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.
Sorry Gideon, but your concept of what 'main characters' are, is flawed.
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.
Simply due to the fact that we can sympathise with main characters. We can't do that with Palpy.
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.
There is none with Palpy. He is NOT NOT NOT a main character. he is the anatagonist.
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.
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.
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 [B]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, as Queeq has said, your concept of a main character is flawed.
That's funny, because certified teachers who, y'know, actually teach these subjects seem to disagree with that assessment.
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.
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.
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.
Protagonist? You mean antagonist, correct? But 'sympathizing' with him is irrelevant. That does not define a main character.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Thsi debate really sucks.
Quite the contrary. I think it's an interesting one.
Try to keep your comments a bit more concise.
I'll do my absolute best.
I KNOW storytelling, trust me, I do this fora living.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Antagonist, yes my hasty mistake.
I understand. We're all human, after all.
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.
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.
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.
All of the characters (for the most part) were brought to life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You stress something fallacious. A main character isn't someone that we have to empathize or sympathize with.
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.
Palpatine is the antagonist who functions as a main character. The protagonist is the principal character. In this case: Anakin.
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.
Once again, you'd have a point if only your definition were correct. It isn't.
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.
This is irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Keep to the EU books.
It seems I can argue both rather well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the hard part for you: you'll have to prove that.
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.
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?
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).
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
We also have Anakin mistrusted by Mace and the Jedi Council at large,
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.
we have Obi-Wan chosen ahead of Anakin to hunt down Greivous
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.
and we have Anakin being withheld the title of Jedi Master.
Which was, for the final time, the Council attempting to show that even with Palpatine's increasing power, they still had degree of autonomy.
All of these factors are mostly devoid of blame on the behalf of the Jedi, yet rest more firmly on the shoulders of Chance.
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.
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.
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.
Palpatines background noise on the story of Anakin.
That's a laughable interpretation at best. Palpatine was the primary catalyst for Anakin's fall.
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.
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.
That is Hollywood cinema, take it or leave it.
You have to prove it: take it or leave it.
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.
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.
I am not gonna read all that...
You don't have to. Just don't expect me to adhere to your opinion unless you can actually prove it.
Put your claim to your three teachers and tell me in four lines what they said. Palpatine a main character... pffffffffttt...
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.