More Star Wars films announced - Page 5

DarthTom · February 6 2013, 04:55 PM

CorporalCaptain wrote:

Sorry, but: that's just lazy storytelling.

[cough]Shinzon[cough]

cooleddie74 · February 6 2013, 04:55 PM

Just imagine how unbelievable awesome Ian McDiarmid would have been had he actually been given some kind of backstory that didn't involve one brief, vague tale about Darth Plageuis.

Hound of UIster · February 6 2013, 05:04 PM

According to Ian McDiarmond he played Palpatine as Lucifer.

I think the best idea is that Palpatine is the physical embodiment of the darkside of the Force.

Gaith · February 6 2013, 05:05 PM

CorporalCaptain wrote:

cooleddie74 wrote:

I remember a Web journal or disc extra where Lucas is talking about Darth Sidious/Palpatine and says something along the lines of "he's the Pure Evil. The Sith Lord who's out for power simply for power's sake. It doesn't matter to the story what motivates him, that's not so important. All you know is that his life has brought him to this point where he wants galactic domination."

Sorry, but: that's just lazy storytelling.

No, it's a perfectly legitimate storytelling technique. Does the lack of any kind of characterization whatsoever for Sauron hurt the LotR movies?

Thing is, to pull it off, you have to balance such ciphers with interesting characters. The Fellowship, Gollum: yes. Luke, Vader: yes. Pre-Vader Anakin, Padme, Tyrannus: no.

CorporalCaptain · February 6 2013, 05:11 PM

Gaith wrote:

CorporalCaptain wrote:

cooleddie74 wrote:

I remember a Web journal or disc extra where Lucas is talking about Darth Sidious/Palpatine and says something along the lines of "he's the Pure Evil. The Sith Lord who's out for power simply for power's sake. It doesn't matter to the story what motivates him, that's not so important. All you know is that his life has brought him to this point where he wants galactic domination."

Sorry, but: that's just lazy storytelling.

No, it's a perfectly legitimate storytelling technique. Does the lack of any kind of characterization whatsoever for Sauron hurt the LotR movies?

Thing is, to pull it off, you have to balance such ciphers with interesting characters. The Fellowship, Gollum: yes. Luke, Vader: yes. Pre-Vader Anakin, Padme, Tyrannus: no.

In the books, Sauron isn't depicted as a character who directly interacts with other characters, so there's not really a parallel. Sauron is, on the other hand, called the Dark Lord. All we need to know about him is told in the book. In contrast, the information about Palps, that we don't need to know any more about him, comes not from within the films, but from an interview with the author. I stand my ground.

cooleddie74 · February 6 2013, 05:18 PM

James Luceno did a very commendable and even outstanding job with Sidious/Palpatine in his recent Darth Plagueis novel, which is one of my three favorite SW books since the conclusion of the Prequel Trilogy in theaters. Palpatine in the Luceno book is considerably more fleshed-out and three-dimensional than he is in any of the prequel films, and while evil and even sadistic and craving more and more power he ends up a more rounded and textured character in the hands of Luceno than he ever stood a chance of being under the pen of Lucas.

davejames · February 6 2013, 05:25 PM

Hound of UIster wrote:

cooleddie74 wrote:

Grievous in ROTS was barely more developed than Maul had been two films earlier. It took Expanded Universe materials and the recent Clone Wars series to flesh him out as a Kaleesh warlord who had been cybernetically reconstructed (almost Vader style) after a shuttle crash.

Grievous still has more character even without the backstory. Maul has nothing. He is just a grunt.

Grievous cooler than Darth Maul? Seriously?? I admit he has a pretty decent design, but I've never found him remotely threatening or intimidating as a villain. He's just a CG robot with a long face who wheezes a lot.

And what's up with all this "character" talk? This is SW. Nobody was particularly deep or complex in the OT (even in the moodier ESB), and yet that didn't stop us from loving the heck out of them. I just want characters who are fun and cool and dynamic like that again.

I don't need to know the life story of these characters, or the entire boring history of their planet and culture.

Hound of UIster · February 6 2013, 05:30 PM

Honestly I didn't find Maul to be "cooler". I just found Grievous to be more interesting.

Kegg · February 6 2013, 05:37 PM

Palpatine's aims in the films are pretty transparent and honestly do not need further clarification. He's a politician who wants power because power is a cool thing to have. He's also a member of essentially a religious cult that values selfishness and has a blood feud with the Jedi. Most of his behaviour can be attributed to one or both of these facts.

And whether or not Grevious is 'cooler', he's unquestionably more developed than Darth Maul because Darth Maul is a cipher who has all of five lines. Grevious has actual conversations with other characters, and a fair bit about him is established - a key Separatist general, a guy known as a Jedi-killer, and so on. Maul is simply the Apprentice.

What he shares with Maul however is that he's a filler villain. Once Tyrannus is ignominiously dispatched, the Separatists need a figurehead to represent them until that thread of the movie's plot has been resolved.

cooleddie74 · February 6 2013, 05:50 PM

If there's a silver lining to the Palpatine character's depth or lack thereof it's that the Prequels for all their flaws fleshed him out a whole lot more than the OT ever did or even intended to. In Empire he's a towering blue hologram issuing instructions to Darth Vader. End of story. In Jedi we finally see him in the flesh but he doesn't do a whole lot more than cackle, taunt Luke and throw Sith lightning bolts. He's creepy and effective as hell, but you don't use the OT Emperor as your basis for any sort of comprehensive bio on the guy.

Hell, he started out life as a woman in a hood with chimpanzee eyes superimposed over her darkened sockets. He's come a long way since 1980 no matter how you look at the character.

CorporalCaptain · February 6 2013, 06:12 PM

cooleddie74 wrote:

James Luceno did a very commendable and even outstanding job with Sidious/Palpatine in his recent Darth Plagueis novel, which is one of my three favorite SW books since the conclusion of the Prequel Trilogy in theaters. Palpatine in the Luceno book is considerably more fleshed-out and three-dimensional than he is in any of the prequel films, and while evil and even sadistic and craving more and more power he ends up a more rounded and textured character in the hands of Luceno than he ever stood a chance of being under the pen of Lucas.

I just flagged a request for it at my public library; I'll be checking it out.

cooleddie74 · February 6 2013, 06:14 PM

Cool...I hope you enjoy it. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Gaith · February 6 2013, 06:33 PM

cooleddie74 wrote:

If there's a silver lining to the Palpatine character's depth or lack thereof it's that the Prequels for all their flaws fleshed him out a whole lot more than the OT ever did or even intended to.

The PT movies sure didn't. Heck, arguably the most distinctive thing we learn about him in the OT - his implied anti-nonhuman racism, as evidenced by the composition of his Navy - is nowhere referenced or implied in the PT. Even when he declares himself Emperor, he's flanked by nonhuman aides.

CorporalClegg · February 6 2013, 08:11 PM

I think killing Maul right away was the was the single biggest mistake (and there were plenty) the PT did.

The three movies were severely lacking some kind of cohesion. If they had a single primary villain out front, with Palps mostly in the background, I think the narrative would have been better for it.

More importantly however, had the film ended with Maul slaying Qui-Gon, facerolling Obi-Wan, and finishing with a bad-ass walk-off, I think the film would have been accepted (perceptually) more positively. The ending would have become the focus and, even with everything else being equal, the other "annoying" aspects of the film would have been overlooked to some degree.

I also think the "unknown" factor would only have helped here because instead of the interwebz lashing out against Jar-Jar for three years, it would be aflutter with discussion on who the fuck was this guy who just showed up out of nowhere and smacked the heroes around.

And the whole idea of butthurt Obi spending the ten year interim chasing down this "phantom" would have made for a much more interesting starting point for Clones.

And I really don't know why Lucas felt the need to get rid of him. Tyranus was pointless, and Grevious was just silly. It was like he was worried people wouldn't have accepted the ten year aging, but then gave us an ancient Lee anyway.

I wonder if he had noticed Maul's overwhelming popularity sooner, if he would have made some last minute changes.

CorporalCaptain · February 6 2013, 08:19 PM

CorporalClegg wrote:

I think killing Maul right away was the was the single biggest mistake (and there were plenty) the PT did.

The three movies were severely lacking some kind of cohesion. If they had a single primary villain out front, with Palps mostly in the background, I think the narrative would have been better for it.

More importantly however, had the film ended with Maul slaying Qui-Gon, facerolling Obi-Wan, and finishing with a bad-ass walk-off, I think the film would have been accepted (perceptually) more positively. The ending would have become the focus and, even with everything else being equal, the other "annoying" aspects of the film would have been overlooked to some degree.

I also think the "unknown" factor would only have helped here because instead of the interwebz lashing out against Jar-Jar for three years, it would be aflutter with discussion on who the fuck was this guy who just showed up out of nowhere and smacked the heroes around.

And the whole idea of butthurt Obi spending the ten year interim chasing down this "phantom" would have made for a much more interesting starting point for Clones.

And I really don't know why Lucas felt the need to get rid of him. Tyranus was pointless, and Grevious was just silly. It was like he was worried people wouldn't have accepted the ten year aging, but then gave us an ancient Lee anyway.

I wonder if he had noticed Maul's overwhelming popularity sooner, if he would have made some last minute changes.

Yes.

February 6 2013, 04:55 PM	#62
cooleddie74 Fleet Admiral Location: The Warped Sector of the Demented Quadrant	Re: More Star Wars films announced Just imagine how unbelievable awesome Ian McDiarmid would have been had he actually been given some kind of backstory that didn't involve one brief, vague tale about Darth Plageuis. __________________ This shirt is dry clean only. Which means it's dirty. -Mitch Hedberg

February 6 2013, 05:04 PM	#63
Hound of UIster Rear Admiral	Re: More Star Wars films announced According to Ian McDiarmond he played Palpatine as Lucifer. I think the best idea is that Palpatine is the physical embodiment of the darkside of the Force.

February 6 2013, 05:18 PM	#66
cooleddie74 Fleet Admiral Location: The Warped Sector of the Demented Quadrant	Re: More Star Wars films announced James Luceno did a very commendable and even outstanding job with Sidious/Palpatine in his recent Darth Plagueis novel, which is one of my three favorite SW books since the conclusion of the Prequel Trilogy in theaters. Palpatine in the Luceno book is considerably more fleshed-out and three-dimensional than he is in any of the prequel films, and while evil and even sadistic and craving more and more power he ends up a more rounded and textured character in the hands of Luceno than he ever stood a chance of being under the pen of Lucas. __________________ This shirt is dry clean only. Which means it's dirty. -Mitch Hedberg

February 6 2013, 05:30 PM	#68
Hound of UIster Rear Admiral	Re: More Star Wars films announced Honestly I didn't find Maul to be "cooler". I just found Grievous to be more interesting.

February 6 2013, 05:37 PM	#69
Kegg Rear Admiral Location: Ireland.	Re: More Star Wars films announced Palpatine's aims in the films are pretty transparent and honestly do not need further clarification. He's a politician who wants power because power is a cool thing to have. He's also a member of essentially a religious cult that values selfishness and has a blood feud with the Jedi. Most of his behaviour can be attributed to one or both of these facts. And whether or not Grevious is 'cooler', he's unquestionably more developed than Darth Maul because Darth Maul is a cipher who has all of five lines. Grevious has actual conversations with other characters, and a fair bit about him is established - a key Separatist general, a guy known as a Jedi-killer, and so on. Maul is simply the Apprentice. What he shares with Maul however is that he's a filler villain. Once Tyrannus is ignominiously dispatched, the Separatists need a figurehead to represent them until that thread of the movie's plot has been resolved. __________________ 'Spock is always right, even when he's wrong. It's the tone of voice, the supernatural reasonability; this is not a man like us; this is a god.' - Philip K. Dick

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

February 6 2013, 05:50 PM	#70
cooleddie74 Fleet Admiral Location: The Warped Sector of the Demented Quadrant	Re: More Star Wars films announced If there's a silver lining to the Palpatine character's depth or lack thereof it's that the Prequels for all their flaws fleshed him out a whole lot more than the OT ever did or even intended to. In Empire he's a towering blue hologram issuing instructions to Darth Vader. End of story. In Jedi we finally see him in the flesh but he doesn't do a whole lot more than cackle, taunt Luke and throw Sith lightning bolts. He's creepy and effective as hell, but you don't use the OT Emperor as your basis for any sort of comprehensive bio on the guy. Hell, he started out life as a woman in a hood with chimpanzee eyes superimposed over her darkened sockets. He's come a long way since 1980 no matter how you look at the character. __________________ This shirt is dry clean only. Which means it's dirty. -Mitch Hedberg

February 6 2013, 06:14 PM	#72
cooleddie74 Fleet Admiral Location: The Warped Sector of the Demented Quadrant	Re: More Star Wars films announced Cool...I hope you enjoy it. I don't think you'll be disappointed. __________________ This shirt is dry clean only. Which means it's dirty. -Mitch Hedberg

February 6 2013, 08:11 PM	#74
CorporalClegg Vice Admiral Location: Nuevo México	Re: More Star Wars films announced I think killing Maul right away was the was the single biggest mistake (and there were plenty) the PT did. The three movies were severely lacking some kind of cohesion. If they had a single primary villain out front, with Palps mostly in the background, I think the narrative would have been better for it. More importantly however, had the film ended with Maul slaying Qui-Gon, facerolling Obi-Wan, and finishing with a bad-ass walk-off, I think the film would have been accepted (perceptually) more positively. The ending would have become the focus and, even with everything else being equal, the other "annoying" aspects of the film would have been overlooked to some degree. I also think the "unknown" factor would only have helped here because instead of the interwebz lashing out against Jar-Jar for three years, it would be aflutter with discussion on who the fuck was this guy who just showed up out of nowhere and smacked the heroes around. And the whole idea of butthurt Obi spending the ten year interim chasing down this "phantom" would have made for a much more interesting starting point for Clones. And I really don't know why Lucas felt the need to get rid of him. Tyranus was pointless, and Grevious was just silly. It was like he was worried people wouldn't have accepted the ten year aging, but then gave us an ancient Lee anyway. I wonder if he had noticed Maul's overwhelming popularity sooner, if he would have made some last minute changes. __________________ Hola!