You are not logged in. Please login or register.
My issues with RLM aren't the Plinkett Reviews themselves, but more the way they have been hailed as the gospel of prequel criticism. Don't get me wrong, I love those videos - they're hilarious and insightful, but they're not the be all and end all.
What are those beliefs, though? That's something that comes up in the fan community as well, but I've never heard a good explanation of what exactly makes Qui-Gon a maverick and what he feels so strongly for without bringing in the EU to help. He believes in the prophecy of the Chosen One, sure, but no one on the Council seems to not believe in it, so that's not particularly helpful.
Well I don't follow the EU, but that was the impression I got from just that movie. And when I say "beliefs", I mean more so that he has strong opinions and stands by them despite what anyone says. Here are some examples:
1.) Trusting their fate to some boy they met on Tatooine who has never once even finished a podrace. Despite Padme objecting and saying the Queen wouldn't approve, he does it anyway and suggests that the Queen not even be informed about this. This tells me that he's formulated an opinion about the situation and will stop at nothing to see it through, even if it means keeping the Queen in the dark about this.
2.) Insisting that Anakin be trained. Even though the council says that he should not be trained because they sense danger in his future, Qui-gon insists that he is the Chosen One; he then proceeds to defy the council by taking Anakin on as his apprentice. Even Obi-wan tries to tell him that he's gone too far but Qui-gon is having none of it. This, again, is another example of Qui-gon standing by his opinion and not really caring that other people don't seem to agree.
In addition to having strong opinions, I also think Qui-gon is a "ends justify the means" kind of guy as evidenced by his willingness to deceive the Queen and his use of the Force to make Watto's dice roll in his favor.
Last edited by theMaestro (2016-05-03 00:16:26)
To what extent would you accept the argument that his point was, "this second, without having had any time to prepare, what do you remember about __________?," and that whatever people were able to come up with under those conditions was the actual point of the question. There are a lot of answers for Han Solo, there are not a lot of answers for Qui-Gon, QED.
I get what their point was, but for Qui-Gon specifically I would definitely be able to come up with words like: stubborn, passionate, opinionated, compassionate. For the other examples they gave, like Queen Amidala, I would agree with their point that it's hard to quickly come up with adjectives. But I really do think that there's a fully fledged character there in Qui-Gon. The responses to that question probably depend a lot on who you're asking though. If the sample is biased for people who don't care for the prequels in general (or the whole thing is staged, like it may have been for that review) then you might get responses similar to those from the review. Additionally, he only had one movie worth of screen time whereas Han Solo had three (at the time of the review) and so that may play a factor in what people remember. Personally, I have many criticisms of the prequels, but the character of Qui-Gon was not one of them.
Additionally, he only had one movie worth of screen time whereas Han Solo had three (at the time of the review) and so that may play a factor in what people remember.
Solid. That's good.
Welcome to the forum, by the way.
That's fun, I don't think I've heard that angle on RLM before. Could you elaborate on an example of one of his major invalid criticisms that people seem especially taken with?
Thanks, well their most osmotic bit is obviously the whole protagonist thing + Plinkett Test that they cover in Part I/1.
1a)
The Jedi are dismissed on the basis of being "on a boring mission they don't care about" - which is a half-true description of... the 1st minute of their screentime. They've been given an assignment, and show a kind of nonchalant attitude about it.
In their 2nd scene, however, they already look worried.
And in their 3rd scene, they get attacked.
After the fight's over, Quigon starts making decisions about what to do next, coming off as focused, authoritative, and invested - and those decisions, of course, all revolve around helping the victims of the imminent invasion.
The point's supposed to be that the viewer can't get invested in a character who's just on an assignment and doesn't care - the truth is that the viewer gets invested in a character who gets attacked, defends himself and then proceeds to think on his feet to help those in distress.
The latter, of course, is omitted by his description of "boring mission they don't care about" - and later from his criticisms of his "stupid"/absurd decisions revolving around more marginal plot points (i.e. underwater side adventure, race bet, taking the boy into a warzone).
1b) Amidala is dismissed by virtue of being "some foreign queen the film's not specifically about, either"... except that the Naboo invasion is the central plot of the film, and she's right in the center of it.
When she's first introduced on the space screen, the invasion has already been established as the main plot by the preceding scene (i.e. the Jedi seeing the army in hangar) - then she gains focus during the courtroom scene, and after that she's already in the center: PoV-observes the invading army, refuses to sign treaty, a short "refusal of the call", and it only goes from there.
Once again, Plinkett acts as if he's describing the movie, while all he's describing is the 1st few minutes of the character - starts off as "that queen down there", gets into the center after a few scenes.
1c) Anakin is dismissed because he shows no understanding of what's going on - that's kinda true, but the general picture is clearly explained to him and he shows enthusiasm for doing his part in helping the crisis.
Even the frivolous space battle starts with him consciously helping out the team, and even afterwards he's evidently aware of "doing his part" when he decides to stay in the battle etc.
Aside from that, he's got a personal story going, with the early interest in the Jedi and then the desire to get trained etc. - and when you've got an ensemble and one of them's a rookie, he's very much allowed not to be the driving, comprehending element of the main plot as long as he's got his own personal thing going and is conscious of his participation in the main plot.
______________________________
So, with Plinkett's argumentation invalidated, all that's left to do is look at the rest of the film, what the narrative is and what those characters are doing in it:
1b) Amidala assumes full PoV and agency on Coruscant, going through a growth and making increasingly proactive choices.
Back on Naboo, she leads her own revolution, going through build-up, suspense, lowest point and eventually triumph.
1a) Quigon saves the damsel in distress and leads her cause while she's still passive - in the process, he's gradually confronted with the Sith behind the crisis, and the coinciding discovery of the chosen one.
By the last act, she's the one in charge and he's mainly there to look out for the Sith - it ends up with him being killed by the Sith and having Anakin trained.
Similarly to, say, 24, it starts out with a more marginal crisis that turns out to be a prelude for a much bigger threat - in this narrative structure, Padme is the protagonist of this crisis, while Quigon leads the viewer from that to the bigger threat.
1c) Anakin kinda hovers between a 3rd (wheel) protagonist and a supporting character like the Kid in Matrix 3 - I'd say if nothing else, the fact that his "3rd act" was almost entirely wasted on frivolous comic relief (of the same kind as the Jar Jar antics down on the ground, at that), kinda propels him into the latter.
(It should be noted, however, that the whole "fly around with robot in tow and accidentally win space battle" is a particular type of fantasy / wish fulfillment, while Jar Jar accidentally shooting bad guys is not and really just pure comic relief.)
It also doesn't help that while the other 2 characters are cool, he's a real kid and therefore kind of sucks.
__________________________
Now with this structure established (which I can further back up if challenged), the real film criticism begins: there's a story arc, and two protagonist arcs tied into it, however they're very flawed and full of various gaps and negligence.
Identifying all those, in combination with the strengths, the things that work, the things that are there in full or as "remnants" of what would've been a complete narrative, would yield the result falsely attributed to the Plinkett reviews - a conscious understanding of the diffuse sensation that while film has a story and drama, something about it seems to just hover in the air or be amiss...
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 05:05:51)
They're wall-to-wall exposition. The excuse for that is that the plots are really complex and that the exposition is necessary. The real issue is that the plots are really complex and the exposition is necessary.
We could have skipped six years of podcasts and just said this.
+1
2)
To what extent would you accept the argument that his point was, "this second, without having had any time to prepare, what do you remember about __________?," and that whatever people were able to come up with under those conditions was the actual point of the question. There are a lot of answers for Han Solo, there are not a lot of answers for Qui-Gon, QED.
It probably was, but in that case it should've been enhanced with an actual analysis of what's in the movie, and then some attempt to explain why it isn't memorable - with those spontaneous reactions as evidence that it wasn't.
That would've been a valid approach, but I don't really see how all those character traits are unmemorable, and don't accept that evidence either - all those people are RLM members and associates and they're all buddies with a history of "disappointed by the prequels", and having chats about it with each other.
Group dynamics etc., just not reliable.
2a)
Qui-Gon displays various personality traits at different points - the most interesting question in terms of "critical analysis" is how well those fit together into a single organic character (I maintain that they do):
-focused, professional courtly "FBI agent type" when leading rescue, protecting queen etc. - suspected - compare "schedule" guy from TDKR
-stern, disapproving mentor - when silently scoffing at Obiwan's jokes, extends to his contempt-filled reactions towards Jar Jar and Watto
-warm mentor/father figure, mostly to Anakin, and sometimes to Obiwan
-mischievous trickster - clearly has no respect for truth and honor when dealing with greedy merchants/slavers, stubborn tribesmen with chip on their shoulder, or queens' switcheroo games, and visibly enjoys playing for fools and disregarding their petty interests
It's ironic how the last one, appearing in the "marginal" subplots and mainly serving humorous purposes, does the heavylifting of conveying him as a "maverick".
His defining, central character trait in relation to the main story, is also by far the least pronounced one - however, it's still there and you can see the stubborness, the "headstrong", in his mannerisms, inflections etc. particularly in that last Council scene, but also the preceding and following ones where he discusses issue with Obiwan.
Those are particularly "unpronounced", and the very formulaic dialogue in those scenes doesn't help matters either - but there, nevertheless, it is.
And those bits are pretty much the sole basis that make his fatal recklessness during the duel not entirely come out of nowhere - his stubborness/arrogance relates to Anakin, Anakin is sort of but insufficiently connected to Maul, and he acts recklessly and arrogantly while combatting Maul.
Should've been WAY more in a complete narrative, but more on that in 1a)...
Two other central character traits that he has:
-particular, and invididually distinguished religiosity:
conveyed in a rather lacking fashion by him making statements about the "living force" or how the "force guides us", "this was no coincidence";
matching his role of discovering the chosen one and being particularly invested in the "prophecy" with the other Jedi acting way more reserved about the whole notion.
-(spiritual) vigilance:
expressed through the various moments where he "senses something wrong", and a shadow passes over his face;
matching his role of being the one (gradually) confronted with the Sith.
2b)
Amidala/Padme is a comparably simple case: she's a system-trusting idealist and pacifist who learns/decides to make unpleasant choices and take up arms.
At first, this is expressed very laconically: "not risk any action", "place with people".
On Coruscant, it wanders into the show, not tell territory where she hesitates to betray Valorum, but then displays empassioned anger and indignation about her dying people and her duty to them, and then decides to return home with arms while "praying" for her lost ideal etc.
One thing about her in this movie is that she appears in several personas - there's the queen, with her domineering imperious voice, and two emotional scenes already described above.
There's the handmaiden who's alternately warm, friendly/motherly and compassionate, and grim/disapproving/demanding (just on Tattoine).
And there's the authoritative, energetic, determined action leader from the final act.
In a way, all or some of those personalities come together in the closing scene, but that's debatable and probably not that important in this context - I don't think the movie really succeeds at holding all those together, or justifying* the extensive switcheroo in the first place.
[*In the 4th act, she's revealed to be an able fighter along with all the other meek handmaidens, and it turns out they've got all those secret crisis passages and hidden guns and knowledge how to attack the TF - and a few barely noticeable moments in the 1st act seem to set that up.
(More on that in 1a).)
The identity secrecy seemed to work along with that, and could've really been used had those hints been fleshed out into a proper build-up - that's the sole "justification" I can see, aside from being a neat gimmick.]
It seems to have something to do with the whole "symbiosis" theme strangely hovering over the movie, and is probably some kind of parallel to Palpatine... but all the traces end there.
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 20:10:36)
theMaestro wrote:Additionally, he only had one movie worth of screen time whereas Han Solo had three (at the time of the review) and so that may play a factor in what people remember.
Solid. That's good.
I'd disagree with that: his character was already colorful enough in IV, plus I'm pretty sure that's the only movie they were thinking of while saying those particular things.
He's no longer a "thief" with a heart of gold in V, instead he gains this tragic/romantic pathos that I think none of them mentioned, and rather becomes the "pirate with a debt" instead.
In VI he's like this grumpy tagalong and more of an overt asshole, though characterization is certainly much less rounded in VI, and he pretty much lacks an arc there, too.
In addition to having strong opinions, I also think Qui-gon is a "ends justify the means" kind of guy as evidenced by his willingness to deceive the Queen and his use of the Force to make Watto's dice roll in his favor.
Seems more like a lack of respect for authority / obstructive assholes - what you said fits as well, but obviously not in the usual sense of that phrase, antiheroic tendencies, moral grey shades etc.
I get what their point was, but for Qui-Gon specifically I would definitely be able to come up with words like: stubborn, passionate, opinionated, compassionate. [...] But I really do think that there's a fully fledged character there in Qui-Gon. [...] Personally, I have many criticisms of the prequels, but the character of Qui-Gon was not one of them.
Picking up from:
"Qui-Gon displays various personality traits at different points - the most interesting question in terms of "critical analysis" is how well those fit together into a single organic character (I maintain that they do):"
His role in the context of the trilogy:
As Obiwan, Anakin and Padme are the obvious "big three" of 2-3, Quigon acts as a mentor to all three of them:
-protects/guides queen before she becomes proactive, acts as advisor in the final act
-the other two obvius, but basically leaves Obiwan a legacy
-finds / fosters Anakin and jumpstarts his progression
His role within I in particular:
-leads Amidala's cause, then advises when she takes charge
-discover what's gonna become the central plot by III, the Sith and the chosen one
-championing the chosen one in the face of opposition/skepticism from the establishment
With that in mind (or, rather, if you're on board with that as a cohesive arc), all the personality traits I listed in that post fit the picture:
-stern/disapproving and warm/fatherly is a natural combination for a mentor
-a professional and courtly demeanor matches the role of protecting and escorting royalty as a duty/job
-religious attitude and foreboding vigilance already brought up
-irreverence towards clerical authority when it goes against his judgement, naturally extends to irreverence towards royal authority when she questions his judgement, irreverence towards petty douchebags (Watto and Nass happen to be authority figures in their own turf, too, btw), and irreverence towards supposed conservative notions about "honorable" use of the force, or honesty in any area whether it deserves it or not
However, while this foundation stands, there are gaps in the execution all over the place - so there's lots to be criticized.
A relatively minor critical point is that the whole fallout with Obiwan isn't sufficiently set up - he kinda scoffs at some of his jokes which hardly counts, and is pissed at the council, noticing Obiwan's at being dropped by him; there is something, but it's nowhere sufficient.
A major if not THE major gap would be that after telling the council about Maul, he practically forgets about him until he shows up again. He doesn't seem to react much when the council brings him up after rejecting Anakin, and not a single thought or worried face expression wasted on the Sith inbetween those.
So why does he charge Maul so enthusiastically and blindly? Does he fancy himself as the chosen mentor of the Annoying One, destined by the fates to crush the first Sith and fulfill the messianic prophecy? Does he think Maul is out to hurt Anakin (certainly a reasonable assumption based on how things went down on Tattoine)? Some combination of those?
While the things that are established and shown priorly pretty much leave no doubt as to what "would've" been the motivation for all that, or can be "deduced" to be, the way it stands it's a huge, huge negligence.
Plinkett, ironically, made the basic "Jedi forget about Maul on Naboo" observation in his TPM audio commentary, as well as criticized him for not considering the "Maul was after Anakin" theory - but failed to draw any larger conclusions from those bits:
Instead of identifying that as a gap within QG's arc, they were just more plot holes to him, and he kept insisting how "Jar Jar is the only character in the whole movie with an arc" even though of all the characters incl. Obiwan, Jar Jar's "path" resembles an arc the least.
This is sort of like a "horse shoe" thing, amusingly, where the PT's harshest critic, out to prove how this obnoxious cartoon rabbit for babies has the only character arc in the movie, starts resembling the most dedicated fanboys in existence who try to justify Jar Jar's presence or imbue him with heroism, in his arguments.
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 11:59:11)
+1
I...I think everyone's being reasonable and insightful here, and I'm learning stuff...what is this place??
+1
I stand by my opinion that Jar-Jar is the best character in the prequels. Not just in a 'Plinkett Test' sort of way (he passes that test where most of the characters fail it), but in the sense that he's basically the only character in TPM with an arc. Barely.
He barely has any agency. He has a contemplative moment where he takes pride in his warrior race, but then turns back into the clueless dork.
Goes fetch the tribe cause the others ask him to - kinda follows from that and leads the team to the hide-out, but doesn't do anything to resolve the tensions there.
For that, he gets promoted a general, then gets thrown off a horse reverts back to lucky coward who ends up surrendering.
That's incomparably less "arc material" (i.e. agency, accomplishment, investment) than Obiwan, Anakin, and let alone the two main ones - which means all it takes to insist in the polar opposite is either a lot of salt, or a lot of hipster 
The thing I take away from the Plinkett videos is that the overall point of them is that the entire premise for the prequel trilogy is fundamentally wrong. The OT are about a small group of people having adventures together and fighting this big evil empire. the PT are attempting this epic political intrigue plot that culminated in a complex multi-system war with all of these different groups of people being manipulated by some evil force. There are so many variables going on that get over-explained and shit.
It's a lot simpler than that:
The first movie has the evil merchant who attacks the idyllic planet, and snivellingly manipulates the weak/corrupt government.
The next are about the evil Separatists who want to attack the Republic.
In both cases the villains have 3 layers: the TF/Separatists, Sidious' right hand, and Sidious himself.
Government's the officials, the Senate that represents the galactic society, and the Jedi are sort of the "spiritual branch".
And that's it.
Also, things don't get over-explained, they're under-explained - there's basic exposition missing regarding who the TF is and what their officially stated goals are, how the whole Separatist thing got rolling etc.
That's one of the major reasons why there's the feeling of confusion/incompleteness regarding it all, rather than a concise, well-structured intrigue.
Plinkett points out some correct things in that department, but is also quite sloppy, and his analysis terribly incomplete.
We have to see why this trade group is blockading this planet.
You don't, though!
For a "complete" narrative, you would've needed either:
-a known, stated goal that everyone's aware of - and obviously not identical to their real goal which is a mystery
-no stated, understandable goal, just this erratic behavior that startles everyone; the hopes of gaining clarity through negotiations are crushed etc.
The mystery then should've been revealed in the movie, or in the next movies - which doesn't happen.
We have to see where all the robots are coming from. We have to see where all the storm troopers some from.
That's not a "we have to see where the soldiers come from" - it's about the intrigue, and mystery of two armies being created in secret, and the conspiracy to push the world into a war behind everyone's back.
The armies are introduced as suspense, and the war breaking is the bad outcome, i.e. pay-off.
We have to see how the senate reacts to this news of separatists.
So you're saying if the OT had started earlier and they showed the rebels gasp in terror at the revelation of the super weapon, that would've been a dramatic failure?
If the movie's about a society under threat, it kinda calls for showing that society react to said threat... and, as it happens, 2-3 heavily neglected to do that, as opposed to doing too much.
That's also why it's a bit weird when they cheer for dictatorship at the end, their perspective has been neglected - them being worn out by the war / scared of separatists, and having a reason to believe the Jedi turned against them.
Not inexplicable, cause it's kinda obvious - but just kinda hovering in the air like that, because it hasn't been shown.
However...
There's not a focus on just a core group of characters having adventures. It's too wrapped up in the political machinations.
... what has been shown, is Anakin's perspective, and how he comes to believe it.
Less focus on protagonists than large scale machinations? I think not.
The trilogy revolves entirely around Quigon, Obiwan, Anakin and Padme - sometimes as representatives of the groups they're part of, sometimes on their own.
Same with 4-6, in a general sense.
With all that in mind:
That stuff is dull. The action is sometimes decent, but the movies are overly boring and dry.
Which stuff is dull, in particular?
Opening action scene, dull part, dry part, boring part, action scene, dull plot exposition, action scene, boring part, political part, planning part, space action scene, dull part...
Which you're referring to?
The OT are never dull, even when they've slowed down. The slow parts are mostly about the characters interactions, not about plot exposition. Even plot exposition scenes are generally focused mostly on the character moments more than the information being given.
"Pure plot exposition" is an exception in I-III, not the rule - in fact, I can only think of a couple scenes from the first half of Clones where that description would apply.
Calm scenes that don't revolve around characterization, still build up intrigue and atmosphere.
They lost the Falcon in the asteroid belt. Lets not just explain that, let's show the audience how fucking terrified of Vader the messenger is and then lets show the audience WHY he's terrified of vader by having vader force-choke a guy to death OVER THE PHONE... Yeah, they moved the plot forward, but that character bit was more important to the film overall. That's the difference.
Difference to what counterexamples?
The prequels are just fundamentally poor films. They're wall-to-wall exposition. The excuse for that is that the plots are really complex and that the exposition is necessary. The real issue is that the plots are really complex and the exposition is necessary. The excuses that a lot of people give for why it's OK that the movies are the way they are are often the core problems of the films.
The plot isn't that complex, it's really just one-level-up from OT - 2 protagonists, a couple villain layers etc., but it doesn't really get "complex" at any point.
Necessary exposition is mostly:
-absent
-drives the tension/atmosphere, and a lot of the times characters as well
Half of that is the writers fault for using dialogue when action and visuals would be better.
Well, that Vader example of yours (and Plinkett's) is made of dialogue, so...
Half of it is the director's fault for shooting the way he did with boring setups and blocking and flat lighting, etc. That the writer and director are the same guy just makes it that much worse.
As far as I understand it, "lighting" particularly refers to the way artificial (and natural?) lights are set up to illuminate the scene and create a particular effect - doesn't encompass the entirety of how a frame looks.
So I haven't really looked at the frames and tried to identify the "lighting", but most of those scenes feature juicy colors, gloomy tint and flair etc., so even if the lighting itself is dull, the actual shots are not. Maybe it's all in post?
Only exceptions I'd say are various daytime interior scenes on Coruscant, in the first half of AOTC - i.e. the same section that features most if not all of the "dull dry exposition" scenes.
The "blocking", also, should be judged in the context of the style and narrative - basic blocking is a natural choice for stylized aristocratic/clerical/formal/military settings.
RLM aren't thinking of that, and I haven't really seen anyone take that into account.
The films are pretty terrible on just about every level.
I'd say the ratings on Imdb/Meta/RT are reasonable.
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 16:18:41)
EDIT: This part is mostly unrelated ramblings, in retrospect...
Fanboys do also kinda piss me off, tho. There was a guy I went off on a while back because he was talking about the "Kessel Run" and what it was and how it worked and how Han lost the record but then got it back in some book. It bothered me that they mentioned it in the Force Awakens. Cause the Kessel Run was bullshit. Han was blowing smoke up their asses. They've even concocted a story for why Han would say "parsec" which is a measurement of distance and not time. Even if you allow that Lucas was just looking for a space word to use in his silly script about space battles,
Sloppily using parsecs as a time unit in a soft Sci-Fi movie is completely fine with me - however, the proposed fan explanation, if you're referring to the "picking the shortest distance is the challenge" one has something really neat and natural about it, I like it a lot
Probably one of the best pieces of "fanwank" out there.
Either way, whether Han's bullshitting or not isn't really connected to what parsec means - the characters all know what it means, so things are the same either way.
it's just a bullshit story to make him sound like he's the best pilot for their money. Like they're getting a deal for his asking price.
The Falcon is a pile of shit with a hyper drive. Solo is a scam artist. Obi-Wan's face says it all. The fucking jedi listening to Han's bullshit story is making a face like "That is such complete bullshit, bro". But he's a pilot who has a ship and is obviously very interested in making money, so Kenobi could just offer a big-ass 'on delivery' reward and count on this dude to agree, no matter the risk.
Ehhh... that's a valid interpretation, but it's just as possible that Ben's simply making fun of his cocky attitude, or the fact that he expects people outside his "racer circles" to know nerdy stuff like that.
The "truth", "probably" lies somewhere inbetween - Solo's no Flashheart, but no Jack Sparrow either.
I'd almost say that the "gag" is that he's kinda both simultaneously.
But fandom has turned that into a thing. It kinda pisses me off that people can be so fucking into a movie but fail to understand shit like that. It's where nerds are into this shit, but are too willing to take every aspect of it too seriously and treat everything like it's meant to hint at some larger universe or whatever. Fanboys will take the phrase "nerf-herder" and try to concoct the backstory for why the term 'nerf-herder' is this slanderous term. But it's the PG equivalent of "Piece of shit". And then Han's like "Who's scruffy-lookin?" It's a joke AND a character-building moment. But let's theorize about why herding nerfs is seen as such a distasteful position in the galaxy...
I kind of dislike the gimmick words in that scene, though... would've been better had they just used real insults, even though nerfherder>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>laserbrains. I'm sorry.
Point is, coming up with a culture where those terms were based in, might've been an attempt to make it sound more like a natural insult and less like a corny made-up gimmick word.
Banthas had that advantage.
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 17:26:01)
You can break TPM down to it's basic plot elements and see a startling relationship to A New Hope. Two characters on a more or less diplomatic ship end up being attacked and escape to the surface of a nearby planet where they meet a native country bumpkin whose life is turned upside down and ends up embroiled in this multi-system struggle for power. They end up escaping from that planet with a few extra characters in tow and have a clear course ahead of them. They inadvertently end up somewhere they weren't expecting to go and have to figure out how to get away. While there, however, they find another character who they deem important and decide to free them and bring them with.
They then head off to an intergalactic board room where they eventually hatch a plan to head back to one of the previous locations and fight a battle. They eventually win and everyone gets medals.
I am loving this thread.
El Nameaux-Standardon wrote:Instead of identifying that as a gap within QG's arc, they were just more plot holes to him, and he kept insisting how "Jar Jar is the only character in the whole movie with an arc" even though of all the characters incl. Obiwan, Jar Jar's "path" resembles an arc the least.
This is sort of like a "horse shoe" thing, amusingly, where the PT's harshest critic, out to prove how this obnoxious cartoon rabbit for babies has the only character arc in the movie, starts resembling the most dedicated fanboys in existence who try to justify Jar Jar's presence or imbue him with heroism, in his arguments.
I wasn't aware that the RLM guys, or Mike at least, was of the opinion that Jar Jar was the only one with an arc. I'll have to check out their commentary, as I've only ever seen their videos.
I think the point of pointing that out, tho, isn't necessarily to try to justify Jar Jar's character, but instead to emphasize that Lucas was more interested in him as a character. He liked Jar Jar and considered him to be an important character in his story.
Well, what you are saying and what Plinkett's is virtually the same thing, so....
Squiggly_P wrote:I stand by my opinion that Jar-Jar is the best character in the prequels. Not just in a 'Plinkett Test' sort of way (he passes that test where most of the characters fail it), but in the sense that he's basically the only character in TPM with an arc. Barely.
He barely has any agency. He has a contemplative moment where he takes pride in his warrior race, but then turns back into the clueless dork.
Goes fetch the tribe cause the others ask him to - kinda follows from that and leads the team to the hide-out, but doesn't do anything to resolve the tensions there.For that, he gets promoted a general, then gets thrown off a horse reverts back to lucky coward who ends up surrendering.
That's incomparably less "arc material" (i.e. agency, accomplishment, investment) than Obiwan, Anakin, and let alone the two main ones - which means all it takes to insist in the polar opposite is either a lot of salt, or a lot of hipster
I, for one, would argue that people give Lucas far too much credit for writing characters like Qui-Gon as though they're subtle and have all of these personality quirks and emotional complexity buried beneath a solemn and stoic veneer. I think any hint of that can be attributed to the actor(s) playing the parts. Lucas has proven to be a horrible writer/director who is far more interested in plot mechanics than character subtleties or even general characterization. That he put so much effort into Jar Jar in that regard tells me that he really wanted Jar Jar to be like THE character in the prequels.
Well I'm talking about what's in the movie, not who contributed how much to what.
Not sure if this applies here, but I've noticed an amusing tendency among certain "anti-PTers", en emphasis on the "collaborative" aspect of the OT on the one hand, and a dismissal of anything PT that "wasn't Lucas" (supposedly) - it's like, pick one, you know?
Regardless, I'm not playing that game.
I, for one, would argue that people give Lucas far too much credit for writing characters like Qui-Gon as though they're subtle and have all of these personality quirks and emotional complexity buried beneath a solemn and stoic veneer.
That's not exactly what I said, and it's wrong too: the attributes I described are either not stoic in the first place, or just exist in a stoic / subdued / lacking (not the same things!!) form.
Nothing's really "buried" anywhere, it's all in plain sight.
You can break TPM down to it's basic plot elements and see a startling relationship to A New Hope. Two characters on a more or less diplomatic ship end up being attacked and escape to the surface of a nearby planet where they meet a native country bumpkin whose life is turned upside down and ends up embroiled in this multi-system struggle for power. They end up escaping from that planet with a few extra characters in tow and have a clear course ahead of them. They inadvertently end up somewhere they weren't expecting to go and have to figure out how to get away. While there, however, they find another character who they deem important and decide to free them and bring them with.
See, this sort of thing is precisely why I'm not buyin' all those "TFA is a remake" comments I keep seeing, because it's really easy to list parallels in this fashion, omit the differences, and then conclude that remake... or Luke = Jar Jar.
The characters that go from diplomatic ship to the evil station to the planet? In IV they're the peasants from HF - in I, they're the protagonists (well one of them is) and the exact opposite of clueless tagalongs.
Also, Amidala is the "equivalent" of Luke, not Jar Jar.
Anakin gets freed like Leia (in a completely different fashion, needless to say), other than that that he's also a Luke equivalent.
Both Jar Jar and Solo have fallen out of favor with a fat boss and "take the heroes somewhere" - the parallels end there, but if you insist, you should pick this one 
They then head off to an intergalactic board room where they eventually hatch a plan to head back to one of the previous locations and fight a battle. They eventually win and everyone gets medals.
The final act is derived from VI and IV in more obvious ways, yes (mostly VI, though).
The fucked up part of that comparison is that Jar Jar is the Luke Skywalker equivalent in that outline.
Ah-nay.
My theory here is that the two most important characters in Lucas' head were probably Jar Jar and Anakin, and I'm willing to bet that JJ was supposed to have been like a catch-all side-kick character throughout the three films who would eventually be killed or something which would drive Anakin fully to the dark side. Or maybe Anakin would have killed him. Or maybe Palpatine would have been able to manipulate him as an indirect way to bring Anakin to the Dark Side or something.
So Jar Jar = Leia??
Just theorizing, but it makes more sense than what we got from the next two films, which were almost entirely disconnected from the first film. I could be completely wrong, tho.
Jesus... 
Alright, looking at TPM only, out of the two characters that Anakin befriends on Tattoine and maintains a friendship with... which one, do you think, would've made more sense to play a central role in his corruption, by virtue of an intense emotional bond, and possibly end up tragically dead in connection with that, Padme or Jar Jar?
But, no. I think Lucas wrote flat, purely expositional dialogue and sat people down on couches for every scene because he's a terrible writer/director, and any
^^Disconnected from your previous train of thought - to be continued...
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 19:30:45)
It's so fascinating to see the different sides of the spectrum. Over on the prequel forum at TFN, you have people who absolutely love those movies. And on the other side, you have Squiggly's thoughts about them.
Personally, my feelings on them can be summarized as "disappointed". I don't think they're bad (except AOTC) because I am able to watch them and be entertained (again, except AOTC). They certainly don't stack up to the OT in my book and I wish they had been much better. However, I do stand by my opinion that Qui-Gon does actually have a personality other than "stoic"; but if you don't even want to accept the premise that TPM can be analyzed as a movie, then I get why you'd dismiss and not even entertain claims like that.
Also, please don't take anything I write personally. I tend to be really blunt and angry-sounding a lot of the time just naturally. I mostly just blast words into a text box and I don't worry too much about how I come across.
I just read everything in the worst australian accent my brain can muster. It's hilarious.
Good points, though.
EDIT:
In defense of Jar Jar's arc being the strongest, all you have to do is look at where he starts out and where he ends up. At first he's an outcast who none of his people like, and who have actually thrown him out with threats that he would be imprisoned (or killed?) if he returned.
Pyoonish'd.
By the end of the film he's leading an army. He's still an incompetent jack-ass in the end, but he does make some attempts to lead his force. Sorta. I mean, he says "Steady..." at one point.
Well theeeere ya go!
And "attack" I think? I mean, he does all of this shit on accident and it apparently works. He tries to do things when he gets the chance and inadvertently succeeds. So he goes from avoiding conflict at the beginning and running away from everything to at least trying to fight and lead his people.
All of this is true, even though he's still running away most of the time.
It's also true that he has more of an arc than Panaka.
Obi-Wan, Anakin, Quigon, and the queen all got incomparably more, though.
Obiwan's arc? What arc? He's the same basic character at the beginning of the film as he is at the end. He goes from agreeing with the jedi council that Qui-Gon is wrong about the kid to ... explaining to Yoda that he promised to train the kid? He doesn't really say that he disagrees with them. He's just doing it because Qui-Gon said to do it? Is that an arc?
He doesn't have a full arc, but incomparably more of an arc than Jar Jar:
-starts disagreeing with Quigon
-this culminates in a brief fallout between the two
-he chooses friendship over his convictions and they make up
-he certainly ain't gonna deny his master's dying wish now!
Surrenders his beliefs / conservative attitude out of personal loyalty - seems to internalize it, too.
That's a load more than "accidentally bring tribes together and promoted to hapless general"! Obiwan gets promoted too
Plus, of course, his PoV role in the duel, his emotional investment, the suspense, the lowest point and triumph, you know > juggling bombs on the battlefield.
Amadala's character can't really have an arc because you're never sure at which point she's actually the Queen and when she's the handmaiden.
She also kinda gets invaded and then leads her revolution to victory, but that doesn't count since you don't know she's the handmaiden!
Well if you wanna be precise, the few relevant moments where Keira poses as the queen, technically makes them both share the protagonist seat - but it only a few moments, so yea.
PLUS, as I said earlier, that whole secrecy in the first half kinda works together with the arc rather than against it.
You could argue that the Queen goes from idealist / pacifist at the beginning to deciding that they need to fight to end the blockade... So that's kindof an arc, but it's not really shown by any sort of internal struggle so much as it is just a frustrated act of desperation.
Following internal struggle
So I guess that's an arc.
Qui-Gon dies, so whatever arc he does have is moot by the end of the film
He has a goal he achieves posthumanly, so that makes up for the death thing.
The rest I've already laid out
and I would argue that he's the least changing character in the film with the possible exception of Anakin,
As long as you strive to achieve a goal, or make gradual discoveries, "change" is not required to qualify as protagonist.
None of them are struggling internally with any sort of personal conflict, which is the basis of a character arc.
It's not the sole criterion, certainly not as defined by Plinkett.
who also has no arc because he's like 6 years old and ...
So you dismiss him on the grounds of being 10, but not Jar Jar on the grounds of being a nasally voiced amphibian fish beast?
I'm not taking this seriously.
So yeah, Jar Jar, in my opinion, has the strongest arc of the main characters.
QED: "Ah-nay."
You could say, tho, that maybe King Obese Gungan Dude has a pretty significant arc as well, going from isolationist who dislikes and distrusts outsiders to agreeing to essentially be pawns for a massive battle in order to help the Queen and her people.
He's not PoV, tho.
It's such a sloppy mess of a film.
Nowhere to the extent that your argumentation is
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 20:34:58)
So let's be clear about this: Lucas is a terrible writer and director. He's really bad at it. Like really really bad. And he always has been. The original Star Wars has the same sort of sequences, but he had really good actors and producers that wouldn't let him get away with all of his stupid shit. Look at the scenes in the original and how some of them were shot. Ben Kenobi tells Luke about his father's involvement in the jedi order. They're sitting on a couch and at one point he gets up, walks a few feet away, picks up an object, turns and gives more dialogue.
They're looking for some pilot to get them to Alderan. The conversation is shot with two cameras - A camera and B camera - doing shot, reverse-shot. The next sequence at the same location is shot the same way. All of the cockpit sequences he's ever shot in any film he's ever made with cockpits are all shot with the same angles and the same tricks at play. Sometimes it's a big cockpit, like the Falcon's, and he can actually move the camera around a little, but look at the angles for most shots. It's like a flat, head-on shot looking into the cockpit, just like the X-wings, just like Red Tails.
He's really bad at this filmmaking thing.
Well... if the PT is every bit as bad as SW'77, I'd say that's good enough for me.
But, no. I think Lucas wrote flat, purely expositional dialogue
Examples of such "purely expositional dialogue", please.
and sat people down on couches for every scene because he's a terrible writer/director,
It's not every scene, and Joffrey+Margaery were sitting on a couch.
Maybe Padme should've stroketh Anakin's crossbow...
and any hint at characterization that can be taken from the performances is purely due to the actors trying to inject some life into the dry-ass boring dialogue they had to work with,
Examples of such dry-ass boring dialogue, please.
which Lucas probably wanted to be read verbatim because he famously gets mad when people change the things he writes in his scripts, no matter if it's better than what he wrote. I think people want to see these things in the characters because otherwise it's just people standing there talking plot stuff with no characterization going on.
Are you accusing me of projecting my own hallucinations onto the screen? Then back it up!
Projecting emotional depth into the Phantom Menace characterizations lends Lucas far more credibility than he deserves.
Lend some credibility to yourself and back up your accusation - I've given plenty of material by now
In the second film especially, there are tons of sequences that could have been written indirectly or without dialogue at all, but he always put in very flat, exposition-heavy dialogue. All of the romance parts could have been done with little dialogue. That sequence next to the fire could have been done with no dialogue.
Like the love scenes in ESB
He could have moved the camera around. He could have shot it in interesting ways. [...] while the camera remained bolted down approximately ten feet away and panned when she got up to walk forward three steps and then turn before reading more of her dialogue off of the cue cards that Lucas was holding off-camera, probably with a gun pointed at Portman's face.
You've already classified the iconic scenes from ANH as horrible, so...
But he didn't. He had them talk about all the reasons they couldn't be together and profess their loves for each other
The incohesive hack mess that is the AotC romance is not representative of anything else in that movie, or that trilogy.
Even the horrible Alec Guinness scenes are better!
Ironically, this is where RLM fail to capture how bad that subplot is, rather than making it look worse than it is...
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 21:53:56)
^I'd say the romance is indicative of lots of things about AotC--namely, how horrid the other relationships in it are.
Anakin and Obi-Wan's relationship may be the single most disappointing aspect of that movie for me. Every bloody time we see them on screen together it's just cringe inducing how utterly awful it is. It's painful to watch how George takes something that was supposed to be a great friendship and reduces it to petty sniping. Any other relationships are...basically nonexistent, really, besides Anakin and his mom, who gets all of one scene.
+1
I'm not really trying to analyze the films, really. The thing I want to get across is just that Lucas is a hack fraud idiot who made three terrible films that are bad and poorly made.
If you refuse to back up your claims and verdicts, you won't get anything across though
They're bad movies.
That there are people who try to analyze them and try
In my case succeed - if you disagree, make a case!
to find these character traits and stuff to make them feel more like real characters is not important to me.
You mean more like the real characters that they are?
You can feel however you like about Qui-Gon or Padme or Jar Jar. It's inconsequential to the larger picture, which is that the prequels are boring, poorly-made films.
A verdict you refuse to back up by analyzing the movie?
I can't watch them because they are terrible and dull and the action scenes have no emotional weight. There's no drama in the movies except what drama we are told is supposed to be in them by characters who explain things all the time. >---< The action scenes have their own little dramas that play out within them where characters might be injured or killed,
Contradicting yourself right there.
but then the action scene ends and we go back to watching people explain things to each other because the plot is so convoluted that it's the only way for any of it to make any sense.
I've already successfully challenged both the notion that the plot is convoluted, that the problem is too many explanations rather than too few, and that most of those scenes can be described as pure exposition.
The best way the films could be improved would be to completely throw them out and remake them entirely, focusing on an entirely different set of characters (some of whom would have the same names) and an entirely different backstory for the saga.
That's not improvement, that's making different movies.
Anakin should have been older when they met.
While that's generally a sensible statement, it should stressed that had the kid been Haley Joel Osment or Bran Stark, people wouldn't've complained.
"When I met him he was already a great pilot..." says Obi-Wan in A New Hope. [...] He could have been a smuggler himself or some Republic military pilot who was assigned to move Obi-Wan from A to B in some mission and then things went tits up and they end up having some kind of adventure together. And then Obi-Wan could have seen him really doing some interesting pilot shit and getting them out of hairy situations with his great piloting skills.
Here's my stance on this whole issue:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. … p;t=164158
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/sith … t-52821990
The core, foundation of plot elements in the films are broken and stupid and bad. Any argument to be made about the subtleties of the plots or characters or whatever are void and null as far as I'm concerned.
Respect the purism! Tame the film criticism!
I don't like talking about them. Thinking about them just makes me more and more aware that they exist, and that there are people who actually defend them as films.
Levelheaded people such as myself aren't "defensive"
My ultimate solution, and something they'll probably do later on, is to just replace them with better films that do a better job of telling a coherent story with likable characters who have thrilling adventures that I can get emotionally invested in. Almost like a real movie would do.
Well, you either back up these judgements, or you don't!
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 22:35:12)
It's so fascinating to see the different sides of the spectrum. Over on the prequel forum at TFN, you have people who absolutely love those movies. And on the other side, you have Squiggly's thoughts about them.
There was an older thread somewhere around here making fun of the 108p rebuttal - which was written by a TFN regular.
Squiggly's "arguments" here aren't one bit more reasonable.
Personally, my feelings on them can be summarized as "disappointed". I don't think they're bad (except AOTC) because I am able to watch them and be entertained (again, except AOTC). They certainly don't stack up to the OT in my book and I wish they had been much better. However, I do stand by my opinion that Qui-Gon does actually have a personality other than "stoic"; but if you don't even want to accept the premise that TPM can be analyzed as a movie, then I get why you'd dismiss and not even entertain claims like that.
I'm convinced that whenever people say "PT is okay, but AotC is awful", they're projecting their hatred of the romance, and Anakin's personality, onto the rest of the movie - the rest of the movie being the actual main storyline, and hardly below TPM in quality.
^I'd say the romance is indicative of lots of things about AotC--namely, how horrid the other relationships in it are.
Anakin and Obi-Wan's relationship may be the single most disappointing aspect of that movie for me. Every bloody time we see them on screen together it's just cringe inducing how utterly awful it is. It's painful to watch how George takes something that was supposed to be a great friendship and reduces it to petty sniping.
While Anakin does "kind of suck" in this movie, there's nothing hair raising or incoherent about this relationship - they're sometimes buddies, sometimes Anakin bickers and Obiwan is irritated, but while not true to Guinness it's consistent within itself, and not even 1/10th as cringe as the other one.
Also, this relationship doesn't represent the rest of the movie either
Any other relationships are...basically nonexistent, really, besides Anakin and his mom, who gets all of one scene.
So, it isn't representative, then
Last edited by El Nameaux-Standardon (2016-05-03 22:47:38)
Nah, AotC is genuinely worse. Its central plot is a mystery that is never even remotely resolved, and unlike TPM which at least had Neeson to carry it there's not a single character who's entertaining or engaging to watch. It has none of the visual appeal of TPM due to its flat quality, its pacing is utterly dire. And as the romance was billed as the centerpiece it's a pretty big problem for it to fail so spectacularly.
I'd say it is incoherent. Anakin claims Obi is like his father, but we never, ever see that in any meaningful sense besides Obi lecturing Anakin pedantically. And "not true to Guinness but consistent within itself" (which, again, I don't agree with) is still a problem, as these are supposed to be prequels to the movies he was in and depicting a relationship that's faithful to the one he described.
I totally buy the friendship in RotS. It's one of the better parts of the film. But in AotC it's nonexistent.
Last edited by Abbie (2016-05-03 22:54:01)
Personally, my feelings on them can be summarized as "disappointed". I don't think they're bad (except AOTC) because I am able to watch them and be entertained (again, except AOTC). They certainly don't stack up to the OT in my book and I wish they had been much better. However, I do stand by my opinion that Qui-Gon does actually have a personality other than "stoic"; but if you don't even want to accept the premise that TPM can be analyzed as a movie, then I get why you'd dismiss and not even entertain claims like that.
I'm convinced that whenever people say "PT is okay, but AotC is awful", they're projecting their hatred of the romance, and Anakin's personality, onto the rest of the movie - the rest of the movie being the actual main storyline, and hardly below TPM in quality.
Well I'm not trying to make any claims about the quality, just my own enjoyment of the movie. And while the romance indeed isn't great and Anakin does do a lot of entitled whining, the main reason I dislike AOTC is that I just find it incredibly boring. Like it's just tedious for me to get through. I find that this isn't the case with the other prequels.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
