Star Wars Prequels good, or bad?

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 16:01
VIEWED: 5784
PAGE 3 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Monday, November 30, 2009 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

I wanted to see a clever motivation for Anakin to turn into Vader. That was a massive fail.

But that fail in no way should affect your enjoyment of the original trilogy IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Monday, November 30, 2009 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Storymark: I dunno man, I mean...

Yeah, whut?

I'm discussing what's in the film. Never read that comic, don't care. It's irrelevant to the actual film.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BYTEMITE

Monday, November 30, 2009 9:17 PM

Well, okay, it's in the EU, so I admit that doesn't give it that much credibility.

Funny as hell though. XD

Anyway, if the EU can be considered canon, which is maybe a stretch since Lucas tromped all over it for the first episodes, so I guess Lucas canon takes precedence... But this still kind of establishes that when Anakin was turned to the darkside, Vader sometimes would visit (evil sithspawn practically demonic) children to have TEA. Or something.

STORYMARK

Monday, November 30, 2009 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, okay, it's in the EU, so I admit that doesn't give it that much credibility.

Funny as hell though. XD

Anyway, if the EU can be considered canon, which is maybe a stretch since Lucas tromped all over it for the first episodes, so I guess Lucas canon takes precedence... But this still kind of establishes that when Anakin was turned to the darkside, Vader sometimes would visit (evil sithspawn practically demonic) children to have TEA. Or something.

I wasn't commenting on the quality. Some of the EU stuff is very good (and some VERY not....).

My point was merely that in discussing the merits (or lack therof) of a film, I only consider the film itself. Anything else is tertiary - I wouldn't use anything from the EU to defend of attack any particular point in the films - because they're not in the film.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BYTEMITE

Monday, November 30, 2009 11:46 PM

Hmm. Okay, I guess, but isn't this an issue of canon and characterization we're discussing? particularly the issue of whether Anakin suddenly becomes OOC in Episode 3?

If I were to say, for example, "I think Mal was OOC in the Serenity movie" (I don't, this is an example), then wouldn't this be a point argued from the sense of his characterization in the rest of the franchise?

I mean, if people are arguing over whether Anakin's kid killing is internally consistent within ONLY the third movie, then you could call other depictions of his character elsewhere irrelevant. Is that what's being argued here? If you're talking about characterization of a character within a franchise, that's not a valid complaint or flaw in the movie/medium in question if that characterization is contradictory?

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 12:01 AM

I guess I should make myself clearer though. Despite posting that comic as a joke, I actually agree with you. Anakin's change over was, perhaps, fast, but not necessarily TOO fast if you consider it in the sense of him having seen Mace Windu appearing to kill Senator Palpatine in cold blood and abusing the law enforcing authority invested in the Jedi Order, which fits with the paranoid delusions Palpatine had been feeding Anakin about a Jedi Council takeover.

Remember, Anakin has been familiar with the Jedi Order for only slightly longer than he has known Palpatine, and both have been very supportive of him. He is very conflicted up to that point about his loyalty... Though Hayden freaking Christensen doesn't exactly show it very well, or maybe the dialogue doesn't, I'm not sure.

But anyway, Jedi trainees (even the young ones) and Alderaan? Threat. So Vader destroys them both.

Of course, evil has shades. In other medium in Star Wars and the EU (Shadows of the Empire, for example, and others), it's shown Vader is actively plotting against Palpatine. Whether Vader has seen Palpatine's corruption and is acting with good intentions but darkside measures to 'fix' the problem or whether this is the traditional master apprentice ritualized Sith power struggle depicted elsewhere remains to be seen.

OPPYH

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Vader going from evil to good in Jedi struck me more as a light switch change than his turn from good to evil.

?

Seriously?

Vader watching his son get electrocuted...his son the only thing linking him to a human being(other than Leia). His human side takes over and he saves his son redeeming his soul before he dies.

OR:

Anakin thinks his wife might be in trouble...OK time to kill hundreds of innocents, and become an agent of evil. Weak man, seriously.

Storymark,
I see your points with the prequels but if you're suggesting that Vader's switch to the Dark side is more thematically powerful than his redemption, then I can't argue with you. It's your opinion, but seriously?

ZEEK

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

I wanted to see a clever motivation for Anakin to turn into Vader. That was a massive fail.

But that fail in no way should affect your enjoyment of the original trilogy IMO.

It does because it makes Vader seem much more pathetic. He's no longer this cool character. He's just a pathetic tool.

To enjoy the original trilogy I really have to ignore the prequels all together.

CYBERSNARK

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 3:38 PM

I'm not saying Anakin/Vader's rationalizations were remotely correct (that's what "rationalizations" are, in fact; lies that we tell ourselves). I'm saying that Anakin could lie to himself that the Tuskens were sub-human things (especially given that he'd grown up on Tattooine, under constant threat of the Tuskens' well-established Reaver-like behaviour). He would not have been able to so easily lie to himself about the younglings (who could well have been turned to the Dark Side, as dozens of Jedi already had been, including Anakin himself). He never even made that suggestion.

Hell, even a shot of Anakin crying as he killed them would've been something --a show of remorse or self-loathing in the face of his helplessness. Perhaps quick, almost-subliminal glimpses of Padme, as he reflects on his own child-to-be (and how he will never be able to look that child in the eye, even if this all works out).

Also, you're seeing Good/Evil as static, unchanging extremes. Vader on "Day One" of his Dark Side career is not the same as Vader 25 years later.

Put it this way:
-A high school student can drive a car.
-On my first day of grade nine, I could not drive a car. (How can this be? Am I not a high school student?)

My problem is that Anakin of RotS suddenly became Darth Vader from RotJ (blindly following the Emperor's commands with no remorse, hesitation, question, or free will of his own) within the span of one dramatic music sting. Dark-Anakin should have showed some remorse, even if Vader (from years later) would not have.

(I had a similar problem with the Force Lightning suddenly causing Palpatine to "age" [an effect it has been shown to have on no one else ever] --meaning that he doesn't age for 25 years [meanwhile, the ten year gap between TPM and AotC had been shown to do a number on him --there was also a noticeable difference between AotC Palpatine and RotS Palpatine, but it was more subtle]).

Lucas tried to show everything, which is a mistake in film (despite everything novice writers are told about "show, don't tell" --"telling" is often more effective). Imagine how much impact the Reavers would have had if the first scene of "Serenity" (the pilot, not the movie) had involved a full-fledged Reaver being brought out under a spotlight and carefully analyzed for our viewing pleasure. Lucas basically set up circumstances in RotS that must now stand almost completely unchanged for 20 years.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:51 PM

Actually I see a difference in Vader day one versus Vader 25 years later (Is it 25? I thought Luke and Leia were 18 in A New Hope). Vader day one does not question Palpatine, whereas Vader 25 years later DOES question Palpatine, taking into account EU explorations where Vader is betraying Palpatine in small ways, talking Palpatine into accepting Luke as an ally versus killing him in The Empire Strikes Back, and the big heel-face-turn in Return of the Jedi.

Quote:
(I had a similar problem with the Force Lightning suddenly causing Palpatine to "age" [an effect it has been shown to have on no one else ever] --meaning that he doesn't age for 25 years [meanwhile, the ten year gap between TPM and AotC had been shown to do a number on him --there was also a noticeable difference between AotC Palpatine and RotS Palpatine, but it was more subtle]).

This also bothered me. That and the whole strange "immaculate conception by The Force" and "the chosen one" subplot for Anakin. :/

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE