General Star Wars Thread

Anakin isn't selfish,he just takes too much of a "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many" approach and really he kind of did that in The Phantom Menace as well. His actions in Revenge Of The Sith are certainly more like that than outright selfishness.

Besides when people tell you all the time "you're the chosen one" and marvel at all that talent all the time,it will mostly go to your head,unless your some kind of Marty Stu.

As for the ANH saber fight,no,no the dialogue was just bad as an average prequel conversation. Referring to Darth like a first name? "You're powers are weak old man"? Absolutely abominable. Give me that Big "NO!" at then of ROTS,even that's better acted. G Ive me that "Are you an angel line?" at least there it's a kid actor so it's excusable.

Would've been better if Darth Maul never existed,and Darth Tyranus was the one who killed his own apprentice. Would've nicely mirrored ANH,would've made a great on-screen MEH,could've explored the doomed Knight Templar idealist approach more. Of all the so-called foreshadowings to Darth Vader,he was the closest,except he wasn't in all three films.

Or better Darth Maul lived,cut off Anakin's arm on Geonosis,and the twist was he killed Shmi.

One of the things I hate about Anakin in Attack Of The Clones and in all of the EU anythings I've read (not many) or heard of (much more) about him is that in all of them the writers seem keen on making him so Obviously Evil it boggles the mind how anyone could have trusted him.

Attack Of The Clones in particular tried to make him Obviously Evil while also making him sympathetic (in what seemed like something they remembered at the last minute) and fumbled both spectacularly.

One of the reasons I like Revenge Of The Sith is that it captures the "good man twisted to evil" aspect much better than Attack Of The Clones - say what you want about it, but Annie is a much more believably decent person in Revenge than he is in Attack.

In Phantom Menace I will say that they might have played up the "innocent kid" angle a bit... much, but I have no complaints about the characterization as a whole.

edited 21st Feb '12 8:38:27 AM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

He is selfish, and arrogant. He puts his own wishes above the greater good. (Qui-Gon is a better example of how "the needs of the few over the needs of the many" can be done well - he doesn't focus on individuals on the basis of his own emotional needs, but based on the philosophy that every life is valuable. It's spelled out in the novelization as the difference between "the living Force" (showing care for individuals) and "the universal force (the good of the galaxy)).

I really find him worse in Revenge Of The Sith, because of him getting so upset over not being made a Jedi Master when he's only been a Knight for a few years, and given that being a Master is more about wisdom (which he lacks) than prowess in combat (which he has plenty of).

I recenly finally watched the entire Star Wars saga. i pretty much agree with the general public on the quality of each film.

^ People play up that as an aspect of his turn way too much. It's not like he turned to the Dark Side simply because he wasn't given power, and it's absolutely never presented that way, rather him not being allowed to be a master is what gave Palpatine the opportunity (exactly as planned, of course) to plant even stronger seeds of mistrust in his mind.

It was a means to an end, but not a direct cause.

edited 21st Feb '12 9:30:36 AM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

I was amused to look at Rotten Tomatoes the other day and find that Episode 3 actually has a higher score (80%) than Episode IV. I prefer the originals, though it may be partially a matter of Nostalgia Filter and the originals having Han Solo in them.

If Episode IV was made today, everyone would take note of how stupid it is that Leia has no long-term emotional reaction to her planet's destruction, and that she comforts Luke about the death of a man she'd never even met, and whose relationship with Luke she knew nothing about. And for Episode V, there would probably be a lot more people (as in, not just the hardcore fans) noting the timeline problems. Return of the Jedi may actually be my favourite, because of the Jabba's Palace sequence showing just how much more Badass Luke has gotten and because - despite the Ewoks - the main sequence at the end where the action is split between the attacking fleet, the force on the Endor moon, and Luke on the Death Star is very powerful.

edited 21st Feb '12 9:34:58 AM by WarriorEowyn

<shrug> I like Episode IV more than III, but a major reason for that is because I really appreciate the art of folkloric storytelling and the folkloric aspects of A New Hope are off the charts.

That and good use of simplicity in characterization.

edited 21st Feb '12 9:32:03 AM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

III over IV? What were they smoking when they made that?

The reason I disliked TPM Anakin wasn't because he was -Gasp.- not pure eeeevillll. For me it was how bloody whiny and unrealistic he was... I mean, he gets rescued from slavery... Then he whines to Qui-Gon about how tired he is after walking for a bit.

In our heart, Mr. Ando will always be a penguin.

Anakin's problem in that regard for me is that by the time we arrive at Episode III he's still nothing like Darth Vader. Vader in A New Hope was comanding, confident and almost always in control of himself and the situation to the point where he even seemed bored at times. Anakin as of III... was not. The progression feels unnatural and forced and the fact it involves two big jumps (ten years between I and II, nineteen between III and IV) doesn't help. We only ever meet the "real," not-ten-years-old Anakin when he's already an unlikeable dick.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

^ That's one of those points where I can accept twenty years changing a person, especially since I can pretty easily understand why he would have changed in such a way after seeing the reasons why in III.

To some extent, you were never going to get that out of Anakin at all no matter how he was written, because we already knew from Obi-Wan in the original trilogy that Anakin was (seemingly) nothing like Darth Vader was. That sort of personality change kind of comes from the kind of Heel–Face Turn he went through.

In short, it was always going to be reasonable and almost likely that the major traits that made Vader Vader grew after Anakin became Vader, not before, as Annie was growing into his new life. That's always how I assumed it would've happened while watching V and VI as a kid.

edited 21st Feb '12 1:56:10 PM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

I understand that, but I still don't think the way they did it was particularly well. The story is about Anakin and not enough is shown to justify the way the character goes. He goes kid -> dick -> evil and it doesn't feel... right.

For me, Anakin should have began in a situation similar to Luke's. Idealistic, headstrong young guy who wants to rush off and find adventure in the galaxy but is stifled by his older brother Owen who doesn't want him to get involved with the brewing Clone War crisis. At some point he should meet Obi-Wan and become fascinated with the idea of being a Jedi Knight while Obi-Wan immediatley recognises that the Force is strong with this one. We should have focused on the two becoming friends and Obi-Wan wanting to train Anakin against the wishes of Yoda set against the backdrop of the outbreak of the Clone War.

Anakin becomes a powerful Jedi and a commanding and charismatic leader in the Clone War. But, he is prone to putting the people he cares about ahead of the "greater good". He meets, falls in love with and marries Padme and the two have a family which Obi-Wan is aware of. Anakin is a very protective father of his two young kids.

At some point he rushes off to save Obi-Wans life, ruining some other scheme quite badly*

. The other Jedi go apeshit, Obi-Wan among them, driving him further into the arms of Palpatine who does his usual trick of spreading paranoia in his mind about the likes of the ever frustrating Yoda.

Through some means or another during Episode III, Palpatine has the game rigged so that the Jedi have to take the kids into hiding for their protection while Anakin is away. It's set up to look like Obi-Wan sold Anakin out to the Jedi Council and Anakin pallys up with Palpatine on the promise that he'll help him find his family.

After the war is ended and the Empire established, Anakin starts hunting down the remaining Jedi and so on. The big emotional battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan sees Anakin dropped into an acid bath or something and horrible burned hence the mechanical limbs. Realising that everything he believed in is long gone, he takes a new name (Darth Vader) and registers Anakin Skywalker among the dead Jedi. He sticks with the Empire in a futile hunt for his family but eventually gives up and becomes a jaded, cynical, hateful bastard - until he finally finds his son 19 years later, setting up the events of the original trilogy.

At least, that's my rough idea of how I'd do it.

edited 21st Feb '12 3:12:41 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Exactly! That's exactly why I prefer Phantom Menace over the original,it really does have all those problems that got glossed over. All the thing critics would've bashed it for if it was released today I hate about it anyway.

As for Qui-Gon, he is NOT an example of "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many". He is clearly an example of what the Jedi should've become but didn't because they were too damn dogmatic. Qui-Gon is simply Chaotic Good rather than Lawful Good.

Anakin is the example for that,he clearly was willing to do the right thing and help anyone like a Jedi should,so long as those he found closest weren't in danger first. The only thing that separated him from the other Jedi was that,not being able to sacrifice or stop fearing about friends.

If it wasn't Padme,it would've been Obi-Wan.

Also only Masters get to look at certain holocrons,one holocron might've had the solution to saving Padme,if he had been made a master and they didn't use him like assholes to spy on the only person who didn't constantly needle him,he would've been fine.

Makes a lot more sense if you read Matt Stover's novelization.

edited 21st Feb '12 4:35:35 PM by terlwyth

I guess I'm a fairly traditional Star Wars fan. I think the original cut of the OT was the best Star Wars media, that puppets and masks > CGI, that Hayden can't act his way out of a wet paper bag. That doesn't stop me from enjoying the entire Saga, and I dislike those who act like that is somehow wrong.

As for Qui-Gon, he is NOT an example of "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many". He is clearly an example of what the Jedi should've become but didn't because they were too damn dogmatic. Qui-Gon is simply Chaotic Good rather than Lawful Good.

That's what I was trying to say; you put it better. Qui-Gon's concerned with individuals to a greater extent than the other Jedi, and has more interpersonal compassion as opposed to the typical Jedi attitude of generalized responsibility for the galaxy. This concern for individuals is what gets him in trouble with the Jedi Council, who are more of big-picture people.

edited 21st Feb '12 5:46:44 PM by WarriorEowyn

So I'm reading Count Dooku's entry on Wookieepedia, and with all that continuity in one place you really see what a fascinating character he is, and what Magnificent Bastards he and Sidious are. I sort of do feel that he (and Christopher Lee's talent) were wasted in that first ten minutes of ROTS, but I honestly can't think of anything else he could've done.

Does anyone else think it would have been kinda interesting if in ROTS they revealed that Palpatine and Sidious actually are two different people?

Could have been a twist on Luke, I Am Your Father proportions.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

That could've been interesting, but it would probably have better chance of blowing up in their faces big time.

---

I always kinda felt like they should've kept Grevious out of the 3rd film. He just seemed like filler to me, which would've been okay if he had been as cool as we was in the cartoon they introduced him in.

edited 21st Feb '12 7:47:40 PM by NULLcHiLD27

the discrepancy between the miniseries Grievous and the film Grievous, so I've been told, can be chalked up to a miscommunication between Lucas and Tartakovsky. Lucas intended Grievous to be a Dastardly Whiplash, but when it came time for Tartakovsky to introduce him, either Lucas gave incomplete information or Tartakovsky misinterpreted the character concept somehow, and Grievous instead became The Juggernaut. The end result, of course, was that fans liked the Juggernaut portrayal better, though Tartakovsky evidently realized it was incorrect and, skilled storyteller that he is, provided an explanation for the weaker Grievous of the film: Mace turning his organs to mulch in the final episode of the miniseries. For what it's worth, Grievous is still pretty powerful in the film... just not with lightsabers (which, of course, he was in the miniseries).

Yeah, but I just think it would've made for a better action scene if Obi Wan fought the juggernaut version. Of course, that's just me.

Star Wars is unfortunately full of great characters, particularly villains, who despite strong design and often strong personality, aren't given the attention and prominence that they might have otherwise deserved.

It's not even limited to the prequels (which had the likes of Grievous and Maul alongside Dooku, either. I remember as a kid wanting to see more of characters like Biggs or Wedge and such.

Heck, the best example of this is in the OT. Boba Fett is by far the most badass character in the entire series (in my opinion), but when you think about it he and Dooku had pretty much the exact same situation in the films: introduced in the second movie of their set, does some impressive manipulation and gets off some very cool evil accomplishments but in retrospect only appears for a fraction of the movie. Then, in the next movie they only appear once in a battle only tangentially related to the main plot, in which they die with significantly less fanfare than you might expect.

Then, for both, you don't even have to go into the EU to read the stuff in the manual about them and think: "wow, this character was cool, I wish more of what they had planned behind them was actually used in the movie." And then you hit the EU and that just amplifies. There's so much content about them, and so comparatively little of that potential is actually used.

Except Boba appeared less prominently and had almost no lines compared to Dooku.

But in the end, you're right. I can't think of anything else Boba could have done - his only connection to the plot was the Jabba sideplot when you think about it. It's kind of a tragic aftereffect of the series' world building - you get so many characters developed, but in the end they don't have that development show because their story does not matter to the story of the films.

That's why we need EU, I suppose.

edited 21st Feb '12 8:24:25 PM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

I'd say Boba Fett is more comparable to Darth Maul (except I don't know how much development he has in the EU), really cool characters that don't actually get to do much in the over-arching story and you don't get to know much about them.

edited 21st Feb '12 8:31:44 PM by NULLcHiLD27

What strikes me about Dooku is that, apparently, he joined the Sith because he honestly believed they'd run the Galaxy better than the Republic; how fascinating and complex is that? He could probably make a pretty good case, too; while this is mostly confined to the EU, the Republic has some serious back spots on its record, like Supreme Chancellor Pultimo, 5000 years before the films, ordering an entire species (possibly two entire species) wiped out to appease the blood-hungry public, and for more recent history you have them looking the other way while this guy ran his planet as a Caligula. Even in the films, it can be argued that having what are essentially ten-year-old boys fight their wars for them is kind of douchey. Of course, the Sith have crossed about twenty more Moral Event Horizons than this, but...

edited 21st Feb '12 8:32:56 PM by HamburgerTime

Qui-Gon was a fairly friendly character,easily the most compassionate,he did what he had to help those in need at the moment.

Anakin is not like this,he was kind of introverted, compassionate in a far colder way,he would do what he had to to help those in the moment,unless someone closer to him was in danger.

On the Red Oni-Blue Oni Scale I'd say Anakin > Qui-Gon > Obi-Wan > The majority of the Jedi > Yoda

The main character of Shadows of the Empire, Dash Rendar (his ship, to be specific) appears in A New Hope: 1997 Special Edition (the link makes reference to it). If I remember correctly, it's somewhere during when we first see Mos Eisley.

That's something I actually think is cool about the re-edits, tossing in little references in the background.

edited 21st Feb '12 8:42:25 PM by NULLcHiLD27