The PT's central character

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.

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

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

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

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

True.

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...

But he still is not a main character.

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.

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

Bullshit. Lucas himself calls Palpatine "the main bad guy" of all six movies in the RotS documentary about General Grievous. Guess what he labels everyone else as - Vader included? 'A sidekick'. Defiance of that is more than arguing against me, Exanda, it's defying Lucas, and we all know the policy on that.

Nah, its Sidious....which is sad beacue we know sh*t about sidious beonyd the fact that "hes evil" which is more of a flaw of Lucas' storytelling abilities.

Vader is better as not the main villian, but I do agree he could have been presented better.

Originally posted by Gideon
Bullshit. Lucas himself calls Palpatine "the main bad guy" of all six movies in the RotS documentary about General Grievous. Guess what he labels everyone else as - Vader included? 'A sidekick'. Defiance of that is more than arguing against me, Exanda, it's defying Lucas, and we all know the policy on that.

This isn't a canon debate Gideon; when discussing film form and style, we are allowed our own intepretations and considering your lack of knowledge on the subject of traditional storytelling and form, you can hardly form an educated opinion.

This isn't a canon debate Gideon;

Correction: it is. You're allowed to form your own opinion as a member of the audience, but when it comes down to sheer debate, you cannot defy canon. Consider it an auto-loss.

when discussing film form and style, we are allowed our own intepretations and considering your lack of knowledge on the subject of traditional storytelling and form, you can hardly form an educated opinion.

You aren't allowed to debate interpretations that defy Lucas and his set canon; in this case you are. If you want to continue, we can get Ush here to relay canon policy to you, since you're apparently too ignorant to understand. And as far as my 'lack of knowledge', I find that rather silly, since three sources regarding "traditional storytelling and form" agree with me rather than you (a nonexpert who can barely spell beyond the capacity of a third grader).

Try not to dictate what an 'educated opinion' is, Exanda, because we could easily bring your own education into question. I'm 16 years old and I can make a better argument than you.

Woah, seems I hit a nerve. Calm down kid, it is just a forum, don't get all sonic youth on me here.

Firstly, in here we do not debate the "power levels" of fictional characters, we talk about the films, and despite George's comments, mine and others reception to the film clearly shows that he is doing a bad job of presenting Palpatine as his "main villain". Canon policy only reaches so far, take your preferred reading if you must, but an audiences reception cannot be undermined.

Second, my source, a quote from a highly succesful Screenwriter on the topic of the main character, clearly contradicts what your three English teachers define as a main character. Plus, although I am too modest to announce myself an expert, a clearly have a field of knowledge in this department, which your sources do not.

Don't take offense kid, but you clearly are making your argument on hearsay.

Woah, seems I hit a nerve. Calm down kid, it is just a forum, don't get all sonic youth on me here.

Does the fact that this is a forum permit you to slander others? Concluding that I can't form an 'educated opinion' warrants some evidence, since I - again - clearly put up a better argument than you do. Back off me and I have no trouble discussing rationally, but you have a tendancy to bait instead of debate.

Firstly, in here we do not debate the "power levels" of fictional characters, we talk about the films, and despite George's comments, mine and others reception to the film clearly shows that he is doing a bad job of presenting Palpatine as his "main villain". Canon policy only reaches so far, take your preferred reading if you must, but an audiences reception cannot be undermined.

Like I said, if you want to call Ush here, we can. The fact remains that Palpatine is the main antagonist of the series. You dictating otherwise and your (lack of) reasons for doing so border on ineptitude, since Vader was a pawn, Maul was a pawn, and Dooku was a pawn - all puppets to the guy pulling the strings: Sidious. Who dictates the entire major plot? Sidious. Who is the head of the Empire? Sidious.

Sorry, but you can speculate or postulate all night about 'Palpatine not being the main villain' but the fact remains that he is, and you rambling doesn't change that.

Second, my source, a quote from a highly succesful Screenwriter on the topic of the main character, clearly contradicts what your three English teachers define as a main character. Plus, although I am too modest to announce myself an expert, a clearly have a field of knowledge in this department, which your sources do not.

Wrong. Three certified literary specialists overrule one successful screenwriter. And we are agreed in one case: you aren't an expert, much as you like to act otherwise, and simply dictating that you have a 'field of knowledge in this department' moreso than my sources doesn't make it so.

You have a second tendancy: simply because you state something to be one way, we are to adhere to it verbatim? Welcome to the real world. Your opinion - unless supported - means shit.

Don't take offense kid, but you clearly are making your argument on hearsay.

I'm making my argument based on logic and cited sources. Two things you wholeheartedly lack.

Look kiddo, you insist on arguing with someone that in some circles would be called a specialist in independant cinema; a glossy title that means shit, so please don't slap some industrial jargon onto the title of an English teacher. Technically, I could do a 2 year course and become a Film tutor, as hideously dangerous as that sounds.

I have provided my own rational thoughts on the matter, and provided a relevant quote from a highly succesful screenwriter, director and author, also head of Film Studies at a major city university, while you have taken Lucas' words for heart, without even applying them to the subject matter.

You have not even provided a coherent quote as to date and your sources range from Librarians and people who have not even seen the original Star Wars. Not a basis for a strong argument. You've got nothing more to contribute to this thread apart from reitirations of things Lucas has thrown out over the years, so please, agree to disagree.

Lucas said Empire Strikes Back was the worst SW film the other day. Does that make it a canon fact?

I agree that Palpy is the main antagonist, because he is. But I wouldn't call him a main character. He is too minor in that sense, his effect is huge, but as a character he doesn't add much. He is like the volcano in Volcano, the storm in The World after Tomorrow or even Davey Jones from POTC.

There's much to say that has already been said.

Lucas says Star Wars is the story of Anakin, correct? Well, my response to that is that he didn't do a good job of it. Yes, we can clearly see Anakin is the main character in the piece, we almost understand his actions leading to the birth of Vader, but I just feel there is something Lucas missed along the way.

Decent characterisation?