars" film and without it the Prequels would be irrelevant.

 

That was another case of tearing down the OT to bring it to the same level as TPM.

EDIT: No quote yet. I'll look tomorrow. Lucas was asked why Qui-Gon didn't disappear and Lucas said that issue will be explained in the next film. He said how it's a technique to remain One with the Force and Obi-Wan was spending his time on Tatooine learning this trick.

That's the jist(not exact quote)Lucas said a few years ago just after TPM had been released.

The Annotated Screenplays talk about Yoda and Obi-Wan and the disappearing technique, but that has nothing to do with what ferel was asking about. He was wondering why Qui-Gon's nondisappearance wasn't explained as Lucas said it would be in Epy2 just three years ago.

 

I think Rick McCallum would know better than we would.

 

Oh yeah, Rick McCallum is never wrong and it's his job kissing people's butt. Remember the DVD documentary..... I'm sure you could trust him..... I wonder if he was ever a used car salesman?

 

>>>Sorry, my friend. ESB is the film that turned "Star Wars" into a saga, as opposed to a simple series of films. It has the most depth of any of the films, both in terms of plot and characterization (something almost nonexistant in the PT). It is the film that shows us the inner workings of the Empire, the film that introduces Luke's lineage as the focal point of the OT and it is the film that shows us that doing good is not always enough. It sets up Luke's problem of how to deal with absolute evil without resorting to that evil and then it twists the knife with the father revelation. ESB introduces symbolism and subtext into "Star Wars". It contains loyalty, deceit, betrayal, a burgeoning romance (a GOOD one ), a journey of discovery, rebellion, victory, defeat and despair. It is the most complex of any "Star Wars" film and without it the Prequels would be irrelevant.<<<

What?!?!?! ESB had a more complictaed plot than TPM???? Ha!!! Thats a good one. Look there is nothing wrong with ESB having a less complicated plot simply becuase of the nature of the story at that point in time of the galaxy.

But you are kidding yourself if you are going to sit there and honestly say that ESB had a more complex plot. And no ESB is also not responsible for SW becoming a saga. George Lucas' imagination of the overall 6 part storyline was. The origianl Star Wars (ANH) was the one responsible for Sta Wars' popularity. I love ESB, but I think fans some time act ESB is the only SW movie worth mentioning sometimes. Everyone thinks its against some intergalactic law if one claims that one of the other Star Wars movies has some good quality about it that Empire might lack or something.

You say that ESB is the film that shows us the inner workings of the empire. Fine. But TPM shows us the inner workings of the Republic and the Senate and the jedi council and AOTC only adds to that. You act like ESB is the only SW movie that shows us the inner workings of anything.

You say without ESB the prequels would be irrelevent. Bull freakin crap. Again, I love ESB. But 1 comes before 2. There would be no empire and there would be no battle of Hoth and the empire wopuld never take control of Bespin had Palpatine not orchestrated his rise to power via the Trade federation dispute of TPM or if the clone wars never happened. Heck Count Dooku is the reason why Palpatine comes to realise that it is possible to converyt a jedi to the darkside to join him, hence he eventually gets Anakin to join him and rule together.

No friend. I am afraid it is you who are mistaken about a great many things. We are talking about a story of a chain of events that are set into motion starting in TPM. ESB is simply a result of the events of TPM, AOTC, and Episode III. Deal with it.

 

The Phantom Menace had a plot?!!? I'll have to go back and watch it again because I haven't seen any sign of a plot in that turkey yet.

 

Ok, now I know you are just saying that because you don't like the film.

You don't like TPM? Fine be my guest. That is your opinion.

But accusing it of having no plot makes you look like you never even saw the movie.

Lets make a little more intellegent of posts here and then maybe they will be taken seriously by people like me.

And BTW, I do suggest you watch the movie agin, if you say it had no plot.

Besides, just because you didn't like TPM's plot, doesn't mean it didn't have one.

 

Well, being taken seriously from people like you is the only reason I'm here.

 

So just for the record, are you literally saying TPM had NO plot at all?

 

I'll see your no plot and also raise you a boring, waste of a movie as well.

 

Oh yeah, Jar Jar Binks is way cooler than Lando ever was!

If it wasn't for the coolness of Binks, the coolness of Lando would have never existed. Even though the coolness of Lando was filmed first...
Oh man, a person could go crazy thinking about this....

When does Terminator 3 come out?

The only thing cool about the plot to TPM was Palpatine's manipulation of the situation, the rest was a watered down version of scenes from the OT. Even though Qui-Gon was cool...

Oh, I'm sorry, did I piss you off?

 

Man, people like you give bashers a bad name.

 

juz doin' ma job.

 

>>>Oh yeah, Jar Jar Binks is way cooler than Lando ever was!<<<

So, now TPM wasn't as cool as ESB. That just proves how shallow some people can be. I guess that makes The Matrix a better movie than Casablanca then.

Man argue all you want about ESBs merits over TPM's. But bring the cool factor in the arguement makes your arguement all of the sudden appear shallow.

 

Terminator 3 should rock cause we all know what a winning streak big Arny is on at the moment.

 

Yeah, "Collateral Damage" was a masterpiece and a blockbuster!

Sure, TPM had a plot. Jar-Jar let some people tag along with him for his whole movie, and he eats an apple or two with his tongue! Do Star Wars fans need more of a plot than that?

I think Lucas gave up on plots somewhere around the time of "Jedi". Now, it's just a formula where he plugs in battles at certain elapsed times into each film. TPM is like watching a bad video game, the one you never play anymore. (Kind of like my copy of the movie!)

 

What does The Hobbit have to do with The Lord of the Rings?

 

I guess I need to add those little "silly" icons so the s l o w people will know I'm joking.

I'm of the attitude that a lot of the plot points in TPM could have been "folded" into AOTC in one way or another.

Much of TPM was a waste...

Anakin's relationship to Threepio. (Why couldn't Threepio have been in service to Bail Organa and not appear until 2 or 3?)

We have the introduction of Jar Jar just so that he can be the "scapegoat" for the Republic turning into the Empire.
(That was definately worth all those fart & poop jokes)

We have Anakin's mom, which is fine, but there was much more interaction between Anakin and Qui-Gon than her and him. When she died in AOTC, I didn't feel a damn thing.

We have the meeting of Ani and Padme, fine it's GL's "vision", but it was out of place.
A 14 year old girl isn't going to be interested in a 9 year old like that, I don't care how sheltered she is. A line or two in AOTC could have established that there was a previous "adventure" with the Jedi and Padme without dredging up that pathetic storyline.

There is lots more there.

 

No, waste of time is arguing with you people.

 

If there are things in TPM that you think should have been rolled into Episode II, then obviously you see what TPM has to do with the rest of the prequels, you just don't like the fact that is has to do with them. I assume you would rather be able to write TPM off completely, but you can't, and that bothers you.

Not that I care if it bothers you.

 

Whether or not TPM's plot is good or bad is really a matter of taste, whether or not it was complex or complicated isn't. It was simple. If you're a SW fan and you couldn't follow the Palpatine scheme subplot, then you must have ridden the short bus to school. Besides Palps twirling a big handlebar mustache and saying "curses!" evertime something went wrong, I don't see how it could have been any easier to follow.

As far as how that connects TPM to the rest of the saga, let me ask a question; Why is it so important that we see how Palpatine made the move from Senator to Chancellor? I'm a lot more curious as to how he got elected to the Galactic Senate in the first place. Wouldn't he have had to have been a native of Naboo to get that job? And if so, how does a resident of an almost utopian society become THE dark lord of the Sith? That aspect is unimportant? Smells like there's a Milton-esque Lucifer story here that is totally overlooked. But we just had to see how he made the move from one elected spot to another, right? Give me a break.

And now for the rants based purely on opinion: the midi's DO de-mystify the portrayal of the force, having Anakin grow up on the same planet where OB1 will later hide Luke is just lame, and the pod-race and underwater planet core scenes are huge wastes of time (that have nothing to do with the scary-good plot) that were put there for the sole purpose of allowing GL to show off his new fx toys. All this of course is IMO.

"But to use a very subtle plotting device of the Trade Federation/Naboo conflict was both very clever and ballsy by Lucas."



You don't know what a plot device is, do you?

And "ballsy"? Unless you're making reference to the shape of the TF ships, then what the heck are you talking about?

 

"..having Anakin grow up on the same planet where OB1 will later hide Luke is just lame,"

Whoah Pardner! Stop and think about that for a second. There's still time to edit. Think back to conversations between Luke and Obi-Wan.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.