Star Wars

[Majestic]

lets not forget, the monster goes back to the light side.

the SW saga is about the rise and fall of darth vader. how would you write a story of someone who starts out good, turns evil, then goes back to being good?

he has to show all sides of anakin/vader in order to convey the story.

if anakin just started out evil and stayed evil, the story wouldn't be half as interesting don't you think?

Does anyone else find the young Anakin chilling or disturbing, I guess was my question. I agree with the ultimate character arc. I'm not saying his portrayal was faulty at all, just interesting in its execution.

Edited April 14, 2005 by Majestic

[Hurin]

the SW saga is about the rise and fall of darth vader.  how would you write a story of someone who starts out good, turns evil, then goes back to being good?

Well, that's what it is about now. But I personally don't buy this whole myth that's grown up around George Lucas carrying the entire script to all six (or nine) movies in his back pocket since 1970.

I don't think Leia was originally envisioned as Luke's sister.

I don't think C-3PO was originally envisioned as having been built by Vader.

I don't think the stormtroopers were originally envisioned as clones.

I don't think Boba Fett was originally envisioned as the clone template.

I don't think every major aspect of the entire galaxy's future was originally envisioned as being wound up somehow in Vader and his family.

The original trilogy was the story of a Galactic Civil War in which Vader and Luke played major parts. But Vader wasn't the story.

Look at how Vader is portrayed in ANH. He's the villain. . . but not really the center of the story. He's just sorta the brute or henchman. He is even Tarkin's subordinate.

he has to show all sides of anakin/vader in order to convey the story. 

if anakin just started out evil and stayed evil, the story wouldn't be half as interesting don't you think?

Well, that's sorta what people are saying: That Anakin comes off as sorta evil to begin with. He's a selfish, spoiled brat of a teenager. . . and isn't likable or even recognizable as much of a hero. If Lucas had portrayed him as a noble warrior, a guardian of "peace and justice in the Old Republic", his fall would be more tragic. Based on the prologue of the book, RotS may try to rectify this a bit. But you can only do so much to undo the damage with exposition and back-story. Most audiences need to see it. Hopefully, according to spoilers, Lucas will manage to squeeze this (IMHO) quite necessary aspect of the character into the movie without jeapordizing the rest of the film.

H

[do not disturb]

lets not forget, the monster goes back to the light side.

the SW saga is about the rise and fall of darth vader. how would you write a story of someone who starts out good, turns evil, then goes back to being good?

he has to show all sides of anakin/vader in order to convey the story.

if anakin just started out evil and stayed evil, the story wouldn't be half as interesting don't you think?

Does anyone else find the young Anakin chilling or disturbing, I guess was my question. I agree with the ultimate character arc. I'm not saying his portrayal was faulty at all, just interesting in its execution.

when you say young, do you mean TPM anakin? or AOTC anakin?

i found in TPM he wasn't disturbing at all. he was just a little slave kid that all of the sudden gets jocked by some jedi's about how strong the force is with him.

in AOTC, he showed more of the darkness within him like in the scene where hes bitchin about obi to padame. at first hes all cool calm and collected, next hes a whiney little bitch, then they go to a close up of his face where he has this evil look on his face. i wouldn't say thats disturbing but more of GL trying to show that anakin has an alter-ego without actually saying the words.

[do not disturb]

I don't think Leia was originally envisioned as Luke's sister.

I don't think C-3PO was originally envisioned as having been built by Vader.

I don't think the stormtroopers were originally envisioned as clones.

I don't think Boba Fett was originally envisioned as the clone template.

I don't think every major aspect of the entire galaxy's future was originally envisioned as being wound up somehow in Vader and his family.

The original trilogy was the story of a Galactic Civil War in which Vader and Luke played major parts. But Vader wasn't the story.

Look at how Vader is portrayed in ANH. He's the villain. . . but not really the center of the story. He's just sorta the brute or henchman. He is even Tarkin's subordinate.

i totally agree with you. i think GL pulled a lot of crap out of his ass in trying to figure out how to write(though he claims he had already written it) the PT movies. he had to link everything together one way or another, he just chose to do it himself and f-it up for the fans. had he hired an actual writer, i think the PT movies would've probably been a 1000 times better.

i still have hopes for ROTS, if he really listening to the fans that is.

[Max Jenius]

SW is a very, VERY basic story with standard archetypes and themes set in a space fantasy world. To me, that's how it always has been. Is it cool? Hell yeah! I think that the one of the few reasons for Star Wars' success was simply that it was a special effects extravaganza. A tradition that continues today. Contrived plot? Who cares!? Its fun.

But seriously- What other movie do fans complain about the following -

-A child actor acting like a child while playing a child.

-Racism in an alien? Personally I think that's peoples' own biases coming out because I've never know any ethnic group to act like that.

-CG effects looking fake. Stop motion, men in suits and models look hella fake too. There's tons of fake-ness in movies; they're movies. This applies to pretty much any movie.

-Lack of kibble on spacecraft. "Who cares if it serves no purpose! Slap it on and make one up! Say its utilitarian even though we're not at a point where we can decide what is and what isn't useful on a starship or ... whatever you want to call them.

-A character's small hands.

I need a break from debating SW. Its like talking to a brick wall that you know will buy the dvd anyway.

[bsu legato]

I think a lot of the objections fans and critics have with TPM's Anakin is the fact that he was a kid in the first place. Lets face it, nobody likes kids in movies, and Jake Lloyd was hardly what I'd call a good actor (his performance in Jingle All the Way notwithstanding ). Like dejr8bud said, we need to see that Anakin was good at some point in his life. If he had been a creepy monster from day one, then it would hardly be much of a decent into the dark side, much less an interesting story. I suppose some of this could have been avoided if we had had some sort of teenage Anakin in TPM, but that wouldn't have worked out with the story Lucas had developed.

But back to the point, I suppose it is a little creepy seeing that Vader wasn't always a wheezing tyrant who'd choke you for the slightest failure. But what did people expect? Evil child Anakin? Conflicted child Anakin? The bit about Hitler is a good example. Did anybody see the miniseries "Hitler: Rise of Evil?" It did a good job of portraying Hitler's ascension to power in his later years, but the period dealing with his childhood and pre-war years as a crappy artist were extremely superficial. It essentially painted him as being a monster-in-training from the earliest age. While this may in fact be historically accurate (I haven't done the research one way or the other) the fact is that if he was portrayed as anything but evil at any stage of his life there would be lynch mobs chasing after the producers. Nobody wants to be seen as being "sympathetic" to Hitler, no matter how historically correct it may be. Its still too sensitive a subject for too many people. That is why we will never see any portrayal of Hitler other than the raving lunatic we're all familiar with from wartime films.

People have an excuse for being that sensitive about Hitler, but not Star Wars. Star Wars is a work of fiction. Pulp fiction to be exact.

[Hurin]

Its like talking to a brick wall that you know will buy the dvd anyway.

That's f'ing hilarious. And I'll complain the whole time while I watch it too! I already have Ep1 and Ep2!

H

[Agent ONE]

Its like talking to a brick wall that you know will buy the dvd anyway.

That's f'ing hilarious. And I'll complain the whole time while I watch it too! I already have Ep1 and Ep2!

H

Well he does know himlself well.

[Hurin]

I suppose some of this could have been avoided if we had had some sort of teenage Anakin in TPM, but that wouldn't have worked out with the story Lucas had developed.

Well, doesn't that possibly mean that Lucas chose a poor story to tell as audience's introduction to Anakin?

Really, bsu, I'm quite honestly getting confused (and not in the dismissive, condescending way). It almost sounds like you're agreeing with those that say that the character of Anakin has been handled extremely poorly up until this point. But I can't be sure, because I'm pretty sure you were saying the opposite earlier.

I, and others, are saying that Anakin should have been altogether a good guy. . . and then fallen into evil. Rather than being an unsympathetic brat, and unsympathetic whiney teenager, and then fallen.

I think we're all in agreement here. But we just can't seem to agree that this mistake constitutes two bad movies and overall harm to the series of movies that had the potential to be much cooler.

H

[bsu legato]

But I personally don't buy this whole myth that's grown up around George Lucas carrying the entire script to all six (or nine) movies in his back pocket since 1970.

Yes and no. His story has changed over the years, but I believe the truth is that much of the basic plot elements of the PT did grow out of his writing sessions for the OT.

I don't think Leia was originally envisioned as Luke's sister.

Correct

I don't think C-3PO was originally envisioned as having been built by Vader.

probably correct.

I don't think the stormtroopers were originally envisioned as clones.

Possibly. See THIS image. There's annecdotal evidence all the way back to 1978 that they may have been clones.

I don't think Boba Fett was originally envisioned as the clone template.

No, but he was originally concieved as part of a larger force of "Supertroopers," a kind of next-level of Stormtroopers. This concept was ultimately dropped.

I don't think every major aspect of the entire galaxy's future was originally envisioned as being wound up somehow in Vader and his family.

Probably not. But things change, I s'pose.

The original trilogy was the story of a Galactic Civil War in which Vader and Luke played major parts. But Vader wasn't the story.

Look at how Vader is portrayed in ANH. He's the villain. . . but not really the center of the story. He's just sorta the brute or henchman. He is even Tarkin's subordinate.

No, Vader clearly wasn't the story back in ANH. Lucas was clearly looking ahead by allowing Vader to survive, however. Vader actually died in an earlier version of the script. But the whole "was he always Luke's father" thing could be an entire thread on its own.

[Max Jenius]

Its like talking to a brick wall that you know will buy the dvd anyway.

That's f'ing hilarious. And I'll complain the whole time while I watch it too! I already have Ep1 and Ep2!

H

Hehe, see... but my quote works for both sides of the debate too.

[bsu legato]

Well, doesn't that possibly mean that Lucas chose a poor story to tell as audience's introduction to Anakin?

Without going into Ep III spoilers (there's a seperate thread for that, of course) I now see why Lucas gave us kiddy Anakin. To me anyway, the overall arc works out fine once you see all the pieces of the puzzle. The flaw lies more in the performances and Lucas' penchant for awkward dialog. IMO, of course.

Really, bsu, I'm quite honestly getting confused (and not in the dismissive, condescending way).  It almost sounds like you're agreeing with those that say that the character of Anakin has been handled extremely poorly up until this point.  But I can't be sure, because I'm pretty sure you were saying the opposite earlier.

You'll be hard pressed to find me defending anything to do with Jake Llyod, thats for damn sure. But beyond that...? No, I don't mind it actually. Sure there's different ways Anakin could have been approached. Its not like some mathematical formula where there's only one right answer. But without actually comitting all 6 hours of them to film, we'll never know if they would have worked better.

[Hurin]

Yes and no. His story has changed over the years, but I believe the truth is that much of the basic plot elements of the PT did grow out of his writing sessions for the OT.

Yep. Don't get me wrong. I do believe that he had a basic structure laid out. Something along the lines of:

• There was a Republic
  
• There were Jedi
  
• There were a series "Clone Wars" that doomed the Republic.
  
• Darth Vader and Obi-Wan fought together in the Clone Wars.
  
• Obi-Wan trained Vader in the ways of the force.
  
• Vader goes to the dark side. He kills all the Jedi and helps bring down the Republic.
  
• At this point, he started actually worrying about the details and started writing the EpIV script.
  

I do believe, however, that Vader was always intended to be Luke's father. I'll give Lucas that much credit. The way Obi-Wan looks at Luke when Luke asks how his father died. That's no accident.

But, as for the pre-history, I really doubt it way any further fleshed out than that. I don't think there was a Naboo. I don't think there was much of anything really other than nebulous images floating around in his head. I mean, anyone even bascially familiar the pre-production of ANH (as you obviously are, bsu) knows just how chaotic the characters were in the beginning. Han and Luke were the same character, etc. Or was that Han and Obi-Wan. . . whatever.

The point is, he had the broad strokes of the "history" worked out. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that. But I really don't think he had it worked out any further than what we see in the first chapter (or prologue) of the novelization of ANH (which, if memory serves, actually has the Emperor not being such a bad guy, but at the mercy of special interests. . . though as a primary document from the Star Wars universe, this could be the Emperor's propaganda. . . whoa, I'm geeking out hardcore now!).

But there is this myth that I think a lot of people believe that what we're seeing up there on the screen now in the prequels was sorta "pre-destined". . . that even Lucas himself couldn't have changed it because that's what the story was, is, and forever will be. Unless, of course, he makes Special Editions.

I don't think the stormtroopers were originally envisioned as clones.

Possibly. See THIS image. There's annecdotal evidence all the way back to 1978 that they may have been clones.

Yes, this could go either way. Though, from the center portion of that article, it looks like elaborate fan fiction to me rather than canon, sanctioned stuff from the ANH release era.

Really though, I think the emphasis on clones and how just about every "soldier" in these "wars" we see getting killed are either a clone or a droid. . . well, it's just another example of the "wussification" and "juvenile-ization" of Star Wars. The combatants have been changed to non-human or nearly non-human so that Lucas can please his Hollywood friends who also thought it necessary to remove the guns from the FBI agents in E.T. and replace them with Cell Phones. But, now I'm really starting to rant and there will be mockery of this post's length already as it is.

H

Edited April 14, 2005 by Hurin

[bsu legato]

I doubt we'll ever know exactly how much of the PT Lucas had imagined back in the late 70's and early 80's. Not unless somebody manages to convince LFL to reproduce the legendary "Notebook" that Lucas scribbled down his ideas over the years. But I'm sure some of it goes deeper than just a superficial "Anakin turns into Vader" type scenario. Much of the plot from Phantom Menace actually stems from the earliest draft of the original Star Wars. It uses many of the discarded elements of that script, the one that was oh-so similar to Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress (more akin to Kurosawa's They Who Step on the Tail of the Tiger, actually). Padme we know is largely a modern invention, since Lucas has already explained that was why he made Leia's memories about her mother so vague. Maul and Dooku were again more than likely invented for the movies, but early drafts of ANH did feature multiple Sith lords. As you pointed out, the emperor was first featured in the ANH novelisation, but yet that prologue is eerily similar to Palpatine's plot as it has unfolded in the films. Was it an invention of Alan Dean Foster, or was he working from Lucas' notes? We'll never know. IIRC, Foster was interviewed a while back and he didn't seem to recall much about writing the ANH novel.

As for the troopers, that image I posted was from Star Wars Poster Monthly #4. It was obviously an official publication, but again as with the ANH novel we have no clue as to its pedigree. But that is not the only source. The Star Wars Album ( a precursor to today's souvineer magazine) also hinted that the Stormtroopers may be clones. This was repeated in the Starlog Technical Journal, from 1993. So if there's any blame to be assigned, I'd direct it at Zahn and the rest of the 90's era EU. But ultimately what matters to me is the films, and they make no statement about the Stormtroopers one way or the other. Personally, I find it fits perfectly well with the Empire's motif of "technology over humanity." I see no reason why the Empire wouldn't be so cold as to grow their own legions of disposable troops to send into battle.

Edited April 14, 2005 by bsu legato

[HWR MKII]

never mind

mods delete this it was put in the wrong thread.

Edited April 14, 2005 by HWR MKII

[Hurin]

I see no reason why the Empire wouldn't be so cold as to grow their own legions of disposable troops to send into battle.

Hell! It was good enough for the Old Republic!

Edit: That was a joke. So, please, nobody point out that it is very likely that Palpatine arranged for the creation of the Republic's Clone Army in secret in order to have the tools he needed to provoke (and fight) the Clone Wars.

Edited April 14, 2005 by Hurin

[do not disturb]

as far as the debate of clonetroopers being stormtroopers, i'm not 100 % sure but they did a good job of showing the similarites they share as each film progressed(though ROTS is not out, we all know what the new clones look like).

heres a pic, yeah its lego but thats all i have.

[Hurin]

Actually, what's really interesting to me is how much the ARC Troopers in Clone Wars resemble Boba/Jango Fett. Even down to the little "antenna" on the helmet.

Good lego shots though. They're soooooo adorable!

H

[do not disturb]

did you say arc trooper....its not mine a but custom one that one of my buddies made

[Sundown]

I hear what you're saying, Sundown. I just think that in terms of characters and their relationships Lucas has always tended to paint in broad strokes. For example, look at Lando. He goes from despised traitor to valued team member in the space of minutes.

I'll give you that. Tell you the truth, I've always felt a little uneasy about Lando's sudden conversion to sainthood. But then again, it's explained and shown that Han and Lando have had history and some semblance of comraderie and trust, even if momentarily broken. And Lando did begin his redemption immediately after Han's betrayal. Besides, what can he really do against the Dark Lord of the Sith?

Lando was also an exception to most of the characters, and I'd consider him a 2nd tier figure in Star Wars. Anakin is the focal figure, however.

Part of it might simply be the fact that Lucas isn't a great director/writer of banter that actually makes you care about a character. Perhaps his general ideas and broad strokes would work better if they were refined by tighter writing and dialogue, like the OT was, IMO.

But that's just it. He does't care about other people's welfare. He may think he does, but it's really just for his own selfish reasons. Lucas has said time and again that Anakin is greedy, that he wants everything to remain static and how he can't accept that in the natural order of things people leave your life and even die.

Oh, I get that Anakin is largely selfish and annoying and intentionally so. But the obsession with controlling and saving others might have been even more powerful if they'd actually been fueled by some genuine desire and altruism on his part. I guess if I had any say (and I don't), I would have had Anakin be built up and portrayed as genuinely noble, concerned, doing real good and hailed as savior-- until pride and adoration get to his head.

He begins to see himself as the rightful and sole savior of the Republic. Not just because of his power and abilities, but because of the trust given him by the Senate, the Council, the adoring citizens... and because of the fact that he has done much good. A slow transformation from being about others to making everything about himself.

Lets face it, regardless of his intentions he won't do anything really "good" until Jedi when he pitches Palpatine down the reactor shaft. I think that is the point where the audience is supposed to say "Well its about time you did something worthwhile, Anakin." Its the first truly selfless act he does in his adult life.

I suppose that's one way to see it-- the final scene in Jedi being where he actually gets a clue. That could work, although that's not how the original trilogy seems to portray him. It seems to constantly allude to his supposed goodness that still survives faintly, and Obi-wan seems to speak fondly of an Anakin worthy of redemption that "died" in Vader. I don't seem to be able to find this Anakin he speaks of in the PT. And it's awfully strange for him to actually grow more compassionate and selfless at the end of a career of force choking and general subjugation. I'd always viewed Vader's final act as desperately drawing from the strength of the man he once remembered being.

I suppose it could work for irony's sake, but when Lucas finished with ROTJ, content to leave Star Wars as is for a good while, that's not how the scenes along with their meanings played out. We end up having to redefine much of what just worked in the original films, for something that I would say is more simplistic and less compelling.

If we were to watch the films in order, even if the audience says "about time" to Anakin's only real act for good's sake, they would have stopped caring across five movies. My mistake might be thinking that we're supposed to care. But oddly, I was concerned about Anakin's redemption in Jedi. Now, viewing the movie through the perspective gained from the PT, I find myself largely ambivalent. I would say that this makes for a weaker series of films.

but I do really remember disliking his "protagonists" such as Macbeth and Romeo & Juliet.

I dunno. I kinda like Claire Danes.

-Al

Edited April 15, 2005 by Sundown

[Sundown]

lets not forget, the monster goes back to the light side.

the SW saga is about the rise and fall of darth vader. how would you write a story of someone who starts out good, turns evil, then goes back to being good?

he has to show all sides of anakin/vader in order to convey the story.

if anakin just started out evil and stayed evil, the story wouldn't be half as interesting don't you think?

Well, see, that's what I'd liked to have the movies been about. Hero starts out good, turns evil, then goes back to being good.

But that's not what we have. We have innocence, that steadily takes the path towards evil, and then makes an abrupt and out of character jump to good.

Innocence and good as we experience it in the world differ in that former simply has limited exposure to evil. But good sees evil, stares it down, and commits itself in battle against it, whether that evil is external or internal.

I don't see much "good" in pre-Vader Anakin.

-Al

[Hurin]

I hear what you're saying, Sundown. I just think that in terms of characters and their relationships Lucas has always tended to paint in broad strokes. For example, look at Lando. He goes from despised traitor to valued team member in the space of minutes.

I'll give you that. Tell you the truth, I've always felt a little uneasy about Lando's sudden conversion to sainthood. But then again, it's explained and shown that Han and Lando have had history and some semblance of comraderie and trust, even if momentarily broken. And Lando did begin his redemption immediately after Han's betrayal. Besides, what can he really do against the Dark Lord of the Sith?

Yo! Both of you need to quit hatin' on Lando! Exactly what was he supposed to do?!? We really only see him being a jerk for about fifteen minutes. And that's because he's got Vader standing behind the curtain with a gun to his back (figuratively).

As soon as he realizes that his people (of Bespin) aren't safe from the Empire no matter what he does, he quickly and decisively decides to risk it all for his friend and a bunch of people he just met.

Now, you could read it as him only going to the "good" side after he realized that the "deal" he had made with the Empire had gone too sour. . . but his behavior once he was no longer blackmailed (betraying the Empire, helping Leia, helping with Jabba, and assauling the Death Star) sorta shows him as being ahead of Han on the the whole rogue-to-hero curve. As he said himself to Han as he led them to dinner with ol' Vader "Yeah, I'm responsible now."

H

[combined arms]

Sundown, I think you hit the nail right on the head. Lucas hasn't done a good job of characterization with Anakin in the PT. I believe I said something similar before this thread was hijacked for three pages.

Yo!  Both of you need to quit hatin' on Lando!  Exactly what was he supposed to do?!?  We really only see him being a jerk for about fifteen minutes.  And that's because he's got Vader standing behind the curtain with a gun to his back (figuratively).

As soon as he realizes that his people (of Bespin) aren't safe from the Empire no matter what he does, he quickly and decisively decides to risk it all for his friend and a bunch of people he just met.

Hurin, I agree with you about Lando. He had no choice in what he did on Bespin with Vader, a star destroyer, and a legion of stormtroopers sitting in his back yard. I like to believe that had Han & co. arrived on Bespin before the bad guys, Lando would've tried to hide/protect them. But with the Imperials there, he has reponsibilities and the lives of everyone on Bespin to consider.

[Shadow Skull]

I think Lucas is trying to set Anakin up as a tragic hero, I suspect that his selfishness is suppose to be what leads to his downfall. However, IMHO Lucas didn't do good job with pre-Vader Anakin. As said previously, Anakin never comes across really being noble. The character reminds me of a serial killer that come from good family, who went to church every sunday and never got in trouble when he was a kid. Then everything starts going downhill once he reaches puberty.

Hell the selfishness thing kinds of screws up the end of the last movie because now I can argue that Vader didn't kill the Emperor and save Luke out of the goodness of his heart. He could have done it because the Emperor was trying to kill his son, and that the only person who can harm something that belongs to Vader, is Vader himself.

[Majestic]

I had hoped for the overall "dark side" of Anakin to have been more prevalent. That's not to say he hasn't had his dark moments in AOTC, but I had somewhat expected more foreshadowing in the character arc. Perhaps this third film will ameliorate what I found lacking. Nothing obvious or spelled-out, but a more disturbed and anti-social version than the Anakin that appears in I and II, perhaps one more haunted by the past of being a slave. Luke I saw as the happy-go-lucky dreamstruck farmboy, whereas Anakin should have been portrayed as the hopeless, demented parallel of Luke.

Edited April 15, 2005 by Majestic

[Sundown]

I think Lucas is trying to set Anakin up as a tragic hero, I suspect that his selfishness is suppose to be what leads to his downfall.

See, problem is, "selfishness" is not a trait that makes for a proper tragic hero.

It makes for annoying characters if they're protagonists and it makes for villians. The Greek tragedy involves a mostly good character with one key flaw that brings his downfall. Selfish, greedy, annoying, rash, arrogant, and whiney counts as more than one. Having so many unsympathizable faults causes the character to no longer be defined as a hero. The only thing he has going for him is that he's good looking and powerful, which just makes him even more annoying given all his other failings.

If he became obsessed and fixated upon himself out of what was originally true, deep, and authentic service to others, he'd be a tragic hero. As is, he needs to get kicked into lava already. Unless EpIII fixes a lot of the damage done, of course.

-Al

[Hurin]

I had hoped for the overall "dark side" of Anakin to have been more prevalent. That's not to say he hasn't had his dark moments in AOTC, but I had somewhat expected more foreshadowing in the character arc. Perhaps this third film will ameliorate what I found lacking. Nothing obvious or spelled-out, but a more disturbed and anti-social version than the Anakin that appears in I and II, perhaps one more haunted by the past of being a slave. Luke I saw as the happy-go-lucky dreamstruck farmboy, whereas Anakin should have been portrayed as the hopeless, demented parallel of Luke.

I whole-heartedly disagree. There is too much foreshadowing of Vader in Anakin. To me, Lucas has given almost exactly what you have described above. He's antisocial, insecure, arrogant, creepily obsessed with a woman he met at 7 years old. . . etc. As others (and I) have said, I'd have rather seen a noble guy fall. You can't be noble and a maladjusted sociopath at the same time.

H

Edited April 15, 2005 by Hurin

[Sundown]

As others (and I) have said, I'd have rather seen a noble guy fall.  You can't be noble and a maladjusted sociopath at the same time. 

But it's okay if you're good looking! And if you're arbitraily decided to be the "chosen one" on the basis of some midi-chamacallits.

Seriously, the more I think about it, the more I think that we're supposed to empathize with him on good looks and Lucas's say so alone.

Or it could just be Lucas's massive mishandling. Harry Osborne from Spiderman is cast from almost exactly the same mold. Dashing, charming, vain, dark and brooding. Replete with being haunted by a dead parent. Yet he somehow draws infinitely more empathy from viewers.

-Al

Edited April 15, 2005 by Sundown

[Agent ONE]

I had hoped for the overall "dark side" of Anakin to have been more prevalent. That's not to say he hasn't had his dark moments in AOTC, but I had somewhat expected more foreshadowing in the character arc. Perhaps this third film will ameliorate what I found lacking. Nothing obvious or spelled-out, but a more disturbed and anti-social version than the Anakin that appears in I and II, perhaps one more haunted by the past of being a slave. Luke I saw as the happy-go-lucky dreamstruck farmboy, whereas Anakin should have been portrayed as the hopeless, demented parallel of Luke.

I whole-heartedly disagree. There is too much foreshadowing of Vader in Anakin. ...

I actually agree, but part of it is we already know where things are going. He COULD just seem like an angry teenager to someone who hasn't seen the OT. If it were like you say, and it were a nice guy who totally converts it would be out of character.

[Sundown]

I actually agree, but part of it is we already know where things are going. He COULD just seem like an angry teenager to someone who hasn't seen the OT. If it were like you say, and it were a nice guy who totally converts it would be out of character.

Yeah, I think that's partly lazy storytelling on Lucas's part. He knows we've seen the OT and he figures he's allowed to paint an easy, straightforward fall to the darkside. He knows that we'll subconsciously be apologists for Anakin in telling ourselves that he's not all that bad, because Luke says so, and because of what he ultimately does. We do Lucas's job by reasoning that Anakin has to have some good in him.

But that's lazy storytelling. He no longer shows us what we're supposed to believe. Rather, he leaves it up to us to explain for things that he should be demonstrating onscreen himself. And although no one actually watches the movies in order, the series would have been more cohesive if we could actually do so, without having to explain away things that feel off in our own minds because Lucas didn't bother to show otherwise.

We do already have Vader acting out of character. We have him falling towards the darkside as a "creepy malajusted sociopath" ever since he was a kid, a long career of tyranny through fear, torture, and subjugation, and then suddenly giving all to save a son he never really knew. If we had seen this sort of self-sacrifice enacted in the PT, this sort of nobility, then there would actually have been an Anakin to redeem by the sixth movie.

I don't think painting him as a nice, well-meaning, albiet uber-powerful guy would have made a fall out of character. We just need to hone in on his pride. Self-fixation corrupts powerfully. If it was shown that his attention slowly turned from others towards himself as savior, and if some tragedy suddenly disillusioned him to the Jedi cause (instead of distrusting the council and them distrusting him from the start), it could have made for a fall that doesn't necessarily break character. It would actually occur as a natural part of character development.

Still, Ep. III could fix everything. Maybe so good as to render the first two largely unnecessary.

-Al

[eriku]

Has there been any confirmation on the role of Jar Jar Binks in ROTS? I'm starting to get worried because I haven't seen any screen shots of him or read any mention of him at all. He's been my favorite character in the prequels (next to Yoda) so I want to see his story wrapped up in the new movie as well.

[do not disturb]

Has there been any confirmation on the role of Jar Jar Binks in ROTS? I'm starting to get worried because I haven't seen any screen shots of him or read any mention of him at all. He's been my favorite character in the prequels (next to Yoda) so I want to see his story wrapped up in the new movie as well.

i think you're the only one my friend.

[eriku]

Has there been any confirmation on the role of Jar Jar Binks in ROTS?  I'm starting to get worried because I haven't seen any screen shots of him or read any mention of him at all.  He's been my favorite character in the prequels (next to Yoda) so I want to see his story wrapped up in the new movie as well.

i think you're the only one my friend.

I know a few others actually. There aren't many of us, but we're there, lurking in the shadows, clutching our Jar Jar dolls and softly sobbing ourselves to sleep.

[do not disturb]

Well, see, that's what I'd liked to have the movies been about.  Hero starts out good, turns evil, then goes back to being good.

But that's not what we have.  We have innocence, that steadily takes the path towards evil, and then makes an abrupt and out of character jump to good.

well thats exactly how this story is told. young anakins portrayal was far from innnocent, he grew up as a slave with a mother who was a slave and worked for that shifty bastid Watto in Mos Eisley which is run by Jabba the crime lord and he enters pod races to win money.....yeah thats innocent alright. thats like me growing up in the streets of new york, turned hooker in las vegas, with the crime rate of S. American while its being run by the gambio crime family.

as far as abrupt out of character jump, i dont' kow what movies you've been watching but its far from it. in ROTJ luke calls him out on it when he turns himself in on endor. ""i feel the conflict within you father, thats why you couldn't kill me then, that why you won't take me to your emperor now". "its too late for me my son, you don't know the power of the darkside".

in ESB, vader could've easily killed him but couldn't/wouldn't? he could've let the emperor finish him on ROTJ but vader stopped him? showing that vader still had good within him and love for his son, like any other father.

[Majestic]

Has there been any confirmation on the role of Jar Jar Binks in ROTS?  I'm starting to get worried because I haven't seen any screen shots of him or read any mention of him at all.  He's been my favorite character in the prequels (next to Yoda) so I want to see his story wrapped up in the new movie as well.

There are people that love Jar Jar?

Not trying to ridicule here, but I thought it was pretty universally accepted that his character was/is extremely grating and annoying. I attended a fraternity party where a cardboard Jar Jar standup was used as a urinal (yeah I know, classy, but what can I say, it was a fraternity).

I think Jar Jar was Lucas' aborted attempt to create another beloved alien Chewbacca-like sidekick - it's too bad that idea didn't seem to work out, I'm sure a more solid, less annoying character might have actually contributed to the story. Not that I'd want a copy of Chewie, just maybe a character not quite so aimed at juvenile interests. Perhaps Lucas' aim was to appeal to the 10-and-under crowd, in which case he probably succeeded.

Ah well, I guess there's folks that adored the ewoks too (I didn't find them that bad)!

Edited April 15, 2005 by Majestic