PT Why Are The PT Films criticized? (catch-all thread)

Okay. I did find the idea of the prophecy interesting, esp. given how there was some ambiguity if they had gotten it right and how the ending of the prequels seem to subvert the expectations (most prophecy stories like that end with the hero saving the day). I can see what you mean though; I have similar thoughts on the Mark Webb Spider-Man movies, in regards to AS2 make the claim that only Peter Parker could've become Spider-Man by being bitten by that spider.

 

Chosen one status makes Anakin a hostage to a prophecy. The challenges and dilemmas he faces are therefore heavily influenced by a extraordinary expectations. So applying simplistic moral objectivity is impossible without being disingenuous or simply ignoring the chosen one status even though it is an excuse for much of the plot.

 

Except that is Luke's story in a way as he is and is not the "everyman". In many ways in attitude he is but in origin he is not since he also had a special destiny and like Anakin it was all about whether he chose to take that path.

The whole "everyman" angle in concept doesn't really work anyway as an everyman does not become a Jedi. That you can become a Jedi intrinsically makes you special.

The Everyman conceit is about "an ordinary individual with whom the audience or reader is supposed to be able to identify easily and who is often placed in extraordinary circumstances."

Luke is half that in ANH. Now if he wasn't the son of a powerful Jedi and really was completely a simple farm boy then that would be different as opposed to being Arthur Pendragon to Obi-Wan's Merlin and Anakin's Uther Pendragon with the Lightsaber Excalibur.

Let Luke be Luke I say. Why should Anakin also be Luke? It would take away from Luke's story. The whole point is that Anakin's story is the inverse to Luke's.

The other thing is that while Luke's story is equated to the hero's journey in mythology there are other stories that exist besides that one and one of those is The Chosen One. Doing a six part story and using the Hero's Journey twice in a row? As it is Anakin still goes through that journey but it's informed by the Chosen One prophecy.

Anakin simply being just another Jedi doesn't work in the story. Sidious only goes after the most absolute power to be his apprentice not just some guy.

Yet clearly for Luke it was "predestined" in the OT. This is before the prequels or Lucas even coming up with the idea of using the "Chosen One" mythology for Anakin.

Obi-Wan and Yoda were looking over Luke his whole life. They were waiting for him. He was their "Chosen One". The new hope, the last hope, the only hope. This was simply part of the story for the OT.

While Luke's story was sided to the "Hero's Journey" the "Chosen One" was also a part of it though not made totally explicit. We see that more of it was after the PT and Anakin's story. To the point where even in canon it's now acknowledged that Obi-Wan and Yoda believe that Luke was the Chosen One but this time they were not going to tell him like they did Anakin. Obi-Wan thought it was Luke alone but Yoda was open to it being Leia.

His story was sided to the "Chosen One" while also using the "Hero's Journey". What I've said is that for whatever reason some people don't trust in Lucas to know his own story which he knows a lot better than anyone of us.

Also the whole thing of "predestined" in Star Wars is as we see over and over again based on whether or not people chose their destiny. Anakin had a destiny before him but he had to chose to take that path.

Luke had different destinies set before him also but he chose the one he wanted not the ones that the Jedi or Sith placed before him.

 

I grew up with the OT and very much looked forward to the PT but I may be in the minority that I did not have any preconceived notions about what Anakin Skywalker should have been like pre suit. I was just waiting to see what story George had in mind. I do love things about all the films and ROTS is my favorite of all despite the issues I have with any of the PT films personally.

My overall critique when watching the PT films is the portrayal of the Jedi. Not that I had much to go on other than Obi Wan Kenobi telling Luke that "for over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times. Before the Empire." I grew up thinking they were courageous, honorable individuals but that was definitely not what I felt I got watching the PT. What I got was a group who feared and mistrusted a 9 year old little boy who bravely raced a pod to help out a Queen and one of their own, then left his mother to train to become one of them because he felt they were good, that they helped people.

But these Jedi defended Dooku to Padme when she voiced her suspicion that he was behind the assassination attempt on her. Apparently just because one was once a Jedi means you can't possibly be a murderer? (Unless you are Anakin Skywalker.) They were more suspicious and judgmental of a 9 year old than a Sith apprentice just because he was a former Jedi?

These are the same Jedi who listened to Qui Gon and Obi Wan report back on their first interaction with Darth Maul and didn't believe Qui Gon's correct identification of a Sith? Ki Adi Mundi claimed it was impossible because the Sith had been "extinct" for a millenium. So Dooku can't be a murderer but Qui Gon surely must be ignorant or lying about being confronted by a Sith? It was hypocritical for Mundi to call out 9 year old Anakin as well for his thoughts dwelling on his mother but yet Mundi had not 1 but 5 wives and kids of his own? And he began his Jedi training after the age of 4! So much for no attachments and individuals being too old to begin Jedi training.

(I grew up with a stepmother who was a strict Baptist religious hypocrite. She had no issues telling me at the age of 9 that my mother was going to die and go to hell. She made me lie and tell people she was my mother rather than my stepmother. But if I lied to her about something I had done, she would wash my mouth out with soap or use the belt on me. The way the Jedi were depicted and interacted with Anakin reminded me of her. Constant criticism, looking and almost rooting for me to screw up so she could punish me)

Obi Wan is supposed to be a selfless Jedi but he says to Qui Gon "why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic life form?" WOW!

I found Mace Windu to be insufferably arrogant from his "No" in response to Qui Gon asking to train Anakin to his snotty "So the prophecy says." He reminds me of someone with extreme jealousy. His comment to Anakin "if what you say is true about Palpatine being a Sith Lord then you will have earned my trust." At this point after serving before and in the Clone Wars Anakin had done nothing at all worthy of trust? At that point all I wanted Anakin to do was say FU.

These are just a couple of examples right now but over all I felt like I got a group of Jedi who, to me, appeared callous and inept, rather than powerful and compassionate.

 

I am grateful the PT happened. I loved following the films as a youngster. The music is phenomenal. I loved what they did with Anakin's arc, making Vader a much more interesting and tormented character. From boy to machine. Ewan actually became my favorite Obi-Wan, which is incredible given how good Sir Alex Guinness was as an actor. The action was better than the CT. I make no secret I prefer the CT as a whole, but I'm a fan of the franchise....all of the films.

 

IMO i think George making the Jedi flawed was a very brave move because he could very easily have just made them this flawless bunch of monks that always say the right thing, always do the right thing and are always good at heart.

 

Yeah, Luke was special, but initially only for his heritage. When people first saw Star Wars we were introduced to a fairly average boy, living a mundane life, dreaming of greater things. Through Obi-Wan we learned of the all but extinct Jedi and the Force, and the history of his father. However, at that point the ways of the Force was presented to us as being something anyone could learn, and Luke presented a sort of audience avatar, where we the viewers explore the unknown galaxy and the Force with him. Predestiny and such only really came into play with TESB, and by then we had witnessed Luke's heroism first hand to the point that he had earned his special status.

In contrast before Anakin had really done anything of consequence (how could he, being a 9 year old boy?), we already found out he was the product of a virgin birth, the Chosen One, and potentially the most powerful Force user in the galaxy. These were all lofty terms, but they hardly felt earned as they did with Luke. Add to this the fact, that Anakin was the Chosen One to a group of Force users, for which membership obviously became very exclusive. The unfortunate consequence of this is, that rather than identifying with our young hero, we begin to feel like outsiders looking into a world we find difficult to grasp.

 

Maybe so, but I believe in such circumstances you really need an audience avatar, an outsider like for example Qui-Gon Jinn to provide context to the viewer. In many cases it's just really difficult to ascertain, what function certain pieces of dialogue, or actions of characters perform in the film. Obi-Wan's line "Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic life form?" is just one of many examples of a line which is given zero context. What is that line supposed to represent? Qui-Gon hardly responds to it. Does his opinion represent the Jedi's view in general? Is Obi-Wan just being an arrogant ****? If so, why does Qui-Gon let him get away with it? Lines like these may point to flaws, but overall they tend to just confuse the audience about a character's motives. In the end we were sort of left to figure these questions out on our own. To me the fact that the Jedi were flawed is an interesting concept, but I feel it wasn't very well developed.

 

Yes, but I guess that's the big difference between you and me. In a lot of ways I don't really care about Lucas' intentions. I care how those intentions translate to the screen, and how they affect me personally. Lucas might know his story better than any of us, but in the end all that matters to me, is my impression of the story as it was put to the screen.

 

Actually as presented at first to him his heritage was important enough but not super special to the extreme. It was only in TESB that it became clearer and then finally presented to him in ROTJ. He had to face Vader. He was the one who could destroy Vader and the Emperor.

And anyone can learn. That doesn't mean they can become Jedi. The problem is for people who for whatever reason only got part of the story. Probably due to the wish fulfillment nature.

The idea that anyone can become as powerful as Luke naturally was withing literally hours shows his special abilities. The fact that you have a Jedi Knight just waiting around with a Lightsaber from his Jedi father and saying "Why don't you become a Jedi?" is not the normal. It simply doesn't work in the story. The only other Force used he see is Obi-Wan and Vader. If it's that's easy as with Luke then why aren't there a bunch around? Surely Vader would have a legion trained? Why don't all the Stormtroopers carry laserswords?

We learned explicitly he already had it as Yoda had watched over him and was regarded as the Last Hope (with maybe one other).

As opposed to Luke who was the product of a forbidden marriage, the Chosen One and and potentially the most powerful Force user in the galaxy.

What do you mean by earned? In both cases Jedi identified both of them as potentially ultra powerful Force users who could be the Chosen One of the prophecy then took it upon themselves to train them. The difference is that Anakin knew about the prophecy and was trained in the way of the Jedi Order while Luke was not aware of the prophecy and was not trained until he was an adult.

Which is the point. Anakin is clearly not being done in the standard "everyman" method.

Let's be thankful for that because not only was it done for Luke but now Rey as well. Anakin is played in that way in part in TPM but being only 9 it changes the whole equation.

 

Hardly, the Jedi are all but extinct and actively hunted by Vader and the Empire. When Star Wars was released in 1977 there was no reason to believe there might not have been others who were trained in secret by other surviving Jedi, except the story focussed on Luke, who because of his heritage was more likely to follow in his father's footsteps than some average Joe. Additionally it is made abundently clear, the Empire has far more respect for technology than mumbo jumbo. Vader was tolerated as a relic of the past. The Death Star represented the future.

Yes, we learned that after the fact. By then Luke had already shown himself to be a hero, and as such these revelations were a confirmation of his heroic stature.

None of which were known to us before the second half of TESB, and to some extend the PT. This is my point. Luke earned his stature through his actions, heroism, and character long before the most important revelations about his heritage. Conversly, Anakin was a virgin birth, and the potentially most powerful Force user in the galaxy before he first set foot on a star ship.

Earned as in we got to see Luke's special and heroic nature through his actions, rather than be told through a bunch of exposition, and lofty qualifications.

Well, while Rey's development is rushed to an extend, the first half of the film clearly establishes her selfless and heroic nature before introducing her connection to the Force. As such Rey earns her special stature through her actions like Luke.

 

And... what?
Anakin earned his status of a Jedi Knight through his heroism in the Clone War, not because of his virgin birth or Force potential.

So... Anakin is not selfless?
Or, how Luke exactly gained his special status of being watched by one of last surviving Jedi Knights in the galaxy?
I'll add one remark; Luke destroyed the DS and immediately gained command over his rebel group on Hoth and Rey... Well, she fought Ben Solo, so Leia, desperate as she was to find her brother, decided to send her to Luke. Anakin gained nothing.

 

Which is beside the point. The fact is Lucas opted to first heap a bunch of special privelage on a small child as a plot device to make the character seem super special through a bunch of exposition, rather than show it through his character, actions, and decisions. IMO the latter is a far better recipe for character investment than the former.

A child can hardly be expected to make informed and rational decisions. As such Anakin's selfless nature is more a reflection of his child like innocence, than character development, especially considering Anakin's often self-serving nature in AOTC.

Luke is the son of Obi-Wan's best friend. I would view that familial relationship as much less haphazard than just being born into a special status through a virgin birth.

 

For me the character is interesting in large part because of the circumstances he faces for being deemed a special case in an already special order. The rise isn't so much as what I see as the focus point, but more a beginning than anything else. While I think Anakin is shown to earn a place in the order, the core of the story is why he struggles to maintain and eventually loses that place. And in the development of that story I find myself more emotionally engaged with the range of humanity on display than I do with the "every man" stories of Luke and Rey. But for me it's not really about "liking" or even relating to a character, but feeling a sense of emotional verisimilitude to the dramatic proceedings. In this way I find the PT to be the most authentic subsection of Star Wars.

 

Agree, author intent might be interesting in a discussion about what they were trying to say or how ideas have changed etc.

What matters to me how I judge a film or any story os how it comes across to me.
I judge what I see, not what the author intend for me to see.

With Luke and Anakin, I think that there is a bit of a show vs tell when it comes to their first films.

In TPM we are TOLD how special Anakin is. Midi count, no mortal father, is the only human that can pod race, at age nine at that. He is a master builder and apparently the prophesied chosen one.
A lot of telling.
All to make him so very, very special.

What do we see?
Character wise, Anakin is a nice kid, kind and caring but not very unique. A rather run of the mill "nice kid that is great at everything." Yes he misses his mother but I would think most kids would in his situation.
And he himself doesn't change much. His circumstances change a lot but as a person? Not all that much.

With Luke we are told he is good pilot, not the best in the galaxy, just good. And later we see that.
His father was a Jedi but that alone didn't grant him superpowers.
We see his heroism, him wanting to make a stand for what is right.
In short, we are shown more and his character changes more.

With Anakin over the next two films, his character changes but to me, a lot of that change occurred off-screen. In AotC the nice kid is suddenly a rude and sullen teenager with serious impulse control problem and anger issues.

Luke's change over the three films is more gradual and more shown.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

One of the criticisms of the Phantom Menace I cannot stand is the frequenct comment that it was about a boring trade dispute. This myth has been perpetuated for almost two decades now.

However the people who claim The Phantom Menace was only about the "taxation of trade routes" seem to forget that the facade of a "trade dispute" is shattered five minutes into the film when the Trade Federation destroys the Republic Cruiser. At that point the game is over and they invade Naboo. The Trade Federation claims it's nothing but a "trade dispute" but we as an audience know that is simply a fabricated cover story for an illegal military occupation orchestrated by the Sith.

I even looked at the running time to see how long the "trade dispute was even a thing before it's obliterated by the Trade Federation's blaster cannons.

00:53 The taxation of Trade Routes is mentioned in the crawl setting up the immediate conflict.



05:13 Darth Sidious orders the Trade Federation to destroy the Republic Cruiser and kill the Jedi Ambassadors.



05:18 Negotiations Are Over!



So the whole "trade dispute" last approximately 4 minutes and 20 seconds.

Yet people have complained about it for 18 years!

 

It’s always a bit dangerous whenever an artist returns to a beloved property decades after the fact. How many times have you seen beloved rock band go on a reunion tour, only to discover that they’d long since lost that initial spark that had made them so special in the past? A bit of that certainly happened with the prequels. Even within the realm of film, this is hardly unique to George Lucas. His mentor, Francis Ford Coppola, learned that lesson the hard way 9 years earlier with The Godfather: Part III.

Much of it also had to with expectations. Let’s be honest, nothing could’ve lived up to the expectations people had for the trilogy. The original trilogy was an iconic pop culture staple, pretty much universally beloved the world over. Lucas captured lightning in a bottle with that one. Living up to that was always gonna be very, very difficult, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that he fell a bit short of that colossal pinnacle the second time around.

The third reason is that, while the films are nowhere near as bad as some claim, they do have some very serious flaws. I won’t go over the ones that have been rehashed to death for nearly 20 years, such as Jar Jar Binks and the love story, except to say that I agree that both of those are terrible. Instead, I’m going to copy and paste a post I made in another thread, where I focus on an element of the trilogy that hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention, which is that it suffers from some very severe structural defects.

Honestly, the structure is probably the biggest misstep. If you look at the original trilogy, the structure is damn-near perfect. Yes, Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi is a pretty weak film, and the Ewoks are a giant misstep, but structurally, I really can’t find that many problems with the trilogy. It has a clear-through line as it charts the growth of Luke Skywalker from a naive young farmboy into a wise and noble Jedi Knight, as well as showing us the highlights of the Galactic Civil War.

The structure of the prequels, on the other hand, is very bizarre, haphazard and random. It just sorta jumps all over the place until it finally kicks into gear for the climax. I won’t comment on Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) here, as I find the structure of that film to be perfect. However, the other two prequels are actually structured pretty badly, especially as pieces of a trilogy.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) isn’t that badly structured as a standalone film (on its own, the issues are mostly tonal rather than structural), but as Episode I of Star Wars, its placement is just awful. When seen in the broader context of the prequels, its relevance is limited- the real meat of the backstory is presented in the next two films. SW99 is an appetizer, and a strange one at that.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) suffers from “middle episode syndrome”- the tendency of a second volume in a trilogy to feel incomplete and, as a result of that incompleteness, to fail to satisfy. (A problem George Lucas was able to avoid with Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back.) SW2002 takes the threadbare strands of plot introduced in SW99 and braids them together into what will eventually become the whole cloth for SW2005. Still, despite several high octane action sequences, this movie, more than any of the others in the entire Star Wars saga, feels orphaned and works considerably better when viewed as part of a greater epic than as a standalone production. It’s setup without resolution, tease without consummation.

In the end, SW2002 is dogged by the incompleteness of its narrative. Not only is this movie the middle part of a trilogy but it is hampered by being a bridge not to SW2005 but an entire multi-season television series (Star Wars: The Clone Wars). Even when seen in the context of the prequel trilogy, SW2002 feels isolated and incomplete. There’s a huge story chasm between where the characters are in this movie’s final scene and where they are at the opening of SW2005.

So basically, the structure of these films is pretty disastrous. It’d be like if you made an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, and made it so that The Hobbit was the first film, you make The Fellowship of the Ring second, and then you skip right over The Two Towers and head right into The Return of the King, and then proceed to call it a trilogy. It just wouldn’t work.

 

I strongly disagree. Viewed on its own, the trilogy is an elegantly structured tragedy chronicling key points in Anakin Skywalker’s life leading up to his transformation into Darth Vader.
Viewed in conjunction with the second trilogy, it’s an intelligently painted mirror image of the latter, completing an absolutely astonishing ring composition.

 

I don't think I agree with your assessment, but it is well-reasoned and a interesting read. Kudos.

 

I actually think many of the key points of Darth Vader’s life are either missing or glossed over. Notice how the original trilogy makes sure to keep the focus on Luke throughout, and how we get to witness all the key points in his development. We see him become a hero in the Rebel Alliance. We see him as an idealistic but impulsive youth, who wants to do the right thing but often charges into situations without thinking things through. We see him learn his lesson the hard way on Bespin, so that, the next time we see him, he’s much more mature and patient. We then eventually see him confront his father, narrowly avoid falling into the pit of the dark side himself, and in the process, he manages to redeem his father and become a wise and noble Jedi Knight.

Vader’s development is much sketchier. When we first see him, he’s basically an innocent and naive child. He’s not even the lead character of the movie. He’s definitely a supporting character. The next time we see him, he’s become a petulant teenager, elevated to the status of a co-lead, along with Obi-Wan Kenobi, and the third time we see him, he’s become an introspective, tormented man torn between loyalty to his friends and his beliefs and an overwhelming desire to embrace power (this is also where he finally takes center stage). He feels less like a developed character and more like a pinball, wildly bouncing around from place to place depending on the needs of the plot. It needed a much clearer through-line, which I think it really lacks.

 

Well, that’s one of many points where we disagree. I see a crystal clear through-line.

 

Because there are critics.