Yoda's Voice Change from OT to PT

In "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," Yoda only had a high-pitched voice at one point, and that was when he was toying with Luke upon his arrival in Dagobah in TESB.

Perhaps it was because he was playing the part of a harmless clown or childish codger, Yoda's voice sounded quite high-pitched for all of his lines, such as, "Looking! Found someone you have I would say MMMM?" Basically, ALL of Yoda's first lines are said in that cute high-pitched voice.

But everything changes after Yoda has revealed himself to be a wise old sage. His voice changes from the cute and frivolous tone to a much deeper one. Oh, sure, there are points where Yoda gets all excited and his voice will hit a high note for a second, but for the most part it's a contemplate and wise deep one.

But here's the thing.....

People LIKED the cute-old-codger a lot more than the wise-old-sage, and it was the high-pitched voice that was imitated in popular culture (also, that was the first one people heard).

So when Lucas and LucasFilm set out to make the PT, they were openly trying to please fanboy (as proven in my essay "Two Audience, Two Spirits" at the Star Wars Saga Forum).

They decided to reduce Yoda to a caricature of what he was rather than what he REALLY was, because they did not want people to go, "Didn't he sound cuter, and not so serious?"

Anyway, the result of this pandering to what they thing Fanboy wants has been, of course, that AOTC was embarassed at the box office, its business plummeting after its initial release, ultimately making it BY FAR the lowest box office performer of all the Star Wars movies, as well as the first Star Wars movie to not be the top box office performer the year it was released (it came in third in 2002).

 

In other words, this is yet another thinly veiled attempt to discuss why "Attack of the Clones" was "bad"? I believe that a thread regarding Yoda's voice already exists in this forum.

 

Tyrannus the Hutt:

That was a brilliant contribution to the conversation! What imagination, what grand ideas!

 

Yeah, its clearly nothing to do with Frank Oz getting older and his voice changing...

 

DBrennan3333 - I'm sorry for my previous comments - they were thoughtless and reactionary. Regarding your last post, well, I probably had that coming; it's not a big deal. Anyways, concerning the issues at hand, I must truthfully say that I don't disagree with your underlying argument that "Attack of the Clones" wasn't well recieved by the public and media: let's face it - it wasn't. As to how that may or may not be indicated by the film's box-office pull is a more debatable issue. In addition, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of Yoda's voice being a salient and deliberate tactic in which Lucas was trying to placate and pander to the fans. I have a slightly different outlook on the matter which I will address shortly.

Yes, "Clones" had a monster opening weekend, pulling in something like $110 million in 4 days; in subsequent weeks its box-office returns diminished quickly, plummeting perhaps 60% in its second weekend. Yes, "Clones" is the first "Star Wars" film to fail to claim the #1 box-office spot of its respective year. Yes, many people disliked or even hated the film. But, are such matters linked to the actual artistic quality of the film? More specifically, the underlying question is: do those facts suggest that "Clones" is a "bad" film, or merely that the public was not appreciative or receptive of the picture? I would argue that the latter statement is more accurate than the former. If we were to further extrapolate the former suggestion, then by means of logical deduction, "popular", high-grossing films such as "The Waterboy", "Armageddon", and "Bad Boys 2" must be masterworks, correct? The tenuous, unfounded nature of your argument, DBrennan, is such that it doesn't fundamentally or directly link public and critical approval with filmic and/or artistic merit. Many good or great films have been completely ignored both critically and publically. I hate to continue bringing this up, but let's revisit this ancient, wearisome topic. Consider films such as "La Regle du Jeu", "The Golden Coach", "Blade Runner", "Vertigo", "The Searchers", "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors", "The Duellists", and so on. The public was at best indifferent to those pictures. Critics were scornful. In the case of "La Regle du Jeu", the film was literally laughed off the screen at its French premiere! Things got so bad for the film's director, Jean Renoir, that he left his native France and went into exile. Now, it is routinely considered one of the greatest films of all time. How does one account for such things? Conversely, films that were financially and critically successful upon their release, such as "The Sound of Music", "How Green Was My Valley", "Around the World in 80 Days", "The Greatest Show On Earth", "Oliver!", etc., are now considered by many to be supremely inferior movies. Why is this? When the three "Lord of the Rings" pictures and mediocre fare such as "Fight Club" are considered to be amongst the best films ever made, according to public forums such as IMDB, what weight or credence can one actually lend to so-called "public opinion"?

Regarding the discrepancies in Yoda's voice from the OT to the PT, you are correct in your awknowledgement that his prequel voice shares more similarities with the mischievious Yoda of "The Empire Strikes Back", but I emphatically disagree with your assessment of his character. I do not feel that he is presented in a manner that could be characterized as "goofy" or "juvenile" - if anything, he is shown in a way which essentially de-mystifies the more wondrous nature of his OT presence. That statement could possibly be suggestive of the PT as an entirety, and so therefore I can intellectually comprehend why many people have difficulties with those films. I would require more substantial evidence to further consider this notion of "pandering" (as it relates to Yoda's voice) in any detail. As for Yoda's duel with Dooku, I won't argue the fact that it was a stunt - a fun, gimmicky, throwaway sequence - and nothing more. However, Yoda was

 

Darth Tyrannus:

People have repeatedly cited "indisputably bad movies that were box office hits" such as Armageddon and Pearl Harbor (both of which, based on what I remember reading, were actually disappointments at the domestic box office, but never mind) and "indisputably good movies that were box office flops" such as Shawshank Redemption and (one that I'll throw in) Braveheart.

Obviously, it's insanity to pretend that box office figures are absolute indicators of a movie's quality....but it's definitely a large factor. Moreover, studying the deeper box office figures can be revealing as to what people thought about movies, whether a picture has "legs" is a wonderful guage of its quality in my opinion (although not an absolute indicator, obviously).

But when you look at AOTC, you combine the following three pieces of data (A) it underperformed at the box office (B) it had no "legs" at all, and (C) critics gave it a categorically lukewarm response, I think that you can definitively make the statement that AOTC was a major disappointment by the standards of Star Wars pictures.

As I've theorized before, I think a major reason for this was that it was tailor made for what George Lucas (hardly the same guy he was 30 years ago) THINKS that Star Wars fans like myself want. That's why Jar Jar Binks was eradicated and why "Jango Fett" (a name so stupid sounding I can't stop saying it) randomly appeared in the picture. The whole thing was just bizarre, like some blurry montage of Fanboy brainstorms. That the great name of Star Wars was reduced to that, I'll always be irritated by the picture.

Regarding the change in Yoda's voice (and thank you for at least admitting that it IS different, I didn't want to have to hire some sound engineer to do a pitch-comparison), I simply don't think that there's any plausible explanation other than the one I originally hypothesized: Lucasfilm was pandering, and they wanted Yoda to sound like the caricature of Yoda, rather than Yoda himself.

Thanks for your time.

 

Why dont you just create a thread called "AOTC sucked, reasons in here," at least it'd be honest.

"Regarding the change in Yoda's voice (and thank you for at least admitting that it IS different, I didn't want to have to hire some sound engineer to do a pitch-comparison), I simply don't think that there's any plausible explanation other than the one I originally hypothesized: Lucasfilm was pandering, and they wanted Yoda to sound like the caricature of Yoda, rather than Yoda himself."

Allow mt to once again say:

Yeah, its clearly nothing to do with Frank Oz getting older and his voice changing...

 

Qu Klaani:

First off, I've yet to meet the adult guy whose voice actually gets HIGHER as he ages. I just saw an interview with James Earl Jones....nope, voice hasn't changed a bit.

I can't even think of what bizarre life experiences you've had that make you think that a grown man's voice gets higher pitched as he ages. More hoarse and grumbly? Sure. Higher pitched with age? Are you Michael Jackson's kid? I have no idea why you would say that. None whatsoever.


And as far as your suggestion that I just start an "I hate AOTC site," this clever bass-terd beat me to the punch!

http://www.chefelf.com/starwars/ep2.php

 

"So when Lucas and LucasFilm set out to make the PT, they were openly trying to please fanboy (as proven in my essay "Two Audience, Two Spirits" at the Star Wars Saga Forum). "

I've never seen this essay, but I imagine that it is filled with opinion and unverifiable assertions (like 'openly trying to please fanboy').

"They decided to reduce Yoda to a caricature of what he was rather than what he REALLY was, because they did not want people to go, "Didn't he sound cuter, and not so serious?"

So Yoda was more serious in the OT? Did you miss the end of AotC where Yoda talks about how the Clone Wars have begun? Or every scene where he mentions the shroud of the Dark Side?

"Anyway, the result of this pandering to what they thing Fanboy wants has been, of course, that AOTC was embarassed at the box office"

I have yet to see proof of pandering. If Lucas wanted to pander, the PT would only have been about Vader hunting Jedi.

"Obviously, it's insanity to pretend that box office figures are absolute indicators of a movie's quality....but it's definitely a large factor."

It is only an indicator of how well the public receives the film. And, if I'm not mistaken, your original thesis was that Star Wars PT films are pandering too much to the fans. Shouldn't that make the box office take higher rather than lower?

"I think that you can definitively make the statement that AOTC was a major disappointment by the standards of Star Wars pictures."

Of course you can say that. But you can't prove what isn't true. In a year where many film franchises had new releases, AotC still came in third. And it was working against the media darling LotR and the child friendly Harry Potter.

Basically, Yoda ages from the PT to the OT. It makes sense for his character's voice to age. And you haven't yet made any allowances for the situations in which Yoda uses a 'higher' voice vs. a a lower voice. When he is training the younglings, it makes sense for Yoda to not growl at them. So he speaks in a higher voice. It generally puts kids at ease.

Compare this to the moments when Yoda is forced to be more serious. His voice is more of a growl than anything when he fights Dooku. I've already mentioned the end of AotC.

Anyways, I won't keep you. I just wanted to put in my 2 cents before others notice this thread, and any attempt at discourse is buried in flaming.

 

Darth Mimic:

I won't respond to everything that you wrote (but naturally I think that you were right every time you agreed with me and embarassingly wrong each time you agreed), but here's one idea I want to clarify:

YOU WROTE:
"It is only an indicator of how well the public receives the film. And, if I'm not mistaken, your original thesis was that Star Wars PT films are pandering too much to the fans. Shouldn't that make the box office take higher rather than lower?"

In theory, of course pandering to audiences would increase the box office take....but history, such as the underwheling performance of AOTC, prove otherwise. See, when 'Star Wars' was made, it was trying to please EVERYBODY. When AOTC was made, it was trying to please what George Lucas THOUGHT Star Wars fans had come to want. AOTC was like the third-generation of pandering, and the formula just collapsed in on itself.

And as far as dismissing public perception altogether as an indicator of a movie's quality, that's totally bogus. I mean, these movies are made FOR the public. If a guy makes a home movie just for himself and his family, then it would not matter what other people thought. But if that same guy made a movie for everybody, then OF COURSE it matters what they think and felt....that's the whole POINT of it, ya know?

Again, there are endless pictures such as 'Shawshank Redemption' and 'Braveheart' that failed at the box office that time proved that people LOVED....but AOTC is definitely not a part of that category.

 

"I think that you were right every time you agreed with me and embarassingly wrong each time you agreed"

I'm getting mixed messages here.

"If a guy makes a home movie just for himself and his family, then it would not matter what other people thought. But if that same guy made a movie for everybody, then OF COURSE it matters what they think and felt....that's the whole POINT of it, ya know?"

Technically, the Star Wars saga is the largest series of independant films in history. Lucas is not making a studio project, where focus groups come in and rate the material he has produced. This film is his project and, as such, has true artistic merit at the heart of the creative process rather than marketing ploys and pandering. This is a series of movies that he really is making for himself, which is the flaw in your arguement. He is actually making the films that he wants to see, despite the reactions of the fans (which have been positive enough to net some few hundred million dollars for the 2 PT films).

It all depends on what motive you ascribe to Lucas when he makes film. Is this motivated by profit? Unlikely, as a potential failure could ruin him, and he's already rolling in money (he did invent movie merchandising to some extent). If he was making a film for his conception of a fan, don't you think he'd at least interview fans or show up in tfn boards etc.? Circumstantial evidence I know, but it leads me to believe that Lucas really is making films because he loves making films, and he needs to finish this story.

 

Darth Mimic:

You're taking this worshipping of Lucas a BIT too far. No, he did not "invent" merchandising tie-ins. You can go back and find action figures and lunch boxes for everything from Zorro to 'Planet of the Apes.'

Why would you even WANT to lie about something like that? What does it profit YOU to say that George Lucas "invented" merchandising. I mean, the claim is so laughably false, I just wonder what would compel you to say it.

And as for your other absuridity, that Lucas is making these movies for himself....right. The reason he made "Jango Fett" a main character in AOTC is because it spoke to his inner soul. It wasn't because Fanboy would spend countless dollars on Jango Fett action figures and posters. I mean, the whole idea that Lucas has any agenda other than profit is just the work of Lucasfilm's PR or Rick McCallum. It's insane.

Seriously, why DO you lie about Lucas's greatness? How do these lies make YOUR life better?

 

"You're taking this worshipping of Lucas a BIT too far. No, he did not "invent" merchandising tie-ins. You can go back and find action figures and lunch boxes for everything from Zorro to 'Planet of the Apes.'"

I meant with toys. The qualifying statement 'to some extent' was put in so that you wouldn't go off and sidetrack the discussion with a history of merchandising. But, let's face it, Lucas did make alot of money from marketing the toys from the film. It removes his profit motive.

"The reason he made "Jango Fett" a main character in AOTC is because it spoke to his inner soul. It wasn't because Fanboy would spend countless dollars on Jango Fett action figures and posters. I mean, the whole idea that Lucas has any agenda other than profit is just the work of Lucasfilm's PR or Rick McCallum. It's insane."

I happen to respect filmmakers who make movies for themselves (like Mel with Braveheart). And if Lucas is making these films for himself, then he probably enjoys seeing 'cool' villains like Jango Fett. the idea that profit is a motive when Lucas already has more money than the U.S. is absurd.

"How do these lies make YOUR life better?"

I like intelligent discussion. I don't like being told I'm lying. But most of all, I like it when thinly disguised basher threads are taken over by people who are willing to have intelligent discussions on the subject at hand. Had you even considered the fact that Yoda changes his voice depending on who he is speaking to? Most politicians do it. Teachers do it. Actors do it. Soldiers do it. Yoda is all of those things.

 

*Ignores Yoda voice change debate*

As a fan of the SW Saga since I was 10 years old, I was always excited to hear rumours of the trilogy being continued,wondering what it would be like and how much info on the characters would be shown etc...

When this finally occurred in TPM, I was a little dissapointed in some areas but was aware of the concept of introduction of characters i.e. young Anakin,Qui-Gon and Padme and the young Obi-Wan.

Plus GL said it was a backstory and so the development of the Galactic Republic and it's detail was shown. Ok,fair enough I said...

AOTC trailers and info on the web suggested that this would offer the much talked about 'Clone Wars' as well as a grown Jedi Anakin and not a "clever kid" so I was enthused and yet was(in certain areas) dissapointed again.

Please don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the SW saga but found some areas lacking in what I thought would come,so for the fanboy notion doesn't work.

The areas that didn't come together that I was not so enamored of are not strong enough to be fatal to my liking the saga but I am looking for the right factors in ROTS.


Since having been able to watch the PT movies a few more times and thinking on aspects I realise that ROTS is the tie-in and it has to meet certain expectations to make the PT and OT a seamless production.

So,I am eagerly waiting and hoping for the ROTS to answer the questions I still have about the saga and to really amaze me with it's brilliance.

I really trust and hope that GL will do this.

 

^^^

Both Ewan McGregor and Shatterpoint/ROTS novelization author Matthew Stover have said that they were impressed with the overall story after reading the script for Episode III.

So, yes, only at the end will you understand

 

^^^^

"Only at the end will you understand."

So then they've been wasting our time with these past two movies, okay, at least you admitted it.

 

So then they've been wasting our time with these past two movies, okay, at least you admitted it.

this is a sad but true fact. the past 2 movies have accomplished very little in the development of anakin's turn to the darkside and really, isn't that what these movies were supposed to be about? i don't know if GL has just tried to be clever or just very subtle but either way it hasn't really worked. so far we haven't been given anything of substance that would make his turn to pure evil realistic. we haven't even seen anakin the powerful jedi that many have wanted see yet. so where does that leave us? ONE movie left to give us everything that we were supposed to see in the prequel trilogy...and no doubt things we wanted to see will be left out because of how much ground is left to cover in the last movie. come may, i don't have much doubt that i'll really like ROTS but i'm sure i'll be asking myself, was there really any need for a "prequel trilogy" or just one "prequel"? i guess i already answered my question...

 

"this is a sad but true fact. the past 2 movies have accomplished very little in the development of anakin's turn to the darkside and really, isn't that what these movies were supposed to be about?"

Remember the Tusken scene? The interrogation of Zam? Anakin fighting Dooku? Anakin is definately getting darker as AotC progresses. As for TPM - it's not much of a transformation if Anakin isn't 'good' to begin with.

 

ok, so he kills buncha half humans that kill his mother, he raises his voice once and he's reckless when fighting the bad guy? if you've read any of ROTS spoilers he does quite few detestable acts and nothing he's done in AOTC explains how he could become so wicked...in your opinion you've seen enough to know why he becomes vader but IMO i would have liked to seen more. it's like anakin is supposed to go from the biggest hero to the most evil villan in 2 seconds flat...to me he's basically going to have to do 180 to become vader ROTS which makes the previous two movies useless as far as a back story goes...

 

"to me he's basically going to have to do 180 to become vader ROTS which makes the previous two movies useless as far as a back story goes..."

That's all your opinion. You're welcome to it. I would have found it strange to see him more evil as a padawan, because I don't believe he could have become a Jedi if that were the case. Remember that you're only seeing moments of his existence over the 13 year span from TPM to RotS.

 

this is a sad but true fact

"Fact"?

 

"to me he's basically going to have to do 180 to become vader ROTS which makes the previous two movies useless"

In other words... "Here, Tuskens, have some flowers. Thank you for killing Shmi. Oh no, this is the Dark Side coming out in me. Would you like some lemonade?"

 

i'll conceed that slaughtering tuskens obviously a dark moment but that's the ONLY thing he's done that's been even remotely evil two movies so far...

i understand what you're saying about you didn't really want see anakin be an evil padwan and agree to an extent...this problem would have been solved by starting the PT with AOTC. it was completely unnecessary that we see a 9 year old darth vader...we don't need 100% of the story, just the good parts...the parts that move the story along. episode ii could have focused on the great things anakin did and could have made him a much more likable character. this would make his fall in episode iii much more dramatic...this would also give GL more time to tie in both the trilogies...but oh well, it is what is...

 

episode ii could have focused on the great things anakin did

Euhm, that's exactly what Episode I (and partly both II and III) did.

 

if you mean winning a pod race or accidently blowing up the droid ship in TPM then that is pretty weak IMO...what did do that was GREAT in AOTC?