New on the Live-Action Star Wars Show

I don't do EU. I watch Clone Wars. I've read the RC novels and played a good number of video games. I've skimmed a few comics. I dont really know EU.

All I've done in this thread is provide examples form the movies: dialogue, character reactions, plot points. I never once mentions EU sources on Han, Lando, etc. I dont KNOW any.

As far as I'm concerned, the movies are the holy grail of star wars. Nothin supercedes them. Thats what I use in my arguements.

I dont give a damn about Lucas. If his philosohy and opinons were so airtight, nothign in the films would contradict him. The FILMS are the grail, not Lucas. I appreciate his intentions as an artist. He failed to depict some of his goals.

You claim my argumetns are not "decent" because there are pieces of evidence that condradict them, yet you claim yours are fact, despite how many pieces of evidence I bring up to the contrary. That is a double standard.

You don't bring up any evidence. You say it's about grey areas. If tehre's one thing about SW: there are no grey areas. There is a transition with one character (i.e. Anakin about whom the whole saga evolves) and that kinda repeats itself with his son (the main character of the OT). In similar circumstances they take a different route. That's about it... all the other characters (good (i.e. all (soon to be) rebels are good, all imperials are bad) are in a way colourful contributors to this one story.

Maybe you should re-read this post:

Originally posted by Ordo
No, the plot of the films is about discovering that they are good guys.

We know Lucas determines your goodness based on your actions. This is the entire premise of the vader story and redemption.

Both Han and Lando made some bad decisions. When we first meet them, we don’t know how to interpret their characters. Han just wants to swindle Skywalker and kenobi out of money, he's involved with shady characters, kills at his convenience, and is incredibly self serving. He doesn't believe in the force, outright dismissing it. Even look at his quotes! "What good is a reward if you ain't around to use it?" "Better her than me" etc etc.

He is not portrayed as a good guy until the end of the Film. He's "on the rebels side" but that doesn't make him a good guy, as Lucas clearly intended to show. Like Vader, he isn't a good guy until he redeems himself from his actions by coming back to aid in the destruction of the death star. From that point on, you he's loyalties and intentions are never doubted in the film. You trust him. You don’t before.

Lando is the same way, with Leia even giving voice to the audiences suspicion "I don't trust Lando!" You trust good guys and your friends, which Han points out he is, but Lando never reaches a friendship with the audience until he makes sacrifices for the characters we are attached too.

This is called character development; our perception of people changes over time. Yes, they both end up being good guys, but they are not immediately portrayed that way.

You dont even read what I say and you religiously misconstrue my positions. I try my damndest not to do this to you. Please stop doing it to me.

Its not "about grey areas." GREY AREAS EXIST FOR THESE TWO CHARACTERS AT ONE POINT (EACH) IN THE SAGA.

Can I make my position more clear or would you like to continuously recite your ideology?

Well, if you knew something about storytelling and screenplay writing principles, you'd know your analysis doesn't work. It has nothing to do with grey areas but with character development - which I called coming to grips with their goodness.
Who is good and who is a baddie... there is no doubt of that anywhere in these films. The fact that they do one or two questionable thing along the road, doesn't demote their goodness or badness.

Needa seems like a reasonable chap, but he is a baddie, an Imperial baddie.

Just because you may like to bark for fun, that doesn't make you a creature in the grey area between dog and human. You're still human, doing a doglike thing.

There is doubt. We, like the characters in the films (namely Luke and Leia), express our doubts.

Needa may be resonable. He seems smart. But smart people can be evil. Its not his characteristics that matter, its his actions do. Needa never does anything (nor does any other Imperial) that makes us question whose side they are on. They are portrayed as bad. No protagonist, the audience, ever sympathises with any of them.

As to your misguided analogy, barking like a dog isn't like selling out your friends. Also along your lines: Is Vader spending 3.5 films just comming to terms with his goodness?

Lando paid the price, abandoned his fortune to redeem himself. In the end he was always a good guy who made a mistake.

There're only two protagonists in the entire saga: Anakin and Luke. Anakin even serves as antagonist in the OT.

Unfortunately, as far as canon is concerned, whether Lucas failed to portray his goals in the films, he is still on the level with the films as the 'holy grail' of Star Wars.

Meaning?

Originally posted by queeq
Lando paid the price, abandoned his fortune to redeem himself. In the end he was always a good guy who made a mistake.

Lando bore a burden, fought for the right things, and became a better person for it. An ambiguous character became a good guy.

And you haven't answered my question. Is Vader just "a good guy who made a mistake"?

Originally posted by queeq
There're only two protagonists in the entire saga: Anakin and Luke. Anakin even serves as antagonist in the OT.

Two? Seriously...

Such ridiculous statements make this discussion very unrewarding.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Unfortunately, as far as canon is concerned, whether Lucas failed to portray his goals in the films, he is still on the level with the films as the 'holy grail' of Star Wars.

But when contradiction arises, which takes precedence?

And yes it is unfortunate.

About that antagonist thing: it's GL himself that said that once: it's the story of Anakin. Luke just scooped up a lot of attention in the OT but that too was actually a story about Anakin.

Leai Han and Lando are supporting characters. The story is and always will be about the Skywalker family. And it was Luke's story before the PT came out. As it stands now, Anakin is the main character, but he sure is not the protagonist of the OT. It gets a little muddled with the PT, since we have to consider it one story. And then it's Anakin as the main hero, putting people like Han, Leia and Lando as even more obscure side characters since they never really play a part in vader's life: they don't influence his life.

But as the OT was structured it follows closely the ideas of A Hero with a 1000 Faces.... and in the OT the hero was Luke and Vader his antagonist.

Well you need to keep your theories straight.

You are perfectly welcome to dismiss Lucas as retroactively forcing his own delusional ideas on the saga. Alternatively, you can adopt Rex's position that "he [Lucas] is still on the level with the films as the 'holy grail' of Star Wars." You have stated this. Lucas has stated that this is ANAKIN's story....his fall and his redemption through his son. Not vice-versa. Thus, using your other logic that there is only one protagonist per film, Luke is never a protagonist. We are simply rooting for Vader to redeem himself while he's out blowing up planets and killing babies.

You can't seperate the PT and OT if you adhere to Lucaslogic (TM). Lucas has said they are one story.

Personally, I think Lucas is on crack, but this is your conundrum not mine. You need to decide what you are adhering to and what you are not.

I also think its impossible to argue that protagonists like Anakin and Luke are the ONLY ones. Kenobi is certainly a protagonist in the PT as are Han/Leia in the OT. Why? They are shown in extended sequences by themselves. They have their own plotlines. Yoda isn't a protagonist because he's never really shown apart from Anakin/Kenobi/Luke. Likewise Chewy is neither shown apart from Han/Leia. (not on a frame by frame basis, but for extended periods of time).

Leia has Lots of time on the death star to herself and Han Leia have the enitre middle of ESB, all of Endor, and the start of ROTJ to themselves. Chock that all together....was there no protagonist for 1/3 of the OT? Same with Kenobi...doesnt meet anakin until halfway thoguht TPM, has all of Kamino and some Geonosis to himself, as well as Utapau, some Coruscant too.

Now, these guys aren't the central characters in the story, not the MAIN protagonist (Anakin, then Luke) but they are protagonists nonetheless...definitely above supporting characters, espesially given the nature of these films as a saga.

Oh I agree with Lucas' statement about SW being Anakin's story... but to understand how these stories came about, one cannot ignore the fact that once upon a time, before the dark time, before the PT, tehre was just the OT. It sure as heck wasn't Anakin's story then, because of the PT story there was nothing more than a vague idea. To structure ANH Lucas looked to Joseph Campbell's A Hero with a 1000 Faces. And lo and behold, Luke became that hero, that protagonist. This is a pure and absolute fact taht has stood like that from 1977 until 1998... It's only the PT that made it Anakin's story. So can one therefore say there's nothing protagonist-like about Luke, I think not. Since the movies have not really changed. One cannot be a protagonist for over 20 years and suddenly not by adding a few chapters and leaving the originals untouched.

In the same story structure from Joseph Campbell, all the other side characters are derived: the mentor (i.e. OB1), the pirate merchant (i.e. Han Solo), the Princess (i.e. Leia)... all these side characters aid, assist or whatever, the protagonist on his journey, they serve HIS story.

Now, you can go about launching all your personal ideas on it, we all know Lucas used Campbell, he tanked Campbell personally on TV for his book that finally helped him structure his SW story.

So sure, shoot your own personal theories where you contradict just about every screen writing expert in the world. I think your point doesn't stick.

Well, I'm sorry. You can't just ignore the last decade. Perhaps once-upon-a-time you are right, but your god, Lucas, has said you're wrong. Welcome to the world after the great schism. The prequels happened, like them or not, and Lucas has "revealed" how he always wanted to tell Star Wars. Campell is now just an adaptation of part of the story and his protagonist no longer bears the same relationship to Star Wars. You can't ignore the present.

If you think my positions are poodoo, I don't care. You're welcome to dislike them and I enjoy being forced to defend my conceptions of the films. I like being on here and I like DISCUSSING them. You will, however, never find me expressing that my interpretations are the only ones, something I feel you have done on multiple occasions.

I think your ideas are great. I enjoy listening to them, but I am of a different faith. I dont have that problem (which is why I can accept your ideas...though they ignore the last decade). I let the films speak for themselves and ignore the man behind the curtain.

The problem is, you selectively choose when to listen to and when to ignore Lucas when it suits you (and then chastise others when they do one or the other). You cant do that.

When a story is built on a protganist, that story structure still stands. Anakin has a purely antagonist role in the OT. I think that cannot be denied.

Lucas denied it.

I agree with you...

...but your logic is not self-sustaining. Your personal pposition is untenable. You just grew up seeing it portrayed one way and have retroactively enforced that view on the saga and refuse to accept Lucas' position that anakin is just a spoiled whiny baby in a big black robot suit, "coming to terms with his goodness" as you have so elequently put. 🙂

I really have nothign more to say on the matter.

lucas is a liar, imo... *shrugs*

He's not a liar....just senile and well...very delusional about the history and the evolution of his franchise.

Originally posted by Ordo
He's not a liar....just senile and well...very delusional about the history and the evolution of his franchise.

On that, i completely agree... i think it just leads to the lies...

I'm not even going to take up argument with your stance, Ordo. It isn't getting anywhere.

Anyways, I'm not actually sure what direction Lucas is going to go with this. A quote from a magazine last May points towards a film-noir style to the thing...