To See, Or Not To See - Episode I in 3-D

[crazybirdman]

here's another interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... gICnbC2-_Y

some good ideas, but of course it's not like he came up with the whole story from scratch. Lots of people have ideas to make existing things better.

[emmtwosix]

Just saw it Friday night. The whole reason I went was to see it on the big screen again, and not just The Phantom Menace, but any Star Wars. If you want to see it for the 3D, it's not really going to impress you, especially if you've seen Avatar or, apparently, Hugo. The podracing scene was kinda cool in 3D, but it was most appreciable in the space battles. The beginning of Revenge of the Sith should be pretty impressive in that respect. I'm not really sold on the whole 3D thing, though, like I said, I just wanted to see it in theaters again!

[darthius]

Well, to be fair, anything concerning art is pretty subjective. That being said, I don't buy the whole "if the prequels were the first ones released, everyone would love them" argument. I do think their popularity would probably have been boosted if they hadn't had the original trilogy to compare too, but they still have some major problems in terms of characters, plot, overall writing, and direction that makes them (at least in my eyes) massively inferior to the original three films.

I fail to see what's wrong with the plot at all. It very nicely creates the context/background which helps the viewers to understand Luke & co better. It shows how cleverly Palpatine applied the rule of two and managed to grab control of the Galaxy. It showed how grand the Jedi order was and how blind it was to the reality. It showed how Anakin was shaped into Vader. It introduced us to Jango and Boba and the clones. Quite importantly the PT paved the way for some fantastic novellas written for the EU.

In terms of characters, are you trying to tell me that a film that introduces us to Ewoks is massively superior to a film that introduces us to the Gungans?

[crazybirdman]

yeah, seeing Palps pulling strings was very cool, but that was essentially the whole movie. Palpatine putting himself into power.
It doesn't mention anything about Luke & Co. unless you count R2 and 3P0
it doesn't nothing important with Anakin, just introduces him.
And the movie erases a lot of the EU stuff written about Boba, and diminishes the rest.

[Flynn]

I fail to see what's wrong with the plot at all. It very nicely creates the context/background which helps the viewers to understand Luke & co better. It shows how cleverly Palpatine applied the rule of two and managed to grab control of the Galaxy. It showed how grand the Jedi order was and how blind it was to the reality. It showed how Anakin was shaped into Vader. It introduced us to Jango and Boba and the clones.

Lucas has always been an excellent storyteller, able to plan out some really nice plots and use his knowledge of myths and film to create memorable sagas. But he's never been a strong writer, and thus the execution of the prequel's story and characters is particularly weak when he takes the mantle. There's plenty of things you could highlight that are wrong, but I'll try to distill it to a couple points:

First off, the films never create a single protagonist or antagonist that last throughout the three films. Yes, Anakin and Palpatine are clearly meant to fill those roles, but they really don't until Revenge. Phantom follows Qui-Gon as its lead, with Maul being the main opposing force (Palpatine here only serves as a background villain). Attack then splits its focus between Anakin and Obi-Wan, with Dooku being the central antagonist. It isn't until the final film that Palpatine and Anakin are established as the central protagonist and antagonist. Compare it to the original trilogy, which, while it does switch central antagonists every film, keeps Vader as a continual presence and has Luke as the main protagonist in all three films.

Secondly, it doesn't know what it wants to be. This was deconstructed extremely well in RedLetterMedia's Revenge of the Sith review, so I'd highly recommend checking it out to fully understand what I mean. Suffice to say, Anakin should've never been the central focus of all the films. He's a part of a much larger story, one that should spend much of its focus on Palpatine and his wheedling his way to power. Anakin is merely a pawn, and adjusting it so he has some sort of cosmic importance is just a bit silly. With this shift, though, the films try to tell two stories at once- one at an epic scale of war and political intrigue, and the other at a small scale, focusing on one man's journey and tragic fall. This would be fine, except it switches between each story carelessly, not trying to weave them together and make it work. This results in a plot and story that's messy and disjointed, and ultimately unfulfilling on both sides.

In terms of characters, are you trying to tell me that a film that introduces us to Ewoks is massively superior to a film that introduces us to the Gungans?

Return, for all its flaws, still gives us the final duel between Vader and Luke, which is just packed with emotion and intensity that it rivals their earlier fight as the best duel in the saga. It's heavily flawed, to be sure (one pines for what Kurtz described as the original concept of the film), but is still a bit more real and invested in characters than any of the prequels were.

[darthius]

First off, the films never create a single protagonist or antagonist that last throughout the three films. Yes, Anakin and Palpatine are clearly meant to fill those roles, but they really don't until Revenge. Phantom follows Qui-Gon as its lead, with Maul being the main opposing force (Palpatine here only serves as a background villain). Attack then splits its focus between Anakin and Obi-Wan, with Dooku being the central antagonist. It isn't until the final film that Palpatine and Anakin are established as the central protagonist and antagonist. Compare it to the original trilogy, which, while it does switch central antagonists every film, keeps Vader as a continual presence and has Luke as the main protagonist in all three films.

I disagree. The way I see it is like this:

The PT has the light side (Jedi Order) as the background. Anakin is a continual presence and Obi Wan is the protagonist. Palpatine is the antagonist throughout. Qui Gon, Maul, Dooku, Grievous, Padme, etc are just supporting roles. I do agree that the above are not quite clear on the PT but don't forget that the PT is ultimately creating the context for the OT and is cramming a lot of information in 3 films. The reason why Dooku, Maul and Co appear to look like they are the antagonists is because the Sith operate different from Jedi. The Sith tend to operate on the principle of "use someone else's hand to throw the stone".

The OT has the dark side (the Sith) as the background. Palpatine is a continual presence, Vader is the antagonist and Luke is the protagonist (or vice versa depending on one's point of view).

[darthius]

Anakin is merely a pawn, and adjusting it so he has some sort of cosmic importance is just a bit silly.

How can you diminish Anakin as merely a pawn with no importance in the grand scale of things?? Anakin is very important indeed. He is the one that would ultimately destroy the Sith (killing Palpatine), save the Jedi (by saving Luke, the last remaining Jedi) and fathered Luke and Leia (the former rebuilt the Jedi order and the latter rebuilt the Galactic Alliance.

[crazybirdman]

haha, you can be important and still be a pawn. Anakin plays an important part, but it's the part Palpatine wants him to play.

Actually you just said:
'The Sith tend to operate on the principle of "use someone else's hand to throw the stone".'

Vader is Palpatine's hand/fist/lackey/pawn

[darthius]

haha, you can be important and still be a pawn. Anakin plays an important part, but it's the part Palpatine wants him to play.

Actually you just said:
'The Sith tend to operate on the principle of "use someone else's hand to throw the stone".'

Vader is Palpatine's hand/fist/lackey/pawn

I did not say Anakin was not a pawn. I said he can't be dismissed just as merely a pawn that has no other importance. In fact Anakin had a central role in both the fate of the Jedi order and that of the Sith.

[Flynn]

The PT has the light side (Jedi Order) as the background. Anakin is a continual presence and Obi Wan is the protagonist. Palpatine is the antagonist throughout. Qui Gon, Maul, Dooku, Grievous, Padme, etc are just supporting roles. I do agree that the above are not quite clear on the PT but don't forget that the PT is ultimately creating the context for the OT and is cramming a lot of information in 3 films. The reason why Dooku, Maul and Co appear to look like they are the antagonists is because the Sith operate different from Jedi. The Sith tend to operate on the principle of "use someone else's hand to throw the stone".

Except that Obi-Wan is never treated as the protagonist in Phantom- that role clearly belongs to Qui-Gon, who is the driving force behind almost all events. And Palpatine isn't treated as a direct protagonist until Revenge- Sidious is only a background character at best, staying in the shadows until he's revealed to be Palpatine.

At the very least, the OT had a clear pattern of antagonist roles in each film. First you had Grand Moff Tarkin as the villain, then it was his superior, Vader, then his master, the Emperor. The stakes keep rising in each film. I think the prequels half-try this, what with the Nemoidians in Phantom, then Dooku in Attack, then Palpatine in Revenge, but the roles are so undefined that any one of them could really be read as the 'central villain' of the film (You'll notice I misidentified it as Maul in my earlier post- after rethinking it, the Nemoidians actually do more as antagonists than either Maul or Sidious does- they're just incompetent about it). There's no real sense of stakes until Revenge- until that point it's a bunch of stooges and people we're told are important but not why.

As for Anakin, the prophecy and all of his importance was basically invented for the prequels so that he could be made a much larger character in the films. If you look at what he was in the original film, he's just a baddie in a mask- a brute force for Tarkin to use. It isn't until we learn who his offspring is that he gains any kind of real importance, and even then it's not until Phantom that it has some sort of 'cosmic significance'. He really should've been the Han Solo of the prequels- a secondary character that has some danged cool bits and establishes a close friendship with the protagonist, in this case Obi-Wan. That would've made his fall from grace all the more powerful, as we'd be watching it not through his eyes, but through the eyes of his former mentor and close friend. Would've been great, IMO.

[StoutFiles]

but don't forget that the PT is ultimately creating the context for the OT and is cramming a lot of information in 3 films.

You mean ruining the context of the OT, right?

Every plot twist, ruined.
-Reveal of crazy hermit Ben being a Jedi
-Reveal of small alien as Yoda
-Reveal of Darth Vader's identity
-Reveal of Leia being Luke's sister

The Force, ruined.
-Microscopic bloodstream things.
-Yoda talking about how size doesn't matter, but in the PT it does when someone can match his Force abilities.
-Once symbolized something meaningful.

Darth Vader, ruined.
-Was an annoying little kid.
-Was called Ani, even as an adult.
-Was constantly whining about everything.
-Had the worst love story ever shown on film.
-Turned on the Jedi for no believable reason.

The PT was a story that didn't need to be told, and cheapens the OT if watched in episodic order.

[MisterFubar]

The Force is strong in this thread.

[crazybirdman]

haha, you can be important and still be a pawn. Anakin plays an important part, but it's the part Palpatine wants him to play.

Actually you just said:
'The Sith tend to operate on the principle of "use someone else's hand to throw the stone".'

Vader is Palpatine's hand/fist/lackey/pawn

I did not say Anakin was not a pawn. I said he can't be dismissed just as merely a pawn that has no other importance. In fact Anakin had a central role in both the fate of the Jedi order and that of the Sith.

gotcha

[darthius]

The Force is strong in this thread.

Yeah, and with all the hatred displayed towards the PT I'd say it is strong on the dark side

[MisterFubar]

The Force is strong in this thread.

Yeah, and with all the hatred displayed towards the PT I'd say it is strong on the dark side

I just don't get why people get so worked up over it. It's not like George Lucas rewrote history, it's FICTION. The beauty of fiction is that you can pick and choose what you want to believe because it's all fantasy.

Don't like how the PT ruined some of the OT? Don't watch it, problem solved.

Don't like the changes George Lucas made on the rereleases? Don't watch them, problem solved.

Love Jar Jar Binks and Ewoks? Ok, there is probably no help for you.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with a little healthy internet debate on occasion, but some people seem to get down right angry about it and want to burn George Lucas on a cross. I just think that there are plenty of other real problems in the world to focus that energy on.

That's my 7 cents(adjusted for inflation), I'll let you return to your regularly scheduled e-argument.

[Mister Ed]

Every plot twist, ruined.
-Reveal of crazy hermit Ben being a Jedi
-Reveal of small alien as Yoda
-Reveal of Darth Vader's identity
-Reveal of Leia being Luke's sister

This really bothered me, especially since it SEEMED like, with a little effort, some of these could have been at least partially preserved in a sequential viewing.

I don't mind "ruining" the Ben as a Jedi reveal, since there isn't much to ruin, really. In fact, since nobody ever calls him "Ben" in the PT, there is still a SMALL (rather obvious, though it was obvious in the original film, too) reveal that Ben IS Obi-Wan.

I don't mind so much ruining the Yoda "reveal", because it was fairly obvious in the original, as well. And now we, kind of, get a short interval of maybe wondering at first if Yoda has gone nutty from his long isolation.

But the last two are just dumb. There was absolutely no reason the viewer HAD to be shown that Padme had twins, and CERTAINLY no reason we had to hear one of them named Leia. And quite frankly, if they hadn't actually had Anakin use the Darth Vader name, and hadn't SHOWN him being given the suit, we could have been left with the impression that Anakin HAD died, and that Ben was making up a story because he felt guilt about being responsible for it. (Alternately they could have had "Darth Vader" be the default title for ALL Sith apprentices. The Anakin COULD have used it, and yet still not have given away the identity of the Vader in the OT, as long as they didn't SHOW his survival and transformation.)

[Mister Ed]

Don't like the changes George Lucas made on the rereleases? Don't watch them, problem solved.

Well, the problem isn't FULLY solved if you don't have access to the unchanged versions. And Lucas seems to prefer that to be the case. That's really the only aspect of this that makes me irked with Lucas.

[darthius]

You mean ruining the context of the OT, right?

Well, that's exactly the point that I have been trying to make: It is only the hardcore OT fans that can't stop complaining and hating the PT films because they ruined their films and precious childhood memories. Everybody else just accepts them as they are and enjoys them.

Every plot twist, ruined.
-Reveal of crazy hermit Ben being a Jedi
-Reveal of small alien as Yoda
-Reveal of Darth Vader's identity
-Reveal of Leia being Luke's sister

How did the PT films ruin the 4 plot twists from the OT films that you mention above?? All it did was expand on them and give more background information.

-Turned on the Jedi for no believable reason.

The PT was a story that didn't need to be told, and cheapens the OT if watched in episodic order.

Jedi order didn't allow kids to know or reunite with their parents. Anakin was an exception and knew his mother. He loved her and when she was killed and he couldn't save her he allowed his anger to guide his actions. Anger and hatred if unchecked lead to the dark side. (This was a very abbreviated summary) Is this not enough of a believable reason for you?

Humans love to discover their past and that's what the PT is. Look at it as an archaeological documentary. Knowledge of the past is always important when planning the future. The PT is Luke's past and it certainly needed to be told. It provided so much more information to us based on which many great books/comics of the EU were written.

The PT does not cheapen the OT at all, it expands it instead. The PT is more glamorous than the OT and that's because of various reasons. One reason is the fact that the technology when the PT was made was a lot better. Another reason is that films/legends about the past are always more glam and mysterious than films about the future. The film and legend of War of Troy are a lot more glam and mysterious than films/legends about WWI or the Gulf War.

[cas]

How did the PT films ruin the 4 plot twists from the OT films that you mention above?? All it did was expand on them and give more background information.

It ruins it for anyone who hasn't seen Star Wars.

If I was going to show someone Star Wars for the first time, I would not start with the prequels.

[darthius]

It ruins it for anyone who hasn't seen Star Wars.

If I was going to show someone Star Wars for the first time, I would not start with the prequels.

So basically it boils down to the PT spoiling the mysteriousness of the OT. That is therefore the primary reason why the OT fans hate the PT.

As a standalone trilogy there is nothing wrong with the PT. As a matter of fact in some aspects (like CGI) it is superior to the OT. Yes, granted, it does have some dubious scenes like Anakin declaring his love to Padme, etc but the OT is not perfect either.