PT What do people mean when they say the Prequels lack 'heart and soul'?

"I have 20,000 Republic dataries."

It even sounds, well... mysteriously ancient/by-gone (Qui-Gon be by-gone).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Dataria

 

I think the 'heart and soul' of any movie is whether the characters resonate with the viewer? They can be good characters, bad characters, grey characters, but on some level that have to resonate with the viewer or you won't get invested in their story. The 'Heart and Soul' of the OT for me is the scene where Luke looks out at the Binary Sunset in the Original SW, and if I didn't care about Luke it probably wouldn't have worked for me so well. Then you have John Williams perfect score, and it is one of my favorites among the 7 movies.

There could have been some 'heart and soul' scenes of the PT like when Anakin & Padme stare across the galaxy at each other in ROTS as Mace & Co go to arrest Palpatine. That is great scene, but doesn't resonate with me like it should because I'm not invested in Anakin & Padme by Episode 3.

 

This is exactly it. A lack of heart & soul is simply a way of saying the movies didn't emotionally connect with a large section of the audience. They didn't move them. That's why it's a pointless subject to debate. This is about feelings generated by the viewing experience, or lack thereof. It's not something that can be argued or convinced in others. Alot of people here feel differently. As you'd expect, this is the Prequel section of a SW fan site after all. Yet it can't be denied that a lack of "heart & soul" & variations of that sort of thing was a common criticism & feeling. Lucas has said he makes his movies for the audience. He simply didn't win over as large a proportion of that audience as he did with his earlier movies. A big reason for that was a greater emotional investment from the audience in the classic characters compared to the Prequel characters.

 

Yes they did. The haters are emotionally invested in the PT. They are still complaining about how annoying it is to this very day. It's that moment when you realize GL out-trolled the trolls by infinite orders of magnitude that allows for the necessary paradigm shift to happen.

 

Good way of looking at it. The Force has been beamed inside of them.

Also >> emotional connection has different layers.

Just watching the Charlie Rose interview in full, and there's a part where George advances this idea, in a rather casual way, when talking about "THX", that emotional connection isn't so much about viewers connecting to characters, but the image itself: the light, the unspooling, the progression and unfolding -- and enfolding -- of form itself.

 

BTW...

Us four people, Cryogenic, Pyrogenic, JediChipKelly, and Darth Downunder, presently have the coolest avatars on TFN.

 

I very, very much agree with the notion that viewers' emotional connection is often to the image itself. It's why I personally get very emotional over the movies, but less so over the novelizations of the prequels. It's the visuals, and the interplay of the characters with the scenery, lighting, and the movement therein.

When I was younger and long before I was interested in Star Wars the way I am now, I went through a phase when I was about seven where I watched AOTC multiple times, and became quite emotionally invested in the film. I was too young to grasp the complexities of the characters, or even remember their names, but I knew that it was a movie with something very powerful behind it. Even now, the PT (and AOTC in particular) has left these residual images, if you will, that I essentially equate with "the heart and soul" of the movies. For example, the ethereal lighting of AOTC, the lights and darks, and certain movements. I became invested in characters after I got older and came back to Star Wars with a different level of understanding and appreciation.

Essentially, it's right that it's a matter of taste. There are people who did and didn't like the way the PT looked, there are people who did and didn't like the PT characters, so on and so forth. All are justified in their own ways. It's just a matter of putting a finger on what we consider the "heart and soul", and why.

 

Yes! And film is a visual medium, after all. One which GL has said he has been trying to rethink. He says it again in the Charlie Rose interview.

Thanks for sharing that. It's almost as if movies -- or these movies, at any rate -- are alive. They have a tremendous amount of texture and visual personality to them.

Much agreed.

It's kind of like the paintings of Mark Rothko. They have moved some people to tears, and people have perceived a spiritual dimension to them. I admit, I sort of struggle, in my case; but I find it fascinating, too, and don't deny those people their reaction/relationship to his work.

Incidentally, Lucas allegedly drew on Rothko's darker work for the Mustafar section of ROTS. You can argue there is definitely something to that idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Darks_in_Red

Indeed, the whole of the prequel canvas, if you assay it in "painterly" terms, is rather Rothko-esque, IMO. And Lucas' kind of "Rothko" is a kind of "Rothko" I can, and do, have an emotional response to.

You have this very powerful, elemental understanding of colour and shade at work in the prequels, in my view. To the point where you can probably take certain frames, reduce them to basic colours, and still get a great feeling from them. Immense control, immense expression.

 

This is sarcasm into its extreme, truly dreadful!

 

Presumably, Disney used Real Sarcasm -- So Real It's Desert Real -- on the back of the DVD case. The first words:

"Visionary director J.J. Abrams..."

Disney, your trolling is complete.

 

Which is the same exact thing..

Disliking something because it lacks the nostalgic feelings and than liking something else because it has those nostalgic feelings are the same exact thing, lol. So not sure what you are getting at beside pointing out the obvious...

Dismissive...? here we go again... There have been far more dismissive and divisive comments made in this thread and even some comments that are straight out insulting! Yet my thoughts, which I carefully worded, and made sure to bold and underline the word "some" so as to make it absolutely and abundantly clear that I wasn't painting everyone with a broad brush, is what gets a finger wagging, tsk tsk tsk from you?

You might want to look up the word "dismissive" and than apply the meaning to practically anyone that posts here. The vast majority of the time when people with two opposing views "discuss" their opinions, each one goes about trying to dismiss the opinion of the other person. In fact, if you look at the rest of the post from which you replied to me, you are in fact trying to find ways to dismiss Qui-Riv-Brid opinions and thoughts in order to put your opinion above theirs.

Some... I said Some.... Comprehension please!I didn't try to explain the rationale behind every single person that dislikes the PT. I said some. Surely there are some that didn't like the PT because it didn't give them those nostalgic feelings that they were hoping for. People going, hoping to see tie fighters, and stormtroopers, and Darth Vader, and at-at's etc etc..

Or do you think it's just total coincidence that the people behind South Park are using OT Star Wars as the main theme for their negative nostalgia vehicle with JJ Abrams as the head of the nostalgia movement, so much so he's almost Pope-like? In light of what some believe is nothing but a nostalgic love fest in TFA, the writers of South Park use OT imagery and JJ as their source of that nostalgia and how society eats it up, in which they are making a parody of?

 

I, incidentally, absolutely adore Rothko.

I really enjoy looking at movies in terms of their visual meaning. I often have a hard time deciphering and understanding characters, but I can easily pick up on the significance of color, motion, and composition. The PT is extremely laden with visual symbolism (Which I would go on and on and on and on about). It's a very important aspect of the films, and is in my opinion, the heart and soul.

 

It means they're politely letting me know not to put much stock in their recommendations in art, unless we have other shared interests, like Gene Wolfe and the early seasons of Boy Meets World.

 

You know... very cool.

I need to explore Rothko; see if I develop a finer understanding.

I'm glad someone has finally said it!!!

I didn't know I was longing to hear that; but, I think, I was.

 

Not for decades and his way of talking is still "weird" in comparison of course he is not a politician.

Well if you think she sounded "natural" otherwise I would have to disagree. She went from sounding one "weird" way to another but both work in the SW. Now one is more pleasing than the other overall but that is another thing.

No that was a character choice on Lucas' part.

The Queen sounded like erm... a Queen or someone of royalty would like straight out of some old movies.

Odd that SW would be connected to old movies isn't it?

For some reason you equate formality with uncaring. Like the two are the same.

They clearly are not. Obi-Wan showed more warmth in the PT but still not as noted the level that got to you personally.

Shifting around on a case by case basis will yield different levels with different beings. Yoda was glad Padme was safe at the beginning of AOTC but wasn't going to hug her and comfort her either.

This rather is the point. Qui-Gon probably would have done something. The Jedi Code as the council follows means that Anakin is now with the Jedi and the family is left behind. Then by the end of the PT Yoda decides to send the children TO families.

The same Yoda from TESB then.

[/uote]
M is a character that is reserved and distant and one that has to make harsh choices. But she isn't shown to be an uncaring robot. She does have feelings, she can send Bond off to die if she needs to but she won't do so on a whim and she wants him to come back alive.
In all, it shows that reserved characters or head of organizations don't have to be played as cold and unemotional. They can have feelings.[/quote]

I have to say I never got that much impression from her that she cared THAT much that you seem to think but then I don't watch them much.

That Mace and Yoda have feelings is evident to me but at the same time as per what you see in M they also have to make hard decisions.

Sorry I don't follow. Of course it's his choice. It's his story. It's not mine or yours or anyone else's.

The way he wanted it is the way it "had" to be because that is what he chose.

I think that is story evident. He set up much of the way the Jedi were going to be in the OT and we didn't even notice.

You seem to overlook the ending of TPM. IN AOTC they are clearly close friends to me but more importantly master and apprentice. ROTS has much more than a hint. I don't know what you want. Luke and Han barely spend any time together in TESB or ROTJ and they don't really become friends until the very end of ANH. So with so little actual time as friends together (far less than Anakin and Obi-Wan overall) why do you give that a pass?

OK then. Seems like my version of the movie is the one you want to see. I see it no problem and always have from the first. It seems that I didn't bring some set expectations of what it would be like but allowed the story to unfold.

Yes like for all 6 movies. That is how these movies were made. They are HIS movies.

Sorry can't relate to that at all on an emotional level. I understand what you are saying you feel but I never felt that.

Anakin is rather clearly I think NOT supposed to be Luke. Anakin makes all sorts of wrong choices while Luke made right ones. Anakin ends up becoming Darth Vader while Luke saves his from being Darth Vader.

I never felt this "enemies" aspect you do. Teacher and student who are bonded but not out and out buddies that they can't be until they are more equal.

Not the one you wanted to see from the start as above.

That IS what happens.

Erm... well that obviously is part of the process. He doesn't know exactly to the last degree what he is going to do before he does it. The point is that the story is the way he wants it by the time he gets through to the end of his process.

That is what you see and I don't (and obviously not what Lucas himself sees).

It's fine you don't agree. I didn't expect you would really. Vader's character and personality have changed quite a lot. Imagine the TESB version being in ANH. It's just not the same.

Yes. Just like Anakin/Vader in the OT. From 9 to 19, 19 to 22, 22 to 41, 41 to 44, then 44 to 45. He changes quite a bit in each movie for various reasons.

He reduced Yoda's role and Han's as well. We know how hated they were! Fans loved the TESB Vader and so what did he do? Pretty much got rid of him in ROTJ. Fans loved the Luke of ANH and then the different one in TESB and so what did he do? Change him again and make him "colder" while everyone hated Leia in ANH so she was "softened" and since she was also despised in TESB she was "softened"even more.

See what I am talking about here?

I thought your complaint was centred around how this one wasn't?

Well it was obsession for 10 years since he didn't see her. That is right on. She was an angel to him from the first second he saw her. Anakin in not normal. He is a being from the Force itself. Why something like that is overlooked for those who complain about the rather nonsensical assertion of the lack of "mysticism" in the PT I don't know. He has as mentioned a connection to her since then. He dreams of Padme and she ends up being his wife. Anakin's dreams are not to be taken lightly.

Obviously Padme felt uncomfortable. That is right out being told to us. Now some for whatever reason want it to be creepy but the realer creepy of Han on Leia is smoothed over for some reason.

Yes. It is rather awesome.

So just exactly like the PT and TFA then from a certain point of view.

So that IS SW then and everything is equal.

Yes some people insist that the OT or TFA are somehow perfect to them. Which is fine and I totally accept that they see it that way. For whatever reason they can't accept that I see the PT the same way and on top of that somewhat superior overall to the OT and far, far, beyond the entertaining but rather kindergarten version of SW compared to the original 6.

That is part of the group that comes here but there are those whose opinion is not "didn't quite reach" but that it was defective from the starting concept so that everything that followed was flawed to the point they despise everything about them.

So why bother? I really don't know.

Thing is why spend so much time talking about that which you don't like?

How about this?

If the above describes you then why not concentrate on all the parts of the PT you think are good then?

I can talk about all parts because it's all rather awesome to me and at the end of the day like I always say I get to watch 6 great movies and one entertaining one in TFA that I could rather easily endlessly rip on constantly if I wanted to but why bother?

Sure I do it a bit in comparison to I-VI from time to time but nowhere near as much as I could besides that others do it far better than I can and on top of that I really don't mind it that much because:

1) It has no real bearing on Lucas' movies which are their own thing. The new movies are based on his Star Wars but the O6 will always he the only SW movies from THE creator. The other movies will in the end just be that... other people's movies.

Beethoven did 9 symphonies YET there is a 10th. Sort of. But not really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._10_(Beethoven/Cooper)

2) It's what JJ wanted and I think I get the reasons for it so in that sense he did it rather honestly though obviously it was in agreement with the "for the fans" ethic that Disney wanted and that JJ as a fan wanted to do.

 

I do think understanding the director and how he thinks is the key to understanding the art and how it's shaped. Lucas is clearly a visual thinker. He has an excellent eye for cinematography and painting a composition. Another director I'm incredibly critical of for similar issues in character, acting and storytelling, is also a brilliant cinematographer... Zach Snyder.

If you look at Lucas... he has led an intensely private life, which is rare especially considering he's the father of the biggest media franchise in modern history. He's maybe not so good with people. He marches to the beat of his own drum, which sometimes confounds people or makes it easy to mock (RLM and that shot of the small bust of the diner dude from AOTC, name evades me). He has been on the record saying he's not good with actors/people. His true love is in the editing room. His interests and his goals, plainly stated, are clear to see in the films. I think it was either Empire of Dreams or the big documentary from TPM that gave me a greater appreciation for seeing his intended goal with the final result of the films themselves.


And here I am, with TFA on the top of my list even above TESB. Prior to the film, I had no great love or appreciation for JJ Abrams, but he made TFA work for me. Now, I look at his motivations and his intent... and I do have a problem with the box wording saying "visionary director" because every single film of his that I've seen, whether directed or even just produced... smacks of derivative work. See, JJ's style is "the fan becomes the filmmaker." He emulates Spielberg... to a fault, taking Spielberg's love for lens flares and cranking it up to 11. All the films smack of nostalgia, of things that appeal to him as a fan, but all of them are these second-generation works where they aren't really his vision, they're his remix of the visions that came before him. You can tell that tone and style of the first two Nu-Trek films were basically saying "I wish I was making a Star Wars movie" .

He got his wish. He did a bang-up job, in my opinion, but it really was just a hyper-focused, hyper-condensed version of what had come before. He replicated quite successfully the look and feel of the OT he watched as a kid. He seems to take a special glee in asking big and broad questions... and then not answering them, leaving them to other storytellers to fill in the gaps and add the foundation later. I think all the strongest parts of TFA are probably thanks to Kasdan's own writing. Certainly he's a better collaborator for JJ than the two biggest writing frauds in Hollywood today, Orci and Kurtzman (I really do not like those guys, sorry-not-sorry.)

I don't like it when people call Abrams the next Spielberg, because he's not, unless he's skipping all the fundamentally groundbreaking films and going straight to Jurassic Park 2. And yet, I can't thank him enough for giving me the experience and the excitement, and the anticipation of What Comes Next in Star Wars.

(Yeesh. Can you tell I'm conflicted on this?)

 

Honestly, that's the major problem with The Force Awakens as a an actual continuation of a saga. The last type of person I wanted directing this movie was the type of "fan" that J.J. Abrams is. I understand the impact that the films he's "inspired" by had on film as a medium but when all a director can offer is "smacks of nostalgia", then I immediately find his body of work to be suspect. Which it is. To an enormous degree. Also, while Star Wars itself was made up of Westerns, samurai flicks, Flash Gordon, the Arthurian legends, etc. etc., all of those elements and inspirations were combined to make a universe that felt new. That is one of the ways of making great art. Taking something previously made and crafting something new from it, from a different perspective. I compare TFA to the likes of TESB, ROTJ, and ROTS and think, "My God...this is boring. I actually can't stand watching this movie for another time." The last film to be this unabashedly ripped off from the OT was Attack of the Clones and that's where I place TFA as far as personal enjoyment goes (along with The Phantom Menace). Like AOTC, it is blatantly unsurprising much of the time, it squanders its potential, it tries to tug at the audience's heartstrings instead of actually taking the initiative to tell a story that doesn't constantly go, "Hey, remember this thing from your childhood!?" and despite its spectacle, it's utterly anticlimactic. Frankly, if they had actually trusted themselves to hire an "visionary" director, the result would have had much more actual integrity and felt like something new was being brought into the films from a different perspective (which is always more exciting).

What I feel Lucasfilm is communicating is that it's OK to be like J.J. Abrams. It isn't. Awarding and creating demand for nostalgia is a load of wasted potential and always has been.

Yeah, I wish they brought in other people besides him for storytelling. His talents behind the camera with someone behind him making a better script would make for much better films in DC's camp.

 

I think we are all invested in the SW story overall, and that is why people who didn't like the PT or even TFA keep talking about it. Everyone WANTS the story to succeed, and that is the big fallacy about the fandom, as nobody wants bad movies. The movies will be linked together forever, so that is why you still have people talking about them for better or worse.

I always said that I enjoy the macro story the PT told about the corruption in the Republican and Palpatines overall plan to eventually become Dictator of the galaxy. It's the characters that frustrated me as they just never resonated with me (although I liked Obiwan portrayed by Ewan McGregor.)

The thread is called, 'What do people mean when they say the PT lacks heart and soul' so you can't call out fans for answering the question. The question is inviting the fans who didn't like the PT for one reason or another to answer it, so I disagree with you assessment that the haters are still complaining. You missed the whole point of the question!

 

You're not the only person to hold this opinion. Orci and Kurtzman are absolutely dreadful. Lawrence Kasdan on the other hand is indispensable to the OT.
Sure Abrams isn't the most original film maker out there, but he creates films that are fun to watch while still having some solidity behind them. He's not brilliant, but satisfying. And he's got a somewhat distinctive style with his use of quick flowing but relatively simple camera work and well blended angles, without excessively using closeups (IMO a problem with many films today), and good pacing dynamics.

 

The reason is that in all my time here, when "Nostalgia" is being invoked, most often it is used to partly question or invalidate the opinions of those that prefer the OT to the PT.
"Nostalgia has blinded you" is a comment I have often seen directed at people that prefer the OT.
The argument can go "Oh you saw the OT as a child and so it has nostalgia and that has clouded your judgement and thus your opinion of the PT is not valid."

Far less often is "Nostalgia" used in the reverse argument, that those that LIKE the PT have their opinion of like questioned for reasons of "Nostalgia".

But it can be made to apply equally.
If you are a fan of something it can make you overly critical or overly forgiving.
So if you are invoking it in one way, be aware that it works the other way too.

I am giving my OPINION which is clearly that, my OPINION. I am not putting my opinion over his, I am not saying he is wrong for thinking the PT is really great. I just don't think it is that great and I have given my reason why. I have explained why it didn't work FOR ME.

I am not speaking for anyone but myself, I am not trying to paint those that disagree with me with a big brush or use arguments like "Some like the PT just because it was made by Lucas".

[/QUOTE]

To give an example, an argument that cropped up in a TFA thread recently.

Is this a dismissive and also rude argument?

I think it is.
First it tries to paint film reviewers as corrupt liars that give positive reviews only if they get paid.
It is also dismissive since it tries to invalidate part of the positive response that TFA got.
That the many positive reviews don't count as those that gave them were bribed and thus their praise means nothing.

What is the difference between arguing;
"ALL positive reviews and bloggers were likely paid shills. "
Vs "MANY positive reviews and bloggers were likely paid shills. "
Vs "SOME positive reviews and bloggers were likely paid shills. "

The only difference I can see is that the latter two gives wiggle room to the person making the argument. That if any reviewer sees this comment and takes umbrage at it. This person can say "Oh I didn't mean YOU, I was just talking about some other people."
Which could mean, if you go all the way, if EVERY reviewer took umbrage and says this and gets the same response, "I didn't mean YOU.." Then this person is saying that NONE of the positive reviews were paid shills.

If the question is "Is it possible that Disney paid for some positive reviews?"
Yes it is possible but unless you have some more concrete than that, then arguing that all/many/some reviews are by paid shills is baseless.

I don't see much difference between saying "SOME that dislike the PT do so only because nostalgia" and "ALL who dislike the PT do so only because of nostalgia."
Both are making generalizations and doesn't deal with the specific issues raised.

This site has a rule, "Films not fans" and the reason I commented you is that you admitted that you at times breaks this rule and it can lead to threads being locked.

This rule is part of the reason why I prefer this site to other places like the Imdb boards. Were there are loads of trolls and insults flying left and right.
The discussion here is almost always civil and the mods step in when it crosses the line.
I just don't think that making generalizations, whether you mean some or all, does the discussion any favors. In my experience it only serves to entrench both sides.

In closing, you made a comment about TFA and how nostalgia made the film very successful.
I've seen others argue that TFA made so much money and got great reviews just because it copied ANH.

I don't think it is that simple.
For ex, take the many films that tried to copy ANH and weren't massive hits.
Like "Eragon". That borrowed a lot from ANH and yet it did poorly with both critics and at the BO.

Or take the Hobbit films. They made money sure but the reviews, while not terrible, were far from the same as the LotR films. And a fairly common complaint was the PJ tried to copy the LotR films too much.

Take JJ's Trek films. Did the first one have loads of Nostalgia?
Yes you had Spock and the characters were the same. But that film pretty much wiped away most of the Trek history. And I know some fans didn't like it, others accepted it and it got mostly good reviews and did very well at the BO. ST:iD? That did borrow a lot from ST tWoK and that didn't go down well with fans at all. One fan group voted it the worst Trek film.
And while it made more WW, it dropped in the domestic BO.

I don't think the "success" of TFA is due to just one thing. I think many factors are involved.

Bye.
Mr "Insert-Name-Here."

 

We see the same thing in other forms of media as well.

The pioneers of the video game and computer game industry drew on many of their own interests and real-world experience. Richard Garriott (Ultima) is the son of an astronaut, was heavily involved in SCA activities, and does a lot of real life "adventure sports." He also played D&D when it was still fairly new, which clearly influenced his games. Shigeru Miyamoto began his career as an artist for Nintendo; his experiences exploring caves as a child inspired him to create the Legend of Zelda. Working in his garden inspired the Pikmin games. The same goes for the rest of this first generation. Gary Gygax created Dungeons & Dragons as an extension of his medieval wargaming hobby but also drew on his love of history, mythology, and sword & sorcery fiction (R.E. Howard, Moorcock, Leiber, etc).

Today, we have a generation of game creators whose primary influences are the games that they grew up playing. Many modern-day CRPGs are inspired by D&D and CRPGs from the 80s and 90s, but many of today's game designers have never studied medieval history nor have they read any of the original source material that inspired Gygax. I worked as a game designer at Rockstar Games several years ago, and I couldn't help but notice that virtually all of the designers liked pretty much the same video games, action movies, and comic books, and that was pretty much the extent of their influences.

The same thing applies to a lot of fantasy fiction. So many novels read like a fictionalized account of somebody's D&D campaign; that direct influence from real world history and mythology has been lost along the way.

I don't know that this is unavoidable. There is simply so much more media to consume today than there was even when Lucas was a young filmmaker -- and it's also far more accessible, too. As any art form matures, the newer generations of creators are going to be influenced by their direct predecessors and the original inspirations from outside that industry or art form begin to fade away.

 

It's a good thing I didn't do that. Plus, they are still complaining, so your assessment is dead wrong. Not to mention that I answered the main question, beautifully, earlier in the thread.

 

Back to Rothko, a bit. I'm fascinated by the color palettes used in films. Particularly in the SW saga.
For a franchise that has captured the imagination of so many young people it's interesting to note the sheer lack of primary colors in it's first two films to be released (not that they're necessary, obviously). ANH is mostly blacks, whites, neutrals and earthtones. It isn't until Bespin and Cloud City that we start to see some color in the saga. The only time we regularly see any in ANH or ESB are with lasers, lightsabers and computer buttons, and some trim on R2 and the X-Wings. RotJ brings them out a bit more in some parts.

Then, with TPM we see a broader spectrum involving more primaries and secondaries. Though Episodes II and III bring it down a bit more, again. This is of course likely attributed to the shroud of the Dark Side creeping in to the SW Galaxy - Summer fading into Fall which will soon be the Winter of the Imperial times of the OT.

It's like the OT is Kansas and the PT is Oz.


So what is the 'heart and soul' of the OT? The colorful characters, the iconography, the mysticism, the action, the direction, all the above?
Are any of these lacking in the PT? I've come (back) to a point where I would say no, just cooked differently into another kind of stew. And as Corinthia pointed out, extremely laden with visual symbolism. I feel the OT is, as well, but what I feel we got from an older George was even more of that in the PT, so much so that it can even be easy to overlook. Every shot, every line, is saturated with it - symbolism is the subtextual palette at work in the PT.

http://www.fubiz.net/en/2015/04/20/the-colors-of-star-wars-palettes/

 

double post

But hey, ^ was post #273.
There ain't nothin' in post 273...

 

Room 237?
J-type 327 Nubian?
Danikin Skywalker?

"This is getting out of hand. Now there are two of them."