The PT's central character

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



exanda kane
Who do you feel you see through the eyes of in the PT?

For example, the OT was Luke, Dune was Paul, Lord of the Rings has Frodo (Sam arguably) etc etc etc.

Personally, I feel a universal character is lacking. That's my opinion though. I don't think Anakin fits the role of the naive farm boy, and I don't look at the PT through his eyes. Obi-Wan could also fit the bill, but from watching the OT, I still think of him as the aged Wizard.

So I return to the question again; who do you think you see the Clone Wars through the eyes of?

vintageSW77
him
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/cylob46/e1-artoo001.jpg

Schecter
Originally posted by exanda kane
Who do you feel you see through the eyes of in the PT?

nobody....and imho thats where the PT failed. we see the story of anakin, yet there seems to be an impregnable wall of obscurity between him and the audience. you could feel for luke and empathise as well as sympathise, where as you cant for anakin.

even when luke almost turned in RotJ you could experience his rage and understand what set him off. now someone try to tell me how they could sympathise with anakin killing toddlers? or even begin to understand his pain or what motivates him?

Alliance
Anakin and Kenobi.

Just like how in the OT we saw through Luke, Han, and Leia.

But the OT was mainly luke, where the PT neglects a main protagonist. Why? People don't easily identify with children and Anakin doesn't even enter the story until midway thought TPM. Later, in ROTS, he falls and we are supposed to disagree with his viewpoint. "Sympathize time" is cut off both ends

The PT's story is not conducive to a "root for the hero plot."

However, ther are some things that could have fixed that. (my PT fixes them and creates a root for the hero plot)

JaehSkywalker
Originally posted by Schecter
nobody....and imho thats where the PT failed. we see the story of anakin, yet there seems to be an impregnable wall of obscurity between him and the audience. you could feel for luke and empathise as well as sympathise, where as you cant for anakin.

even when luke almost turned in RotJ you could experience his rage and understand what set him off. now someone try to tell me how they could sympathise with anakin killing toddlers? or even begin to understand his pain or what motivates him?

i agree with you. at first when i saw this thread i thought, i saw it through the eyes of Obi-Wan, then i realized there are some parts of the story that does not relate to him or something like that. The 'point of view' the audience saw is too scattered.

come to think of it, when i first saw Episode three, i didn't actually understand what the heck was happening to anakin. i was so focused on Ewan McGregor and that's what got me hooked on Star Wars, that or the pretty whirling lightsabers and the flying ships... i just understood it when i watched the whole prequel trilogy and the OT, and found out the OT was so much better when it comes to the story.

but, that's just IMO, my point of view.

vintageSW77
Anakin wasnt there to be identified with teens and twentysomethings or 30somethings in TPM
he was there for the kids to identify with and thats what Lucas target audience was and from the kids of my family and freinds in the summer of 99 he pulled it off
AOTC nipped the bud with that but i dunno..i guess youd have to ask the kids who were of age when TPM was released if he pulled it off in AOTC
this is when im starting to think again that these films are for "the kids" and debating them at my age is a bit like going over to the CBBC forum and critisizing Tracey Beaker
an unpopular view for sw fans

Sure the OT is the gangs flick with Luke at the forefront but the PT is as much Kenobis story as Anakins
and thats what we get
with way too much going on elsewhere

JaehSkywalker
So, you're saying it was through Obi-Wan and Anakin's eyes, with too many related trash going on around their story...

exanda kane
In many ways, Anakin is obvious meant to be a tragic hero, akin to Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet and dozens of other Shakespeare inventions. He is flawed, but whereas we do sympathise we Hamlet, with Othello etc., I don't follow Anakin's story.

I simply do not sympathise with Jake Lloyd's Anakin, but not because I can't sympathise with a child (As cringeworthy as some of the Harry Potter films were, you sympathise with him, and root for him), but because the story didn't revolve around him; he was more excess baggage, a souvenir from the trip, than anything.

In Episode 2, we should have really been able to sympathise with him. Yet I didn't. I'm not sure what part let the character down; the performance, the script, Lucas bad direction of actors, or all of them, but I didn't admire Anakin. Instead I felt he was an arrogant kid who I hoped would get his just cause. I tended to follow the story through Obi-Wan in the second prequel.

Here, well, I'm not sure. RotS was Anakins story, and I couldn't get into the story following Obi-Wan; he already had defeatist attitude in his 50s news reader voice from the first action sequence. In comparison, Anakin killings kids is hardly something that will inspire an audience, so I just watched indifferently while all these nice looking CGI sequences played out. It looked nice, but I felt detached from alot of the characters.

JaehSkywalker
I didn't understand Anakin at all no matter how i looked at it. He's just.. not inspiring and lacks reality IMO.

exanda kane
That's true. Of course, we all know he was to become Darth Vader, so perhaps it just wasn't possible to get us on his side. And not just on his side, not just the Jedi, or the Republic, but us rooting for Anakin.

But then again, it may have been easy; Lucas just lost the plot.

queeq
THe OT was seen through the eyes of R2 and 3PO... the PT? I haven't got a clue.

JaehSkywalker
The 'point of view' is too scattered...

queeq
My point exactly.

exanda kane
Originally posted by queeq
THe OT was seen through the eyes of R2 and 3PO... the PT? I haven't got a clue.

I do like the way Star Wars was like a day in the life of two droids, but I felt with Empire and Jedi that it did become Lukes story. The droids are the focus of the first half of Star Wars, and maintain a certain importance to us throughout the OT, even though the Death Stars plans become irrelevant.

But I just don't see it in the PT. They aren't necessary for the story, but seem to just be thrown into the story in obscure places, and brought along as a souvenir of a small political crisis, in a small, damp planet. You can see why Lucas wantd to include them, they are fun, iconic characters, but it all feels so, so contrived.

queeq
It was always Luke's story, but SEEN through the eyes of the droids. There is a difference.

exanda kane
Yes, but I felt the transition from Star Wars to Empire ended the way we saw the story through their eyes. Maybe it's just a personal opinion, but I like the fact that the original and first Star Wars film is like a little documentary, its like A Hard Days Nigh!t, but with two droids, and no scousers...if you can spot the resembelance.

But Empire takes the franchise (well technically it made the franchise) and just expands it up to mythic proportions, and I just didn't feel as though I was following the droids anymore.

sithsaber408
Episode I was through the eyes of the Jedi. Qui-gon and Obi-wan. It's their journey we follow, for the most part.

Episode II is more fracutred, with it being Anakin/Padme and Obi-wan's seperate journey's of discovery. One is personal, one is grandiose.

Episode III is very personal, it's the view of Anakin.

We just aren't supposed to like what we see, but we take the 2.5 hour journey to the darkside with him.

exanda kane
Originally posted by sithsaber408
We just aren't supposed to like what we see, but we take the 2.5 hour journey to the darkside with him.

I still felt emotionally detached from it. But, what can I say. It's Geroge Lucas. I can't expect Anakin to pull a Travis Bickle or anything can I?

sithsaber408
You shouldn't expect anything.

Old Jedi wisdom: An expectation is just a pre-meditated dissapointment.

Instead, just go and experience.


And take from that experience whatever you can, be it good or bad.

exanda kane
Taking something George Lucas has written to heart isn't a particuarly clever thing to do.

Anakin's fall should have been emotionally involving, and I assure, I am not emotionally devoid, so something's obviously missing from the film. Anakin's fall grave no sympathy for me, I didn't feel he fell to the dark side for any noble goal, anything justifiable. It simply showed him as a bad egg. And he finally cracked.

sithsaber408
Then you missed alot of it.

The whole point is that he wasn't a bad egg, that he was a good person who turned evil.


And that line about expectations didn't come from Lucas, it came from me. stick out tongue

Schecter
we get the point. anakin meant to do good but was lead astray yadda yadda yadda. i know it by heart in fact. however i cannot identify with anakin throughout ep3 and even ep2. i know why luke flipped out and hacked vaders hand off, i know why he looked saddly into the tattooine sunset, i know why he lost hope and jumped down the airshaft at bespin. emotions and thoughts were conveyed and we understood.

i could feel luke's emotions and empathise. with anakin its like watching everything in a rushed and half-sensical "matter of fact" kind of way, from behind a bullet-proof and emotion-proof window.

vintageSW77
i dont admit this mutch but i liked Lloyd in TPM
he was a kid playing a kid and im glad we didnt get a man boy freak hybrid like Hayley Osmet who would have been hard for average kids to identify with which Lucas was aiming for.... a little foreboding of the future would have been nice though any chance of darkness onscreen was blown by Lucas doing away with the deleted Greedo fight scene
dickhead should have kept that in- the point i realised the PT may not be as dark as i thought it was going to be...or was after the SE when Greedo shot first

there are parts of Haydens performance that are ok in my opinion but its not enough and as stated his turn to the darkside is too quick and not dramatic enough and nowhere near anything SW fans long term or new deserved ..to add further insult it also accompanies the worst acting in any movie ive seen let alone an SW flick
e.g the appalling Windu v Palpatine scene which ****ing STINKS!
but my 11 year old nephew loved it so what do i know

Schecter
i dont think its fair to blame the actors though. they can only work with what they're given.

vintageSW77
yeah i think everyone gave Lloyd too much of a hard time in 99 poor kid had a lot to live up to
weve been here before about PT performances
Lucas is notorious for his lack of respect and treatment of actors
i read that the nazis in the finale of Raiders were all tourists he spotted nearby and gave a job to because they looked german
no surprise the PT contains as many CGI characters as human

queeq
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You shouldn't expect anything.

Old Jedi wisdom: An expectation is just a pre-meditated dissapointment.

Instead, just go and experience.


And take from that experience whatever you can, be it good or bad.

Jedi - totally emotionless. Is that how we can appreciate the PT? Without emotion? Well, then it truly sucks balls.

sithsaber408
laughing out loud

Again, that line was something I came up with, it's not in starwars.


I just called it old jedi wisdom as a joke.

Understand, do you? stick out tongue

exanda kane
No, I don't,. It is shit.

queeq
laughing out loud

overlord
I probably looked through Obi Wan's eyes during the whole prequal trilogy and all his emotions were of "oh my.." and "don't be like that". Trying to place myself in Anakin would just make me feel embarrassed. He acted really really weird and unnatural during the whole trilogy. Both actors actually imo.

exanda kane
Originally posted by Schecter
we get the point. anakin meant to do good but was lead astray yadda yadda yadda. i know it by heart in fact. however i cannot identify with anakin throughout ep3 and even ep2. i know why luke flipped out and hacked vaders hand off, i know why he looked saddly into the tattooine sunset, i know why he lost hope and jumped down the airshaft at bespin. emotions and thoughts were conveyed and we understood.

i could feel luke's emotions and empathise. with anakin its like watching everything in a rushed and half-sensical "matter of fact" kind of way, from behind a bullet-proof and emotion-proof window.

Very well said.

exanda kane
Originally posted by overlord
I probably looked through Obi Wan's eyes during the whole prequal trilogy and all his emotions were of "oh my.." and "don't be like that". Trying to place myself in Anakin would just make me feel embarrassed. He acted really really weird and unnatural during the whole trilogy. Both actors actually imo.

Unnatural is certainly the key word there. Maybe it shows that actors simply can't film on blue screen.

vintageSW77
weird and unnatural is how i wanted the man who became Vader to be
he did creepy well......but i dont know if it was totaly intentional
my problems with the PT are with Lucas and ILM
Hayden did all he could and his final moments in my opinion are what i wanted to see its just a shame it was preceeded by CGI overload

although good at times particularly his Utapa scenes McGregor just ended up doing a bad Guinness impersonation

exanda kane
It's a shame. McGregor certainly looks the part of a young Obi-Wan, and has alot of talent too.

vintageSW77
yeah i remember the day i read he was cast and i had such high hopes
it was round about the time of trainspotting i think

same happened with Christopher Lee when i read on the net he was to be in AOTC

shame

exanda kane
I do enjoy Dooku's character. After they unveiled Maul my eyes rolled, but Dooku is an interesting character, but wasn't handled too well.

vintageSW77
I remember getting really exited when i saw Maul for the first time and more so the first time i heard Duel Of The Fates
I still get a buzz when i think of the build up and hype pre TPM and he was a major factor in this from his face on the figure packaging to his unvieling in the Insider
and for me he didnt dissapoint onscreen
he amongst a few other things saved that flick from being a total disaster

Dooku on the other hand was great an all but agreed he wasnt handled so well
he got the best lines in AOTC though
I love the Obi - Dooku chit chat.
Maybe we should have a thread for non Pt fans to say what they liked in the prequels as opposed to disliked.
For some theyd be short posts

exanda kane
Yes, I guess he was a major factor in the hype towards Star Wars, and yes he does look "cool". But holy bejebus, mother of christ did he look predictable, I can imagine the art production team rolling their eyes when Lucas told them what he wanted. I always felt he was more of a prop in the film, than a real character.

Dooku however has a nice little bit of charm, and Christopher Lee done his thing and we have ourselves Count Saruman, I mean Dracula. Or Dooku. It doesn't really matter, it was just Christopher Lee playing the refined gentlemen of wisdom and integrity, and it was entertaining, although if I hear Anakin say "My powers have doubled since we last met, Count" again, I might just keel over and die. What a shit piece of dialogue. I mean, really. How terrible is that line?

vintageSW77
Being part of the PT art production must have been a pain at times
All that time and effort only to get a "not this time maybe somewhere else down the line" or the bums rush

If i remember on a doc the whole art team look disapointed when Lucas picks a character over the one the art team are happy with

exanda kane
Yes, I'm sure I've seen that too. The guy must be such a pain to work with (well, for really), especially if he is as boring as "they all say". The cheek of it, destroying artistic creations with his money bags. Only redeeming feature would be that your working on a Star Wars film, regardless of if its any good or not.

I'd always hoped they'd make a nice little Star Wars crime caper/noir with Han as the central character, that'd redeem Lucas in my eyes lol

vintageSW77
well as the contents of the live action series are very vague at the mo you never know you might get it

im holding out for The Salacious Crumb episode
its an epic in waiting
thats when Lucas wil right his wrongs

exanda kane
My estimations would be that the same The Salacious Crumb would end turn out to be a lost Jedi Master who wielding 13 lightsabers etc etc etc or something really overthe top, but, oh well.

vintageSW77
well as long as he stays a muppet as opposed to CGI its fine with me

Alliance
Originally posted by exanda kane
I do enjoy Dooku's character. After they unveiled Maul my eyes rolled, but Dooku is an interesting character, but wasn't handled too well.

Maul has more depth, character, and interest than Dooku could eve hope to achieve.

Rampant ox
Originally posted by Alliance
Maul has more depth, character, and interest than Dooku could eve hope to achieve.

Oh yes, Maul with his 2 lines has much more depth and character than Dooku. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Schecter
gotta agree there....they both were pretty weak and undeveloped characters

MadMel
i see both as fairly equal, but only after i read the tpm "journal" series
it gave maul a lot more depth..

exanda kane
Originally posted by Alliance
Maul has more depth, character, and interest than Dooku could eve hope to achieve.

Jesus, your a funny guy Alliance stick out tongue

Alliance
Except I'm being serious.

exanda kane
Notice the sarcasm in my comment. I'd never write "Jesus, your a funny guy Alliance" unless I had a good reason; it sounds pathetic! (y)

Alliance
I know. You're not being serious. I am. smile

exanda kane
I know you are, but that was my attempt at showing just how preposterous your comment was; because obviously Maul was a marketing gimmick, little more than a prop, while Dooku is a real character, with motivations, goals, charm and a relevance to the story.

queeq
Dooku could have been great.

Count Makashi
Dooku is great, you mean, that he could have been even more greater.

exanda kane
No, he isn't great, just interesting for now. But he could have been so much more.

queeq
Dooku is more of a side character, he could have been great. I think AOTC finally got interesting the moment he appeared. But it was too late to save the film.
I've told this before, but I feel AOTC would have been much better if it had opened with Dooku arriving on Geonosis as Sidious' envoy (I mean, we hcan hardly see him as an apprentice, can we now?) to inspect the grand droid army and awaiting the ambassadors of the Techno Union, Banking clan etc.
Another scene a little further up the road could have been the meeting where at least this whole clever idea that was swamped in the CGI video game AOTC has become could have been positioned better, namely that Sidious used this Separatist movement to destroy all major power factions in teh universe, leaving him in sole control of everything. I'm sure most people missed that fairly ingenious plot line.
That way Dooku would always have been the major villain in AOTC plus the guy our heroes must defeat. After all, it was he who was behind the attack on Padme to smooth out the Trade Federation, prolly it was he who ordered the Clone Army and who recruited Jango.... Only then Dooku would have been great and it would have made the scene with OB1 in shackles much more in depth.

exanda kane
Yes, I feel that scene with Obi-Wan in shackles was wrongly downplayed!
The link between Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon and Dooku is one that should have been on our minds alot more; it gives us another interesting view of Qui-Gon, reinforces Dooku's claim that he is simply fighting against the corruption of the Senate.

You have to remember that Dooku is, or definetly should be, the Jedi Council's no.1 suspect as the Sith Lord, yes, we the audience know he isn't, but the Jedi never really seem that enthusiastic in finding Dooku.

Dooku was pretty much the instrument of Sidious; he hires Jango, orders the clone army, arouses the Seperatists, make deals with the Trade federation/techno union amongst other smaller plots from the EU. And to round it off, he is an elegant ex-Jedi Master with charm, intellect and apparent wisdom. Much more interesting than Maul.

vintageSW77
its interesting that my nephews and their pals who were 8 and 10 when TPM came out were dissapointed in Dooku as the Sith to take over Maul

their first words on seeing the AOTC trailer were "hes just an old man"
and that attitude stayed
thats why the kids i knew round that time on the whole disliked AOTC
and i guess thats why we got Grevious in Sith
Maul ruled for the kids

vintageSW77
im talking villains here before anyone points out Kenobis age in ANH
i wouldnt been half interested in SW when i was a kid if Tarkin had been the major villian in ANH
kids liked Maul underwritten or not
Dooku gets a couple of nice lines but hes pretty dull as villians go
his refered to past is more interesting than what we see on screen

Schecter
Originally posted by queeq
Dooku could have been great.

agreed. same for maul. perhaps even GG as well, had they made him force-capable and more than just a sneaky opportunist villain....shit even if they stayed on that road they could have still developed his character more...make us hate/dislike him so were not just sitting there emotionaless when his apparent methane blood explodes.

Count Makashi
Hey, i cared when Dooku died, i almost started to cry, but i didn't, because i am a MAN.

queeq
Originally posted by vintageSW77
its interesting that my nephews and their pals who were 8 and 10 when TPM came out were dissapointed in Dooku as the Sith to take over Maul

their first words on seeing the AOTC trailer were "hes just an old man"
and that attitude stayed
thats why the kids i knew round that time on the whole disliked AOTC
and i guess thats why we got Grevious in Sith
Maul ruled for the kids

Maul was much more THERE, right there when you see him, you know he's big trouble. Not so with Dooku, he should have been made evil. His elegance stands a bit in the way of taking him seriously as a villain. It almost seems he actually believes the universe will be better when the Sith rule, more democracy etc.

But still, Lee also played Dracula and Saruman, and I never felt these guys were 'just old men', but serious foes with dark an evil minds, people to be reckoned with.

vintageSW77
in Star Wars movies kids want a good villian
it was always Jango not Dooku who the kids were jazzed about in AOTC
but again they got short changed

Dracula is a horror icon so the rep proceeds him old man or not and i reckon Lee was about 40 when he finished doing Drac so he wasnt so old

Sauraman against Dooku is a creepy looking evil wizard with an army of ugly characters
In Dooku they just saw a posh old dude with a few nice moves

exanda kane
Then script failed Dooku as a character.

queeq
I think so... Age doesn't matter to make someone evil. You gotta fear him. I mean, the Emperor in the OT was always just an old man in a robe, but he was kinda scary in a way. He was a guy to be reckoned with, that was clear, same with Maul and Saruman.

It can be done in numerous ways, he can look scary as hell, like Maul, he can have scary allies, like Saruman, he can do something horrible or a guy who does terrible things is afraid of him, like the OT emperor. And many more. But all Dooku did was be civilised. He looked like a politcian with a light sabre. Lee made him pretty good, but there wasn't enough to go on to make him really evil.

Alliance
Originally posted by vintageSW77
in Star Wars movies kids want a good villian
it was always Jango not Dooku who the kids were jazzed about in AOTC
but again they got short changed

Dracula is a horror icon so the rep proceeds him old man or not and i reckon Lee was about 40 when he finished doing Drac so he wasnt so old

Sauraman against Dooku is a creepy looking evil wizard with an army of ugly characters
In Dooku they just saw a posh old dude with a few nice moves

Thast because Jango is an intriguing character.

Schecter
Originally posted by Count Makashi
Hey, i cared when Dooku died, i almost started to cry, but i didn't, because i am a MAN.

thats because you're a christopher lee fanboy. the guy's entire screentime could have consisted of him sitting on the toilet reading a magazine and you would cry out "BRAVO!!!!".

vintageSW77
Originally posted by Alliance
Thast because Jango is an intriguing character.

nah they just liked his two handed gun poses and fancy back pack
i reckon thats another high point of the PT
the Jango Obi chit chat at Jangos pad
i prefer it to the fight scene

queeq
Originally posted by Schecter
thats because you're a christopher lee fanboy. the guy's entire screentime could have consisted of him sitting on the toilet reading a magazine and you would cry out "BRAVO!!!!".

laughing out loud

Correctamundo!

smoker4
Originally posted by Count Makashi
Hey, i cared when Dooku died, i almost started to cry, but i didn't, because i am a MAN.

I bet you have leaked fluid for dooku in other ways though

Originally posted by Schecter
thats because you're a christopher lee fanboy. the guy's entire screentime could have consisted of him sitting on the toilet reading a magazine and you would cry out "BRAVO!!!!".

laughing

vader11
Anakin...

queeq
Anakin what?

exanda kane
I second Queeq's question.

queeq
Another apprentice.

Count Makashi
Another Innocent person that queeq will corrupt.

queeq
Victory.

Gideon
Well, in my opinion, Anakin is the undisputed main character (of the entire trilogy). When you put it all together, you realize, even in the OT, it is still Vader's story, even though he doesn't get the most screentime. In the PT, it told two stories: a.) Darth Vader's fall and b.) Palpatine's rise to power. In my opinion, Anakin is the main character with Obi-Wan and Palpatine sharing the 'secondary' roles in terms of importance. They are, ultimately, his strongest influences. I don't know how I'd explain it in a cogent manner, but Anakin and Obi-Wan's direct decisions are what moves the story, but it is Palpatine's schemes that runs the whole narrative.

queeq
Yup, it's Vader's story (now).

exanda kane
Yeah. And if it is Vader's story (now) then obviously the PT is worst than I thought it could have been; the audience feel so detached from him it makes any involvement in the story deeper than CGI battles and duels obselete.

queeq
True.

Count Makashi
Thats way we have the Dooku story and such a sad story it is. He deserved a better ending.

queeq
You know where you can stcik your Dooku?

I used to like him, but you made me dislike him.

Count Makashi
OK, ok, i will stop with DOOKU-ism(just don't hate him), if General G stops with GG-ism.

queeq
Finally...

Alliance
YAY!

queeq
Victory at last.

Count Makashi
Its not a victory, its a stalemate.

queeq
Nope, victory.

Gideon
Have you also noticed that (while Anakin is the primary character of the saga), two prequel titles and two original trilogy titles refer to both the Emperor and Luke respectively? Palpatine = "The Phantom Menace" and "The Revenge of the Sith"; Luke = "A New Hope" and "The Return of the Jedi".

It's pretty much why I think they are also the main characters, other than Anakin.

queeq
Return of the Jedi could also mean Anakin, he, after all, is the Jedi that returns.

Alliance
Or it could really be a total crock, since the "jedi" never left and the Order never really came back.

queeq
Ah yes... that too. But Lucas doesn't do in crocks, or does he? wink

exanda kane
Originally posted by Gideon
Have you also noticed that (while Anakin is the primary character of the saga), two prequel titles and two original trilogy titles refer to both the Emperor and Luke respectively? Palpatine = "The Phantom Menace" and "The Revenge of the Sith"; Luke = "A New Hope" and "The Return of the Jedi".

It's pretty much why I think they are also the main characters, other than Anakin.

That's a rather dull way of looking at the picture roll eyes (sarcastic)

queeq
Rather indeed.

Gideon
Originally posted by exanda kane
That's a rather dull way of looking at the picture roll eyes (sarcastic)

You made the thread, Exanda, looking for opinions. If you don't like what people contribute, don't ask. I apologize if I didn't live up to your standards or Queeq's.

queeq
Has nothing to do with standards. When you post an opinion, people can respond. You posted, we responded. We don't judge you on standards.

Alliance
Originally posted by Gideon
Have you also noticed that (while Anakin is the primary character of the saga), two prequel titles and two original trilogy titles refer to both the Emperor and Luke respectively? Palpatine = "The Phantom Menace" and "The Revenge of the Sith"; Luke = "A New Hope" and "The Return of the Jedi".

It's pretty much why I think they are also the main characters, other than Anakin.

WHy do you exclude the second movies?

exanda kane
Originally posted by Gideon
You made the thread, Exanda, looking for opinions. If you don't like what people contribute, don't ask. I apologize if I didn't live up to your standards or Queeq's.

I actually tried posted this to get people to discuss how flawed the PT is in the central character department, but more to the point, I was not trying to be contrescending in any way, I just felt that you had a rather superficial way of looking at things. Sorry if you felt offended.

queeq
Originally posted by Alliance
WHy do you exclude the second movies?

Because we don't want to be reminded of that one. stick out tongue

Alliance
ESB?

queeq
Well, ESB I like to be reminded of... but AOTC ... no. That makes them both second movies. One is great, the other is downright terrible.






And no, "ESB?" is not the reply to this post. wink

chewy16
no message

chewy16
I think Lucas gets way too caught up in 'The Tragedy of Anakin's' story, and his character arc, when if you watch any SW film, there are so many storylines or characters to follow.

Just take the OT story and what you can enjoy: The rebels vs empire macro story for the struggle against good vs evil. The Luke vs Vader father/son story that takes effect in ESB, and blossoms in ROTJ. Or side characters you can follow too: Han/Leia relationship, Yoda/Luke training, etc.

The PT is loaded with other story and characters to follow. You can of course follow Anakins story to becoming Darth Vader, or you can follow Palpatines arc to becoming ruler of the galaxy, or the macro story of the Empire taking power as you see the clones being produced with the payoff being Order 66. And of course you can follow ObiWans story too as he is the 'good' guy in the PT.

I think Lucas should have just said this is Star Wars, the story of good vs evil, plain & simple, and let the viewer enjoy what story they like. This is the difference between SW movies and anything else from the genre, as most movies you follow from point A to point B with one main story from beginning to end, with SW, there is so much depth to each sub-story, albeit some better written and executed then others, but it is truly epic for any SW fan.

Alliance
Is that a giant hypocrisy or did I read it wrong?

queeq
laughing out loud

Gideon
Originally posted by queeq
Has nothing to do with standards. When you post an opinion, people can respond. You posted, we responded. We don't judge you on standards.

Well, it is my 'opinion' that your 'response' was completely stupid. This thread is asking for opinions, whether you agree with mine or not doesn't matter, and I couldn't care less. Hell, if you wanna get technical, you left no explanation or elaboration about my opinion in your response as to why it was "rather indeed" dull. Or do you make a habit of responding without reason?

Aside from the fact that Luke's (OT) and Palpatine's (PT) decisions and actions are of almost equal (or arguably superior) importance to Anakin's own (he is the primary character of the saga as per the gospel of Lucas), the titles in the six sagas indicate them rather than any other character. You can make some alternate interpretations: 'Phantom Menace referring to Maul', 'RotJ referring to Anakin', 'Revenge of the Sith referring to the destruction of the Jedi', whatever, but logic seems to indicate that two of the OT and two of the PT movies refer to Luke and Sidious respectively.

Anyways, I guess I was expecting more of an elaboration from you, Queeq. I don't take offense, but rather am confused that you just say 'rather indeed' instead of explaining why my outlook is superficial or offering an alternative perspective. That's more of a critique than a contribution.

chewy16
Originally posted by Alliance
Is that a giant hypocrisy or did I read it wrong?

I think you may have taken my post the wrong way, so let me try to explain it alittle bit better.

I think Lucas tries too hard now to portray the movies as Darth Vaders story, or 'The Tragedy of Darth Vader', and I think the way he created the movies, there is much more in the movies then just that character arc he constantly tries to stress.

Is the Darth Vader character arc there for someone to enjoy for 6 movies? Yes, it is, but in the same vein, I can watch the 6 movies and watch the rise of Palpatine from Senator to Chancellor to Emperor to his death, and in the same vein watch the republic go from a peaceful democracy to a tyrannical govenment while witnessing a rebellion fight back to bring democracy to the galaxy in ROTJ. Same movies, different ways of looking at them.

You can also watch it for a father/son contrast of two trilogies that come to a head in ROTJ. What starts out as Anakins story, leads right into Lukes story, and has them finally come face to face on Cloud City, which leads to the main story of father/son in ROTJ.

So what I am saying is Lucas doesn't need to preach who the main character is, or whose story it is, because there isn't one linear story going on from Episode I to Episode VI, and to me that makes it much more interesting, cause I feel some of Lucas's story (i.e. Anakins in the Prequels) is very weak, yet I can still watch them for the macro story and the rise of Palpatine.

Now don't get me wrong, I still think SW & ESB are the class of the saga, and the OT is 10 times better then the PT, but there is a story in each movie that does tie together with the big picture Lucas was trying to say, I just think cause all the movies aren't on par as far as quality, it is very tough for any SW fan to watch them equally, and that is one of the problems now.

Gideon
Well, from my perspective, Palpatine's rise to power is the 'larger' part of the plot. Anakin's downfall isn't as important as far as influence or whatever, but it is the highlighted feature, and he is the unquestionable protagonist of the series. Anakin is the main character because the movies highlight his decisions, but his decisions aren't - until RotJ - the ones that shape the fate of the galaxy around him. Lucas said it himself: he's just a pawn.

queeq
But he makes the choice. It is about him choosing between the 'powers-that-be". Palpy doesn't change, neither does Maul. Therefor these characters are dull, because they don't develop. You can call it key storylines, but they are not. They are elements of the world our heroes live in and which influence their lives.
So if you want an elaboration on 'rather indeed', that is it. If you think they are so important you choose the dull characters because they don't change.

Gideon
Originally posted by queeq
But he makes the choice. It is about him choosing between the 'powers-that-be". Palpy doesn't change, neither does Maul. Therefor these characters are dull, because they don't develop. You can call it key storylines, but they are not. They are elements of the world our heroes live in and which influence their lives.
So if you want an elaboration on 'rather indeed', that is it. If you think they are so important you choose the dull characters because they don't change.

Comparing Maul and Sidious is ridiculous, queeq. Maul was a one-movie-character with the sole purpose of being the immediate problem to the Jedi, while elaborating upon the larger threat in the horizon. He was a walking lightsaber. He can be considered a 'dull character' since he has contributed very little to the overall story. He's a minion with a few bits of dialogue. Your assessment of Palpatine, however, makes me curious as to what you define 'dull'. Lack of development? I must assume you mean 'emotionally', in which case Palpatine can't be expected to 'develop' since he is the ultimate personification of evil in the movies. In fact, 'dull' would be one of the last words I would use to describe the character who happens to be more essential in driving the plot than any other character - Anakin and Luke included.

Hell, most movie critics hailed and praised McDiarmid's performance as Palpatine in RotS - saying he was the 'scene stealer' - moreso than the character who develops the most . I thought it was quite fun to watch the bad guy work, but hey, you've got your opinion. It's just a bit ridiculous.

exanda kane
I really do not think McDiarmid's performance, or the script in fact, took the character anywhere else than the ultimate personnification of evil, which he did, but he didn't give us a monologue rivalling Brando's in Apocalypse Now, or De Niro's crook in Heat; he does not develop the character like you say he does.

Palpatine could have been played by anyone and in all fairness, didn't even have to appear in the films at all; he's an influence on our heroes life, a symbol of evil and part of the surroundings. If he wasn't "dull", the character wouldn't be so one dimensional.

queeq
Palpy and Maul are crucial as catalisors of the story. They determine the fate of Anakin, but as characters in themselves they are not very good, despite excellent screen time. But to say SW is their story is stretching it a lot.

Alliance
Maul is a cood character. Palpy is flat.

And yes.

queeq
They're both flat... that's what they're supposed to be.

Gideon
Maul is a 'crucial catalyst' for one of the movies. Palpatine was a catalyst for the entire saga.



So... they are crucial characters, they determine the protagonist's fate, and they have "excellent screentime", but they are not 'very good characters'? Surely you recognize how funny that sounds. What exactly is a good character?



If you're referring to me, I'd advise you to go back and reread my post. In no way did I say that this was their story - especially Maul's. What I did say was that Palpatine's rise to power and maintenance of power is a recurring theme in all six movies and in terms of 'impact on the galaxy and story', yes, it is larger than Anakin. But, I never said that he was the main character or that this was his story, but rather that he is one of the main characters and definately one of the very most essential.

Exanda:



So... he's dull and undeveloped because he doesn't give great monologues? Somebody missed Return of the Jedi... If by 'developed', you mean that he doesn't have pangs of guilt, remorse, or so on and so forth , we call that a static character. Palpatine simply remaining 'evil' the whole time doesn't make him dull because he operates in an interesting way. His scenes with Anakin and the others, manipulating both sides, seducing him, and you find that dull?



Your use of 'dull', 'one-dimensional', and so forth is confounding. Tarkin, I suppose, was the same way - since he never 'developed' at all. What about Count Dooku? All of these characters (including Palpatine) were evil from their first appearance 'til their deaths, and that didn't change. They had motivations, weaknesses, strengths, skills, talents, methods, all of which were displayed in the movies, all of which that make characters. Critics hail the performances of these characters hell of a lot more than Anakin, who is again the 'developing' character] so why do you call them 'flat'?

Again, I must assume it is because they are static. They don't have an internal conflict within them like Vader.

queeq
No, they don't have development, ergo: more difficult to uidentify with.

And don't get me wrong, I love them, and especially McDiarmid's performances. But they are not 'good characters' in the sense of 'well developed characters that evolve'. And again, they shouldn't be. They are the antagonists that must be stopped, but in the case of Palpy he gets helped by the hero. The protagonist turns antagonist. Palpy causes that, but in the end his only motivation is lust for power. And in ROTJ he is still as evil as he was in TPM, he just doesn't hide it anymore.

queeq
Originally posted by Gideon
Have you also noticed that (while Anakin is the primary character of the saga), two prequel titles and two original trilogy titles refer to both the Emperor and Luke respectively? Palpatine = "The Phantom Menace" and "The Revenge of the Sith"; Luke = "A New Hope" and "The Return of the Jedi".

It's pretty much why I think they are also the main characters, other than Anakin.

And just to quote you again: you clearly said you felt the Emperor was a main character like Anakin. That is exactly what we're contending here. There is little''main-ness' in Palpatine in the sense of character development. We can't sympathise with him or ideitfy with him. So he can never be a main character. That is what we're contending here, not the validity of these characters.

Gideon
Originally posted by queeq
And just to quote you again: you clearly said you felt the Emperor was a main character like Anakin. That is exactly what we're contending here. There is little''main-ness' in Palpatine in the sense of character development. We can't sympathise with him or ideitfy with him. So he can never be a main character. That is what we're contending here, not the validity of these characters.

I said that Palpatine and Luke functioned as 'main characters', and they do. The primary characters of a movie or any work of literature are not defined by their so-called 'development'. Leia, who is a main character in the OT, makes no real dynamic change as opposed to Han and Luke. But she still gets a hefty load of screen time, second billing in the credits, and most importantly: her decisions impact the movie almost as much (and moreso) than Luke's own. That is what ultimately defines 'a main character'. How important they are to the plot and the storyline.

In that respect, Palpatine is very much so a primary character. His decisions and actions have as much of an effect on the plot as either Anakin or Luke, and the story of him and his rise to power is prevalent in all six movies, making it one of - if not the - only constant in both trilogies.

Declaring him not a main character based on the illusion that he 'doesn't develop' seems to reflect a poor understanding of just what a main character or a primary character is, queeq.

You took my opinion out of context and said that I claimed that Star Wars was 'Palpatine's story'. It's not, and I've never said that. This is 100% Anakin's story, but it is heavily influenced by Palpatine and Palpatine's own little path to power is actually the more important of the two, and the one that has the deeper impact on the lives of the other characters.

As the undisputed antagonist and main villain of both sagas, Palpatine is a primary character, and definately one of the most important ones. To say otherwise is baseless and unsupported.

S_W_LeGenD
I feel that Anakin is the central character of PT. Sine he is The Chosen One, PT greatly focuses on his life and his conversion to Darth Vader.

queeq
He is. In the OT Luke, Han and Leia are the amin characters. They do develop. Sorry Gideon, but your concept of what 'main characters' are, is flawed. Simply due to the fact that we can sympathise with main characters. We can't do that with Palpy.
We can with Leia: she loses everything - position in the Senate, her family, her home planet, she see her rebels get crushed on Hoth, she falls in love, she finds out Luke is her brother, she finds new depths inside herself (Luke calling her), she turns warrior again on Endor. I think there's plenty of development there. There is none with Palpy. He is NOT NOT NOT a main character. he is the anatagonist.

Count Makashi
So what if he is the antagonist, just because he never develops, doesn't mean he isn't one of the main characters, he is just evil, so what if he has no remorse, mercy..., he still influenced the plot inside SW(i would say the most), by your reasoning Indiana Jones(and many other heroes) is not the main character of his movie, because he never develops either, he is always good, he always does the right thing, but i agree that Anakin is THE central character.
No offence meant.

Gideon
No, queeq, it is you who are mistaken. About a great many things (I had to throw that in there, it was so appropriate, lol). My definition of a main character is the correct one: the main character is the character with a primary role. To quote Wikipedia: (though I am aware that any Joe Blow can edit it, who would really want to misinform this sort've thing?) "A protagonist is the main figure of a piece of literature or drama and has the main part or role. Alternatively, the phrase denotes a primary advocate of or proponent for a cause or movement. The main character can be a hero or a villain in a story - it is just the character with the lead role."

It goes on to say: "The Main Character is often faced with a "foil", a character known as the antagonist who most represents obstacles that the protagonist must overcome. As with protagonists, there may be more than one antagonist in a story."

I also took the liberty of double-checking, and I asked my English teacher today at school, who in turn double-checked with our librarian, who finally phoned a friend at WKU (our university) who teaches English and Dramatic Arts. All three sources returned with the same conclusion: the main character is simply the one with the primary role. The villain of the piece is given the title of antagonist, which - in turn - can also be considered a primary role.



Basing what/who is a main character off of sympathy and empathy is just silly. It's not an essential part of all characters, not even the main ones. Main characters are the characters with the foremost roles in the piece of literature in question. Since Palpatine unquestionably meets the criteria, he is a main character.



And you accuse me of having a flawed concept of a main character? Vader was a villain and an antagonist in the OT (not even Lucas disputes this, now), and are we to presume that he is NOT NOT NOT a main character (even though Lucas has also stated that this is his story?)? Something tells me that you're not exactly a literary buff. In which case, allow me to be the first to inform you that the antagonist can (and this is true in most cases) be a main character. Palpatine is one of the leading roles in the movies, his decisions are of equal or superior importance to Anakin's, and he has a story that is also prevalent in all six movies.

exanda kane
Gideon, as Queeq has said, your concept of a main character is flawed. No offence intended of course, but to say that a main character is the character who's decisions impact the movie most is a superficial and simplistic analogy. We aren't talking literature or ficitonal prose here, we are talking about a film, and a character in a piece of literature can be very different from that of a film.

We simply do not see the events of SW from Palpatines perspective, we don't gain sympathy for him, his motivations and goals are far too cliche and abnormal for any normal viewer to relate to. Judging by the cinematography, Lucas did not intend for us to dig deeper into Sidious character, we get no shots sympathising with him, and whenever we see him, he acts as the main protagonist of the piece, which he is, the ultimate representation of evil in the saga.

If he were a truly interesting character, instead of a flat archetype, he would have his own retrospective feelings, his own agenda, yet he doesn't have those. The agenda is not his, it is the agenda of the Sith legacy and simply because he follows his religion unquestionably does not make him an interesting character. Manipulative and capable are not character development, they are character traits.

The topic of this post was to discuss the flaws of the PT and its central character - the character we sympathise with. This should be Anakin, Lucas has told us this is supposed to be Anakin, but with his poor execution having gone soft with his techniques after 20 years of slacking, it didn't work. Palpatine has a major role in the saga, yet for the majority of the saga he is simply in the shadows.

exanda kane
Originally posted by Gideon
No, queeq, it is you who are mistaken. About a great many things (I had to throw that in there, it was so appropriate, lol). My definition of a main character is the correct one: the main character is the character with a primary role. To quote Wikipedia: (though I am aware that any Joe Blow can edit it, who would really want to misinform this sort've thing?) "A protagonist is the main figure of a piece of literature or drama and has the main part or role. Alternatively, the phrase denotes a primary advocate of or proponent for a cause or movement. The main character can be a hero or a villain in a story - it is just the character with the lead role."



Notice the use of terms here. We have "The main character" quoted, yet you use the term "A main character". Notice the lead role, not a lead role.

Gideon
That's funny, because certified teachers who, y'know, actually teach these subjects seem to disagree with that assessment.



No offence taken. We're simply expressing our differing opinions, and if it does start to get too heated, I've already resolved to agree to disagree.

Anyways, to say that 'a main character is only a character with which we must sympathize or empathize with is rather ridiculous. In fact, if you'd like to look up the phrase 'main character' verbatim, you'll arrive with the same direct response: a main character is the character with the main role. Palpatine is a major character in Star Wars. Thus, he is a main character.



Protagonist? You mean antagonist, correct? But 'sympathizing' with him is irrelevant. That does not define a main character.



He doesn't need to develop. He was meant to be a static character, without any irrevocable change. The definition if irredeemable. Development does not define a main character by definition, it is simply the character with a primary role.

As for Palpatine not being interesting, you are welcome to your opinion, but don't pass it off as fact, since the vast majority of fans and movie critics seem to strongly disagree.



The central character is not, by definition, the one we must empathize with. Lucas said that this is Anakin's story. For that to be the case, he is automatically the ultimate protagonist and the main character. Palpatine is a major role, meaning he is a main character.

Gideon
Originally posted by exanda kane
Notice the use of terms here. We have "The main character" quoted, yet you use the term "A main character". Notice the lead role, not a lead role.

Semantics. Pieces of literature, movies, and poems often times have more than one main character. Tom & Jerry, who's the main character? Thelma and Louise, who's the main character? Jay & Silent Bob, who's the main character? The list goes on and on and on. In many sources of entertainment, there are characters who share the title of protagonist, and are equal in terms of importance.

Anakin is the main character, he is the protagonist. But Palpatine, the antagonist (which can also be a main character) also functions as one of the main characters.

queeq
Thsi debate really sucks. Try to keep your comments a bit more concise. I KNOW storytelling, trust me, I do this fora living. Your quotes from Wikipedia confirm that Anakin and Luke are clearly main characters. Palpy is not. There is no 'foil', no lead. Lucas himself says it's about the Skywalkers, they are the main characters. You make it overtly complex and even a bit stupid.

Vader only became a main character due to the PT. Based solely on the OT, Luke is the main character. Now the Skywalker family is. Still, no Palpy there.

Gideon
Quite the contrary. I think it's an interesting one.



I'll do my absolute best.



And three certified educators who teach the subject for a living consider a 'main character' to be that with a lead role; which Palpatine, unfortunately, has.



Didn't you say that you did this for a living? Your arguments don't reflect such a claim; "there is no 'foil', no lead". You just said that 'Anakin and Luke are clearly the main characters'. They are the leads. Palpatine is among their number, because the saga also tells his story, which is actually the largest one. And Lucas says that this is primarily Anakin's story. Luke is a major character who proves to be a catalyst, as is Palpatine. Ever wonder why it was the three of them in those final scenes in RotJ? Ever wonder why Palpatine was included?

Really. And you deem my argument stupid.



Sadly, you're incorrect. Palpatine is A main character. Did I say 'the'? No. I think I've reiterated it multiple times: Anakin is the protagonist. The saga is ultimately his story (even though it does tell other ones). Lucas confirmed it. But Sidious is among their number. He is a lead role, which makes him a main character.

Gideon
That said, we can always agree to disagree. But I am willing to debate this further.

exanda kane
Antagonist, yes my hasty mistake.

However, simply clinging onto your argument by a simple definition is a slippery grapple on the discussion indeed. A definition is not an absolute here, and we are talking about a film here, a very succesful one at that, but simply a film. It does not have the depth of a book, the sophistication and tightly spun layers carefully interwoven to maintain suspense, arouse curiosity and further the narrative.

We rely on a script, and to bring that script to life we need a performer and to capture that performace we need the technological wizardry of ILM, a camera and some over-educated college geek who listens to Radiohead too much (if thats a bad thing) editing the thing.

The script does not allow the character to work with much. Sidious is the ultimate representation of evil. He is one of many catalysts for Anakins fall, yet he fulfill a role in much the same manner as the witches of Macbeth do. They tempt the main character in much the same way Palpatine does. His character is fleshed out certainly, depsite some of the worst on screen dialogue of the noughties, yet he is little more than a tease for our main characters fall into chaos.

Ian McDiarmid certainly has a nack for playing the sly old man, and does well with the material he is given, he steals the scenes from a passive Christiensen, even if Lucas allows him to go way over the top with his croaking voice effects, yet still he is a very flat uninteresting character (do not confuse the character with sith order). Like the script, the performance is that of the main antagonist, yet little more.

As for the cinematic language, little to nothing could possibly place Palpatine as the main character. The main antagonist perhaps, but I think you can realise that the events of the latter prequels follow the formula and tradition of a Shakespearean tragedy; most is left to chance, not the antagonist. More interestingly, Yoda and Sidious are often pitched facing each other, representing their respective factions and binary oppositions; good versus evil, jedi versus sith, dark versus light. However, more precisely they represent the struggle between the galaxy at large.

In the original trilogy, the Emporer is a sideline villain, and only upon heavy viewing and Vader's betrayal/redemption become expected does he step into his own. And while stepping into his own, he does relatively little. He is not the main villain of Return of the Jedi, that is still Vader, taking any EU or PT conceptions aside.

The reaction shots of Sidious in RotJ give us nothing interesting to take on his character, nothing human to relate to, and believe me when I say this, it is very important in a film that we connect with out main character, and I simply cannot stress that enough.

An audience must develop a connection to the protagonist, antagonist or anti hero of the piece, as an everyman figure or someone of morals. This is the key of mainstream cinema, and I'll tell you now, Star Wars is nothing but mainstream, Hollywood cinema.

We can relate to Old Ben or young Ben in TPM, we are told to (this in my opinion was a failing of the PT) connect to Anakin as he is the ultimate protagonist and Luke. There are the foundation of our connection to this film. In TPM, when Qui-Gon is cut down, we root for Obi-Wan, in AotC, we root for Anakin to save Obi-Wan from Dooku and in the OT, we root for Luke to save the galaxy. You don't relate to Sidious unless your some kind of malign sadist.

I argue semantics yes, but certainly neccesarily. Palpatine is part of a large ensemble, a very large ensemble cast. People might include Padme as a main character, she certainly motivates the main protagonist, Obi-Wan could be considered a main character, given his screentime, but his character was poorly dealt with indeed, left hanging in ignorance for most of the film.

We could say Mace was a main character, yet I speculate many would support this purely because the git carries an amythest lightsaber sporting a BMF plate. Dooku, perhaps is a "main character" in the film. Even with his tiny amount of screentime, still many would say he was. We could also say that Yoda is a main character, for indeed, is he not the ultimate representation of good within the film? Much as the same way Palpatine is as the ultimate representation of evil.

I have the cheek to say that Palpatine is an important, alas not a main character, in the Star Wars movie saga. Why? Because the majority of the saga deals with the story of Anakin. His fall and his redemption. Both his fall and subsequent "return" were orchestrated partly by others, but mostly by chance, circumstance and yes, it feels like the reference is neccesary; the force.

Palpatine was invovled yes, but I believe your giving him far too much credit amidst a story full of badly timed events and dramatic circumstance. Even by definition, Palpatine, in a tragedy, is not a main character, but a background party following an agenda set in his own destiny. Outside of a definition, where it really matters, in the films, Palpatine is even less of the main character.

Keep to the EU books.

Gideon
I understand. We're all human, after all.



Interesting, since you and Queeq cling to the notion that: "in order for someone to be 'the main character', we must sympathize or empathize with them" seems very vague and very unreliable. No one else I know defines a main character in a similar fashion.



All of the characters (for the most part) were brought to life.



I'd consider Palpatine more of an Iago than the witch sisters, personally. Palpatine is the primary catalyst (one could argue the 'only' one) of Anakin's fall, the destruction of the Jedi, the formation of the Empire, and the downfall of the Republic. In this regard, without him, the story would not run.



You'd have a point if your definition of 'the main character' is the correct one. It isn't. Palpatine is a leading and major role (which you've acknowledged) which, by definition, makes him a main character.



This is where you are being obtuse. I never said that Palpatine was the main character. I've repeated that multiple times, and if you'd like to argue my point, do so correctly. I said that Palpatine was the antagonist and a main character. Since, by literary definition, an antagonist can function as a main character if he or she is featured often and has a major impact on the story. Palpatine is both.



This is where you are thoroughly wrong. On the RotS DVD on the documentary about General Grievous, Lucas says this: "In all six movies, there's a main villain, which is the Emperor" and then he goes on to list the sidekicks. Vader is the sideline villain.



You stress something fallacious. A main character isn't someone that we have to empathize or sympathize with.



Palpatine is the antagonist who functions as a main character. The protagonist is the principal character. In this case: Anakin.



Once again, you'd have a point if only your definition were correct. It isn't.



This is irrelevant.



Dooku and Mace were secondary roles. They, ultimately, were not as essential to the plot or storyline. One was a minion, a pawn, and the other was a hard-ass, but a pawn nonetheless. I'd consider Anakin, Obi-Wan, Palpatine, Padme, and Yoda to be the 'main characters' of the PT.



No. Anakin's fall was orchestrated primarily by Palpatine, with the assistance of the sheer fact that Anakin is a naive fool. His redemption was 'orchestrated' by Luke, who planned to redeem him, with the assistance of love.



Actually, by definition, Palpatine functions both as catalyst, antagonist, and main character. I'm not certain that you know what you're talking about in this case. Crediting him as a background character and saying he's 'involved' really does belittle his role.



It seems I can argue both rather well.

exanda kane
Originally posted by Gideon
It seems I can argue both rather well.

You can certainly argue. However, I must tell you that the definition by which you are basing all of your statements on, does not encompass the medium of cinema. This is where I think your loosing the plot a little.

In fact the "main character" for lack of a better which might release your from this false notion in a film is the character we sympathise we most. As I have already said, I simply cannot stress this anymore than I already have done.

If you understood more about cinema, I would expect you to understand this; as you seem to firmly stay in the realm of literature and ignorant intepretation of film language, I can only hope to direct you to a bookstore.

On the point of Anakins fall, there are many catalysts involed, and if you believe this just to be the work of Sidious, then you are simply disregarding a large of the prequel trilogy. Just to dabble in that paint box we have Anakin's vision Padme dying in childbirth (the main catalyst for Anakin's betrayal).

This being the main catalyst for his betrayal is debatable, I'll take you up on that if you are willing, but I simply think of his vision as the cause and Palpatine's offer as the effect. I believe, as well as has been stated by various sources, that Anakin would not have betrayed Mace if he had not had the vision of Padme dying. I believe the real catalyst was the dream, and Palpatine simply made an offer that in the end, Anakin could not refuse.

We also have Anakin mistrusted by Mace and the Jedi Council at large, we have Obi-Wan chosen ahead of Anakin to hunt down Greivous and we have Anakin being withheld the title of Jedi Master. All of these factors are mostly devoid of blame on the behalf of the Jedi, yet rest more firmly on the shoulders of Chance.

Once again, I will say I believe Sidious' part in the story of Anakin to be the main antagonist, yet it simply is not a story of good versus evil. Anakin's story is a path of darkness and then redepemtion. I believe Sidious is the main antagonist of the saga, but not a main character. Sidious is the representation of a choice Anakin must make. The inconvinient circumstance so prevailent in a tragedy makes this choice for Anakin, so much so that he believes hthat in the end, he does not really have a choice at all. Palpatines background noise on the story of Anakin.

Once again I reiterate for you, in cinema, the main character is the one you sympathise with. Luke Skywalker, Micheal Corleone, Rick Dekkard, Chief Brodey, William Costigan, Henry Hill, Bruce Wayne and Travis Bickle; you sympathise with them all in different measures. That is Hollywood cinema, take it or leave it.

Gideon
Ah, I see. Well, then you'll have no problem, doing me a favor and citing sources (as I have) to which you can prove this point, that Hollywood cinema's definition of a "main character" is fundamentally different to that of a literary character.



This is the hard part for you: you'll have to prove that.



Haven't you learned anything yet? Don't assume. Since cinemas are essentially 'visual storytelling' (as it has been called), the same rules must apply, unless you can prove that cinematic main characters are different from literary ones. Simply telling me that they're different doesn't function as proof itself. Are you an expert on cinema?



Here's the problem(s):

a.) I didn't say that it was "just" the work of Sidious. You have this habit of putting words in my mouth and assuming. Is this the only way you can strive to make a point?

b.) If that's your dabbling in 'the paint box', you're better off with another profession entirely. Anakin's vision of Padme's death was not the catalyst that resulted in Anakin's betrayal to the dark side. To say so is pure stupidity; rather, it was the belief that he could save her through means of the dark side. Which, as we all know, Palpatine was responsible for. Anakin just didn't say: "Padme's dying, guess I better go kill some kids!"



You're welcome to think that. And it most certainly is debateable. The only reason that Anakin agreed to serve Palpatine was because he was led to believe that use of the dark side could save her, and since Palpatine was responsible for that, he is the catalyst. Without him, it wouldn't have happened.



Again, this is not the case, Exanda, because Palpatine's manipulation of Anakin didn't just lead him to the dark side. It was the thing that put the 'dark side' on the table as an option.



Anakin was mistrusted by the Jedi because of his instability and massive ego and - most importantly - the fact that the Chancellor influenced him so strongly.



Which was part of the Council trying to flex their still-active muscle. If you recall, Anakin told the Council that Palpatine suggested that he go, but Mace growled that they would make the decision, not the Chancellor.



Which was, for the final time, the Council attempting to show that even with Palpatine's increasing power, they still had degree of autonomy.



Sorry, but no. Not chance, but moreso meticulous planning by a master manipulator. Hell, if you want to get technical, it's confirmed canon that Palpatine intentionally brought Padme and Anakin back together during AotC for the sole purpose of the two falling in love.



Anakin's story is, yes, about temptation (Sidious) and redemption (Luke). Lucas has said that he was "redeemed through his son", making Luke the catalyst for his redemption, and the PT showed quite clearly that Palpatine was the catalyst for his temptation. Once again, the fact is made all the more clear that Palpatine is present with Luke and Anakin during the big confrontation in RotJ.



That's a laughable interpretation at best. Palpatine was the primary catalyst for Anakin's fall.



Once again, I reiterate for you that you either need to prove it or simply agree to disagree. You stating that: "we must sympathize with the main character!" without citing sources or proof of any kind puts you at the logical disadvantage here.



You have to prove it: take it or leave it.

Gideon
With that said, I've gotta go. Believe it or not (and since you don't know me too well, I can understand), I do have a social life, and it beckons. I seriously don't mean any offence or ill-thoughts towards you, and even though I'm an aggressive debater, I try to be civilized.

Use this time to grab me some sources and when I get the chance, I'll get you your rebuttle. Or you don't have to, and we can agree to disagree. Always remember: that offer is on the table.

queeq
I am not gonna read all that...

Put your claim to your three teachers and tell me in four lines what they said. Palpatine a main character... pffffffffttt...

exanda kane
Gideon, having studied Film for nigh on 7 years now (currently doing a Masters in Screenwriting), I think I'll pass on having to search for a source to explain one of the most important parts of storytelling.

Viwe the Anakin situation this way, the Jedi Order representing the path of light, Sidious' proposition representing the path of darkness, two options for little Anakin then. Mace set Anakin his own little proposition too, he would gain his trust if he waited in the Council chambers. His vision simply tipped the balance in the favour of Sidious. It was the catalyst in his decision.

Gideon
You don't have to. Just don't expect me to adhere to your opinion unless you can actually prove it.



I asked my English teacher as to whether or not a villain could be considered a main character. She said "Oh, absolutely. Nine times out of ten, they are" and began to cite Hannibal Lector, Freddie Krueger, and finally, she mentioned the Emperor. But to be sure, she asked our librarian, and he said the same thing. We ended up in a discussion about Star Wars, and I elaborated on the topic, and he said that he would telephone a Dramatic Arts professor at WKU, who happened to be a friend of his. All came back with the same consensus: a villain can easily be a main character, a main character isn't necessarily someone that we must sympathize or empathize with, and the librarian and my English teacher agreed that Palpatine was a main character in Star Wars (ironically, the professor hasn't seen anything but A New Hope).



That's nice. I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I bring sources to the table to support my claims, you reiterate your opinion. It doesn't even up, so, once again, don't expect me - or anyone else - to take it seriously. If my view is flawed, you must prove otherwise. You can't, so we can just end the discussion.



No, I'm afraid that's not the case. Palpatine had been manipulating Anakin for years, grooming him to become his Sith apprentice. Disregarding that, like you have, is simply foolish. Palpatine was the catalyst for the whole affair. Anakin's vision didn't equate to "the dark side" like you said, but rather it was Palpatine's lies regarding Plagueis and the ability to prevent death by use of the dark side. It's plainly obvious. The vision isn't the catalyst for Anakin's fall. Sorry.

.:Space Opera:.
Im trying to understand why you are considering the PT worth studying. The story is horrible, and the reason you guys are debating is because it is so badly written that it leaves too many questions to answer effectively. The OT on the other hand is worth studying, but George failed to follow any conventions when writing the story for the OT.

exanda kane
Originally posted by Gideon
That's nice. I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I bring sources to the table to support my claims, you reiterate your opinion. It doesn't even up, so, once again, don't expect me - or anyone else - to take it seriously. If my view is flawed, you must prove otherwise. You can't, so we can just end the discussion.


Your view is flawed.

"A main character is the fundamental tool used to engage the audience emotionally with the story. Or, in my handy definition, the driver's seat of the plot. But why the driver's seat, and not simply the driver? To remind us that the main character is where the viewer sits. More than anything else, the main character provides the story's moral point of view, its centre of good. From this folws its sense of necessuty of emotional consequence. Once we see the main characters heart, we understand why he or she is doing what they are."

Amnon Buchbinder - The Way of the Screenwriter. I dug this old book as most of the material I plow through nowadays deal in really abstract terms that would simply be a waste of time explaining. When I spent a year in Canada studying, I met this writer and he certainly knows what he is talking about.

queeq
Gideon, you need to change your teachers. They suck.

exanda kane
Originally posted by Gideon
I asked my English teacher as to whether or not a villain could be considered a main character. She said "Oh, absolutely. Nine times out of ten, they are" and began to cite Hannibal Lector, Freddie Krueger, and finally, she mentioned the Emperor. All came back with the same consensus: a villain can easily be a main character, a main character isn't necessarily someone that we must sympathize or empathize with, and the librarian and my English teacher agreed that Palpatine was a main character in Star Wars (ironically, the professor hasn't seen anything but A New Hope).


No one detested here that a villain cannot be a main character, I can give you many examples of this if you wish. Yet the prequels follow the path of a traditional tragedy and although there is antagonism in the piece, obstacles and hinderances you might say, which lead to our main characters demise; there is no main antagonist. Acts of fate and chance are the obstacles traditionally, along with a character flaw that all culminate in the fall.

But the way you describe Palpatine, it seems you intepret the PT as a good vs. evil story, which fair enough, could be the result of shallow analysis, but I assure you, and as several Lucas statements concur, it is a tragedy.

If you fall back to asking English tutors and teachers, as versed as they well may be in forms of literature, they evidently don't have the expertise in cinema and its idealogies.

queeq
Or in SW for that matter. Palpy is as much a main character as Jabba the Hutt.

exanda kane
Hutt gangsters are more interesting than cliche Sith Lords blindly following there religion any day.

queeq
There are may interesting characters in SW, they're just not all main characters.

exanda kane
Exactly. That's one of the greatest hooks of the franchise, both the OT and the PT have an amazing ensemble of interesting characters.

queeq
True.

Captain REX
When combining PT and OT, saying that Palpatine is a main player isn't hard to understand. With the OT alone, it might be understandable to let that title of 'Main Villain' fall on Vader, but then we start to see that Vader's acting under the Emperor and is actually torn apart by his indecision over his son and so on...

queeq
But he still is not a main character.

exanda kane
The OT is a good versus evil scenario, Luke is the young whipper snapper with a destiny, Obi-Wan is his gandalf and Vader is the bastion of evil. In comparison the PT is a tragedy with no main antagonist, following the story of Anakin becoming Vader.

Sidious is in the background, but Vader is would fit the description better of a main player better.

Count Makashi
Sidious is clearly main antagonist, he orchestrated everything, all the important things that happened, happened because of his plan.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>