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.
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.
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.
Last edited by chewy16 on May 8th, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Well, from my perspective, Palpatine's rise to power [this includes the formation of the Empire, the downfall of the Jedi and the Republic, since these things were orchestrated by him and key to the storyline] 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.
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 [Anakin, who is thrashed and bashed]. 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.
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.
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.
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 [which is why Vader isn't really a villain], 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 [a 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.
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.
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 [a term I use loosely] 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.
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.
KMC Community Forums
May 5th, 2007 01:12 PM
