|
Lincoln posted:Looks like we have a villain: And now, the nerd screaming begins. Or continues. Whichever.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
According to The Secret History of Star Wars, the Annakin-Padme-Obi Wan triangle was a big, big part of the early drafts of the script, but it was cut almost entirely from the final product. They decided that "save Padme's life" was the best way to rationalize Annakin's quick swing to the dark side, rather than, "Obi Wan is trying to seduce Padme." Apparently, nobody realized (or was willing to tell George) that they had very little time to turn Annakin from good guy to bad guy by the time Episode III rolled around, so they went with a single, quick turn that would fit into a single film. Basically, they wasted Episode II, and should have spent much more time showing Annakin's latent dark side and gradual turn. That way his turn would have been much more convincing at the end of III.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
I can see that as Lucas responding to the criticism of Episode II- people didn't think the romance stuff then worked, so he tried to minimize it. (Seemed to me that they were building towards sort of an Othello situation, where Anakin thinks Padme is cheating on him with Obi-Wan- Ian McDiarmid even quipped that he saw his character as sort of an Iago figure.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
From the movies, I don't see any evidence of an aborted relationship subplot between Obi-Wan and Padme or Anakin's suspicions of one. They're clearly friends and Padme's occasional "What about Obi-Wan?" conversations always serve to remind Anakin that they (Anakin and Obi-Wan, not Padme and Obi-Wan) share a close, special relationship. His anger toward Obi-Wan is part of the general "Jedi distrust" and "you're so much more powerful/better than" that Palpatine has fed him for 13 years. In AOTC he complains to Padme about how Obi-Wan holds him back and in ROTS he's rocked when Kenobi reveals the Council's "secret order" to spy on the Chancellor. Before initiating Order 66, Palpatine even reminds Anakin that Obi-Wan is an enemy. When Padme confronts him and Obi-Wan reveals himself, Anakin's feeling of betrayal is from the confirmation she's working with his enemy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Basically, they wasted Episode II, and should have spent much more time showing Annakin's latent dark side and gradual turn. That way his turn would have been much more convincing at the end of III. You really don't think that Episode II showed enough of a dark side in Anakin? If anything, I think he was too dark in Episode II. His character was completely inconsistent from the previous film, there was almost no sense of his supposed friendship with Obi-Wan, and he was so creepy that it became totally unbelievable for Padme to actually fall for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Basically, they wasted Episode II, and should have spent much more time showing Annakin's latent dark side and gradual turn. That way his turn would have been much more convincing at the end of III. I used to think that, but when I rewatched the films recently it seemed like the point was Anakin never really turned at all. He was a power hungry, immature child raised by power-hungry, immature Jedi. He then switched to being a power hungry, immature Sith when it became clear the Jedi were on the losing side, they were holding him back from what he really wanted all along, and they didn't live up to their ideals anyway. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Basically, they wasted Episode II, and should have spent much more time showing Annakin's latent dark side and gradual turn. That way his turn would have been much more convincing at the end of III. Didn't he slaughter a bunch of Sand People (including children) in that film? Not that that matters. Even his idiot girlfriend didn't give much of a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
paint dry posted:Didn't he slaughter a bunch of Sand People (including children) in that film? Not that that matters. Even his idiot girlfriend didn't give much of a poo poo. Exactly; he didn't become corrupt in a vacuum, everyone around him was encouraging or enabling the same bad attitudes, which he had all along, that eventually led him to become Vader.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Anakin was never a 'Good Guy'
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
I always thought the Tusken Holocaust was to show that Anakin is willing to succumb to his negative emotions to commit violence, a Sith trait. Not that he was actually in the process of slipping to the dark side. Why do I think that? Because they do nothing else for the remainder of the film to tell you he's slipping to the dark side! I mean, the filmmakers could have used it to signify a true turn toward the dark side, but they didn't. Instead, he was teary and remorseful about it. Hell, when he says goodbye to Obi-Wan on the landing platform about midway through Episode III, everything is still hunky-dory between them, and Anakin is clearly a "good guy." So he engages in dark side behavior once in the first five-sixths of the trilogy, and we're supposed to believe he becomes a baby killer to save Padme? I do understand the whole "Jedi are taking over the Republic" scam that Palpatine was conning him with, but man o man, did they underplay that plot point. It honestly didn't even register with me until years later when I was watching it on Spike or something. I guess what I'm really saying is, a love triangle --either real or imagined by Anakin-- would have been way, way more convincing than the "traitor-Jedi" con that most moviegoers probably didn't even pick up on. "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!" What? Where the gently caress did that come from? I just re-read all that, and I didn't make any loving sense. Here's what they should have done: • Put the 10-year flash-forward in the middle of Episode I and poo poo-can the character of Qui-Gon entirely. • Go ahead and make Episode II a retarded, ham-fisted romance, but really plant the seeds of Anakin's jealousy, with Obi-Wan the target. Anakin and Padme marry in the middle of Episode II, so we can introduce the "Padme will die in childbirth" scare. Have Anakin legitimately slip toward the dark side a couple of times, and make it crystal clear that's what's happening. No crying about sandpeople! • Episode III has Palpatine continuing to feed Anakin's fears about Padme's death and Obi-Wan's dong. His final turn should have nothing to do with politics. Palp's lie about Anakin killing his own wife is the final nail in the coffin. Now you got one loving pissed off Sith, unimaginably insane with grief and hatred, and everybody in the movie theater buys it completely. Oh God did I just write fanfic? Please please Jebus, just let those be suggested edits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Looks like we have a villain: This guy is in a film I'm working on, he's really good. Man those ears but I guess they are Star-Wars worthy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:So he engages in dark side behavior once in the first five-sixths of the trilogy, and we're supposed to believe he becomes a baby killer to save Padme? What he wanted was power and control, but what he felt was powerless in every way; powerless to save his mother, to impress the Jedi, to reach his full potential. Power to save Padme's life and control her destiny was part of that, but it wasn't the whole thing. He had already been a baby killer- he killed the children of the "sand people" for the crimes of their parents. Also remember the "younglings" were child soldiers being trained with powerful weapons. Again, there is no specific moment where he turns to the dark side because its not about turning evil. He always wants power all along, and all that changes is how he pursues it. quote:I do understand the whole "Jedi are taking over the Republic" scam that Palpatine was conning him with, but man o man, did they underplay that plot point. It honestly didn't even register with me until years later when I was watching it on Spike or something. But the Jedi council says so right out, even before Anakin informs Windu that Palpatine is a Sith. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Hmm yes, I can't see why divorcing politics from a story about the fall of a Republic might be missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
I often think it could've worked better if PM Anakin were older. The relationship with Padme would've made more sense and even the jealousy towards Padme and Obiwan would've worked better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:I always thought the Tusken Holocaust was to show that Anakin is willing to succumb to his negative emotions to commit violence, a Sith trait. Not that he was actually in the process of slipping to the dark side. Why do I think that? Because they do nothing else for the remainder of the film to tell you he's slipping to the dark side! I mean, the filmmakers could have used it to signify a true turn toward the dark side, but they didn't. Instead, he was teary and remorseful about it. There's no evidence of Anakin being a dick if you ignore all the evidence, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hmm yes, I can't see why divorcing politics from a story about the fall of a Republic might be missing the point. Fall of Anakin, you mean. That's the way I saw/see the films. The teaser poster for Episode I pretty much laid out the storyline for the whole trilogy back in 1998:  That's not a picture of the senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
I think the movies tell us more what the movies are about than a single marketing poster does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Exactly; he didn't become corrupt in a vacuum, everyone around him was encouraging or enabling the same bad attitudes, which he had all along, that eventually led him to become Vader. There was a very unusual deleted scene in Episode II with similar themes a bit before that. Padme is visiting her family's house in Naboo, which is rather small but decidedly middle-class. She takes Anakin upstairs and shows him pictures of her work that led her to be elected queen. One of them is a hologram of her with some aliens that she saved from their homeword's desctruction. When Anakin asks her what happened to them she says the species were unable to survive off their home planet and went extinct - "they died". 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
You can't really separate the two. Anakin's story is the story of the fall of the Republic, and the fall of the Republic is the story of the Jedi's failure to properly teach/mentor their prophesized chosen one(demonstrating that they too had lost touch with the true meaning of the Force). The Republic doesn't fall without the fall of Anakin, and Anakin would have turned out much differently if the Jedi had been able to identify the Sith in their midst earlier. The movies are the story of all of this, its all interconnected, which I think adds to the tragedy of it all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I think the movies tell us more what the movies are about than a single marketing poster does. Agreed. I don't think Episodes I-III were about politics. And I don't think Schindler's List was about World War II. Alien wasn't about outer-space mining. Star Wars is space opera, not a political thriller or spycraft procedural. It's about people and their destinies. Politics is just the backdrop against which the drama takes place. The title of the first movie is The Phantom Menace. The "menace" of Trade Federation taxation and blockade was openly identified as a phony surface distraction. The Sith Lord cackling and rubbing his hands together was the real, meaningful action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Star Wars is about morality, and how one compromises it in search of greater/personal good. Anakin's fall mirror's that of his society. Acting as if the politics of the prequels is just meaningless fluff is being deliberately obtuse. The Galactic Senate features throughout the three films culminating in an action sequence where two wizards hurl the literal seats of representatives at each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Star Wars is about morality, and how one compromises it in search of greater/personal good. Anakin's fall mirror's that of his society. Meaningless fluff? No. But it's actually no more more than the background against which all the real, meaningful action takes place. Take a 10- or 12-year-old kid and show him the prequel trilogy. Then ask him to describe the plots. How often is he going to mention something that happened in the senate? Or the Jedi council chambers? Oh wait, he'll probably mention...what did you call it? "...an action sequence where two wizards hurl the literal seats of representatives at each other. Yes, that happened in the Senate. My mistake, you're right, the movies are about politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Why do I care how a pre-teen reads a film?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
The films are called Star Wars - the original trilogy is set during the rebellion and the prequel trilogy during the Clone Wars. Palpatine is the villain in both trilogies, but he's not a very active figure in the original one. He's there in the background, simply setting things into motion: the Tarkin Doctrine he enacts in A New Hope is just a generic symbol of imperial tyranny to establish the justness of the rebels' cause, and the order he gives Vader to apprehend Luke in The Empire Strikes Back is something Vader was doing anyway. Luke confronts Palpatine in Return of the Jedi because he's the root of not only the political conflict of the rebellion, but the personal conflict between Vader and Luke. In the prequel trilogy, it's fairly obvious that the political conflict that Palpatine is at the root of is the Clone Wars. What's less clear is how he's involved in the personal conflict between Anakin and Obi-Wan. Perhaps it would have worked better if we had seen Anakin having a stronger relationship with his kindly patron Chancellor Palpatine. Anakin's frustration with the Jedi was already there, but it's not evident in the films how that translates to "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!" without someone to show him why. Anakin of the films does what Palpatine says but always seems distant; there's no warmth or admiration for the friend who "watch[es] his career with great interest," when the strength of that trust is supposedly the entire basis for his fall. All of this is in the films, of course, but much of it is told and not shown. Characters often talk about how Anakin is Palpatine's friend (sort of like how Anakin and Obi-Wan talk about how they are friends). There's a lot of scenes of ultimately pointless political angling establishing the exact nature of how the Jedi Council and Palpatine try to use Anakin against each other; there's a lot of hand-wringing about how Palpatine's emergency powers have undermined democratic ideals, and how the Jedi high command is just as deep in it; Anakin often angsts about not knowing whom to trust. There's not a lot about why Anakin comes to agree with Palpatine that the Jedi should be wiped out. He merely swears obedience after saving Palpatine from Mace Windu, apparently just because he promises to try to save Padme. Many scenes in Revenge of the Sith are about the wedge of distrust Palpatine drives between Anakin and the Jedi Council, but nearly all of it is based on abstract platitudes about democracy, peace, and power, plus a few minor details about a coup d'etat that was more spontaneous than Anakin was led to believe. That feels really hollow when it could have been a diabolical indictment of the sum of Jedi hypocrisy. If the major theme of the entire series is "Wars [do] not make one great," show that through somebody understanding just how far from great the Jedi Order has become as a result of these wars. A personal connection is necessary as well, of course. I think the mistake of Revenge of the Sith was making this connection about Anakin and Padme, when it should have been about Anakin and Obi-Wan. Who better than the greatest drat fool idealistic crusader of them all to become the image of everything Anakin loathes about those he betrays? (I'm not saying Obi-Wan should be evil: just that we should know why Anakin thinks he is, and that this reason should coincide pretty well with the difference between Obi-Wan (who was wrong) and Luke (who was right) in the original trilogy.) Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
The films are overtly political, from the original's promise of revolutionary social change to the sequels' reflection of disappointment and cynicism when that radical energy is subverted and betrayed by liberalism. As a cycle they are specifically about the architecture of history; the Luke-Leia relationship being repeated in reverse in the pre-sequels is also a part of this. Where originally an romantic connection transforms into an expression of radical solidarity by Return of the Jedi, the brother-sister relationship reverts to an incestuous one which bears it's negation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
The idea that Anakin 'falls to the dark side' is a persistent falsehood. As noted before, there is no light side in the prequels. It's all darkness. The films depict, instead, Anakin's failure to rise to the light side - an extremely crucial difference. The prequels attack the assumption that the Jedi and the republic are good guys. Anakin does not fall because the Jedi are not good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
So Jake Lloyd was a pre-teen dark neophyte?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Meaningless fluff? No. But it's actually no more more than the background against which all the real, meaningful action takes place. Take a 10- or 12-year-old kid and show him the prequel trilogy. Then ask him to describe the plots. How often is he going to mention something that happened in the senate? Or the Jedi council chambers? Clearly, we need to start lowering the age requirement for professional film critics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Why do I care how a pre-teen reads a film? They've been the target audience since 1977.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Yeah they really are the most important audience demographics, because they don't go to the movies by themselves. They go with parents, friends, or both. Boys under 25 in general are the fourth quadrant which engulfs the others. Corek fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
What's the deal with this weird trend now of purposely interpreting movies as hypothetical children supposedly would?Bongo Bill posted:All of this is in the films, of course, but much of it is told and not shown. Characters often talk about how Anakin is Palpatine's friend (sort of like how Anakin and Obi-Wan talk about how they are friends). I think both those details are significant. Anakin isn't really Palpatine's friend, Palpatine just flatters his ego in a way he craves but doesn't get from anyone else (especially the other Jedi). Obi-Wan may have genuinely thought Anakin was his friend, but when Anakin talks to Padme we see how little he really respects or understands his mentor. quote:There's not a lot about why Anakin comes to agree with Palpatine that the Jedi should be wiped out. Seems to me he'd just rather be on the winning team. Throughout episode 2 and 3 he didn't seem to care too much about the Jedi order except as a means to his own ends. The means changed, but the ends did not. Lincoln posted:Agreed. I don't think Episodes I-III were about politics. And I don't think Schindler's List was about World War II. Alien wasn't about outer-space mining. Star Wars is space opera, not a political thriller or spycraft procedural. It's about people and their destinies. Politics is just the backdrop against which the drama takes place. Politics is inextricable from that drama, though. And same goes for those other movies. Like Alien isn't mainly about outer-space mining, but the fact that the characters are blue-collar workers in space is pretty significant to the film and plot. Part of the horror in the film is the horror of being treated as just a disposable cog in some larger machine ("crew expendable"). Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Looks like we have a villain: The villain is gentrification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
That dude is one ugly motherfucker.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:That dude is one ugly motherfucker. Seriously, he looks like he should be bagging my groceries at the market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Darth Pedostache "I have seen a security hologram of him........molesting younglings"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:That dude is one ugly motherfucker. He looks like someone put a Keanu Reeves texture on a GoldenEye 64 character model.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
Adam Driver rules. here's why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Aq4a7g_wdU
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
When I establish my reich, I'll have all ugly actors killed for their crimes. Or, you know, have them play the villains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Adam Driver rules. Fragmaster got vocal chops
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
Topher Grace (lol) has released a trailer for his 85-minute prequel recutting: http://cerealprize.com/trailers/redux-of-the-jedi "His combined prequel trilogy moves quickly and omits huge chucks of story in favor of action and streamlining the narrative events of the prequels. Gone are the politics, General Grievous, Jar Jar Binks (except for one shot), the clone army, and about 99% of the first movie."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 03:55
|
|