Jar Jar Binks and Anakin Skywalker... am I the only one who understood what George Lucas made?

[LJones41]

Lucas tries very hard to have the moral gray that is so common among other SF franchises but there are some missteps that hang it up, in my opinion.

I disagree. I believe that Lucas is very good at it . . . to the point that I suspect it made a lot of people uncomfortable. It seems as if they're willing to tolerate moral ambiguity in other SF franchises, but not in Star Wars. I've noticed that every time I've pointed out some moral ambiguity in the Original Trilogy, some fans will try to dismiss it or create excuses for the questionable behavior of the main characters.

 

[suarezguy]

C3PO's banter was witty and not simply inane, imo. C3PO was like a stiff upper lip Englishman fogey, who found himself in perilous situations, and he would come up with something witty to show his fear or desperation.

Actually I think a big part of the relative success of the character was that it didn't feel like he was trying to be funny, the funny comments somehow felt very natural and sincere.

 

[fireproof78]

I disagree. I believe that Lucas is very good at it . . . to the point that I suspect it made a lot of people uncomfortable. It seems as if they're willing to tolerate moral ambiguity in other SF franchises, but not in Star Wars. I've noticed that every time I've pointed out some moral ambiguity in the Original Trilogy, some fans will try to dismiss it or create excuses for the questionable behavior of the main characters.

I think Lucas grew in to it and introduced it in an interesting way in both ESB and ROTJ, especially with Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" line. Unfortunately, that line is undone by Obi-Wan's "only a Sith deals in absolutes" line from ROTS.

The moral ambiguity in the OT is fine, as the hero figures out for himself what the right thing to do is-Luke's choice goes against what both Yoda and Obi-Wan's advice.

The problem is that the gray that is introduced still has the Jedi as the good guys, while the Jedi in the PT are non-sympathetic characters who feel very wrong in terms of how the films present them. I think the PT makes people uncomfortable because the moral ambiguity is not followed up with a strong character doing what he thinks is right. It's a lot of victimizing of individuals, and manipulations that show the inherent weaknesses of the "good guys" without any of their strengths.

Really, it comes back to characters. I more readily accept the moral ambiguity of Riddick or Admiral Cartwright or the Bene Gesserit because they feel like people not 1 dimensional caricatures.

 

[LJones41]

I think Lucas grew in to it and introduced it in an interesting way in both ESB and ROTJ, especially with Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" line. Unfortunately, that line is undone by Obi-Wan's "only a Sith deals in absolutes" line from ROTS.

No, it wasn't.

When Obi-Wan made that "only a Sith deals in absolutes", he was a man in his 30s. When he made the "certain point of view" comment, he was a Force ghost who had died in his late 50s. You do realize this . . . right?

The problem is that the gray that is introduced still has the Jedi as the good guys, while the Jedi in the PT are non-sympathetic characters who feel very wrong in terms of how the films present them. I think the PT makes people uncomfortable because the moral ambiguity is not followed up with a strong character doing what he thinks is right.

Did you understood what was going on in the PT? The trilogy was about the end of the Republic and the end of the Jedi, due to the mistakes made by the main characters and Palpatine's exploitation of their mistakes. Lucas was undermining the audience's perception of how the protagonists should be betrayed. The PT was about everything going to hell because of the main characters' mistakes. By having them or someone do the right or wise thing in the end would have only undermined the trilogy's story and what Lucas was trying to say.

 

[fireproof78]

No, it wasn't.

When Obi-Wan made that "only a Sith deals in absolutes", he was a man in his 30s. When he made the "certain point of view" comment, he was a Force ghost who had died in his late 50s. You do realize this . . . right?

Condescension is not necessary.
The problem is, we don't see a transition of Obi-Wan's thoughts in the film. I have no doubt that he made his conclusions, and developed his personal philosophy However, it isn't presented well, is my point.

Did you understood what was going on in the PT? The trilogy was about the end of the Republic and the end of the Jedi, due to the mistakes made by the main characters and Palpatine's exploitation of their mistakes. Lucas was undermining the audience's perception of how the protagonists should be betrayed. The PT was about everything going to hell because of the main characters' mistakes. By having them or someone do the right or wise thing in the end would have only undermined the trilogy's story and what Lucas was trying to say.

Again, condescension is not necessary or productive.

I followed the PT just find and understand that it is all about the fall of the Jedi and the Republic and the rise of the Empire. The point that I am making is that, from my view and experience, the Jedi are not only presented as unwise, but incompetent and unlikable. This makes forming a connection with these characters who are supposed to be the good guys unsympathetic and then I don't care about them or what happens.

The idea that if the Jedi succeed is also not well thought out. Lucas treats the story as inevitable, but that doesn't engage me, because then I don't think the Jedi can win. I don't know what the world looks like if they win. Not because I don't have an active imagination, but because, what we see of the Old Republic and the Jedi, their demise was inevitable. And, I'm sorry, the idea of heroes failing and having no chance to succeed doesn't interest me.

 

[Ithekro]

The problem is, we don't see a transition of Obi-Wan's thoughts in the film. I have no doubt that he made his conclusions, and developed his personal philosophy However, it isn't presented well, is my point.

Well that would make for an interesting movie....if they could find a plot to go around it set between Episodes III and IV.

 

[LJones41]

After the recent presidential election, I've come to the conclusion that Lucas knew exactly what he was doing with the prequel movies. He was warning us.

 

[Ithekro]

Lucas did base Palpatine off Nixon (to a certain extent).

 

[2takesfrakes]

After the recent presidential election, I've come to the conclusion that Lucas knew exactly what he was doing with the prequel movies. He was warning us.

It's hard to tell if you're joking, or not. George Lucas is Mr. Make-Believe, he's no foreteller of portent ...

 

[Set Harth]

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[2takesfrakes]

“History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes,” as Mark Twain is often reputed to have said.

George Lucas has explained the inner-workings of the STAR WARS in so many contradictory and disjointed ways that it's become whatever you want it to be. But this much is certain: he has ripped off every decent and/or beloved movie to inform his saga and not just movies ... but real life moments and characters in History. If George had an original idea, he'd be so tight, he couldn't pull it out of his ass. His genius is in his ability to draw the right talent. You get great Artists on your team and it all comes together.

 

[LJones41]

Showrunners and creators like Lucas always end up being contradictory when they explain what is going on in their movies and television shows. I tend to pay attention to what is happening on the screen.

And regardless of Lucas' intentions or words, I thought he did a first-rate job in conveying the ambiguity of human nature and how that ambiguity can lead people to make terrible choices from good intentions. I'm not just referring to Anakin, but to all of the major characters. I've noticed that a lot of fans do not really like it when their protagonists are shown in a negative light - especially those protagonists whom they believe to be ideal.

 

[Solariabsg25]

Lucas was just as subtle in the PT than he was in the OT. The problem is that the PT is also a lot more ambiguous and I get the feeling that many people didn't like the ambiguous nature of the PT. Th seemed to prefer the more black and white or "simplistic" approach of the OT.

There is indeed a lot of subtlety that does get lost in the mix.

For example, at the moment of decision, when Windu is confronting Palpatine and decides to execute him he states "He has control of the senate and the courts! He's too dangerous to be left alive!" and exactly the justification Palpatine used for Anakin's killing of Dooku.

 

[LJones41]

There is indeed a lot of subtlety that does get lost in the mix.

For example, at the moment of decision, when Windu is confronting Palpatine and decides to execute him he states "He has control of the senate and the courts! He's too dangerous to be left alive!" and exactly the justification Palpatine used for Anakin's killing of Dooku.

How did this get lost in the mix?

The problem is, we don't see a transition of Obi-Wan's thoughts in the film. I have no doubt that he made his conclusions, and developed his personal philosophy However, it isn't presented well, is my point.

I don't understand this comment, considering that "Revenge of the Sith" made it perfectly clear that Obi-Wan spent nearly twenty years in exile, being tutored by Qui-Gon's Force ghost. It wasn't really that hard for me to surmise that during those nineteen years, Obi-Wan's views on the Force had changed . . . somewhat.

Were we supposed to view a series of movies about him being further tutored by Qui-Gon during those nineteen years?

 

[Solariabsg25]

It got lost in a mix because a lot of people I know who've seen the film didn't even make that connection, even though Lucas used the exact same wording for both Palpatine and Windu in their relevant scenes. I dunno why, to me it seemed pretty obvious.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Mace Windu barges into the Chancellor's office and informs him that the Senate will decide his fate and THEN, when Annie shows up, Mace tells him that the Chancellor's "too dangerous to be kept alive." That he controls the courts and the Senate. Lucas is such a frigging handjob ... he can't even keep his own facts straight, within the context of a single scene. STAR WARS fans often praise Revenge of the Sith for being the best of the prequels, but to me, it's exactly on par with the other two. It's visually impressive, but that's all it's got going for it. It's a shite story acted out in in the most cringe-worthy manner possible.

"Now, there I agree with you. I could do with a tune-up, myself," says C-3PO all new and shiney and well-oiled. Every character's lines are written like that. It's passionless pap. When Lucas sold off the franchise, I thought "wow! OK ...STAR WARS can finally get good again." And it's been nothing but middle-of-the-road offerings to keep Disney's hands in our pockets. They're just "OK" ... I thought it was Lucas' fault STAR WARS sucks anymore, but it isn't. It's just been spread out entirely too thin ...

 

[Greylock Crescent]

the Jedi are not only presented as unwise, but incompetent and unlikable.

That's because the Jedi of the PT are unwise, lacking in basic competency, and unlikable ... because of their overwhelming arrogance - a point demonstrated, often, by Windu, and explicitly stated by Yoda.

 

[USS Firefly]

Maybe one of the problems with the Jedi was that Yoda was the Grandmaster too long?

 

[JD]

It got lost in a mix because a lot of people I know who've seen the film didn't even make that connection, even though Lucas used the exact same wording for both Palpatine and Windu in their relevant scenes. I dunno why, to me it seemed pretty obvious.

I honestly never caught that before, that is interesting.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Mace Windu barges into the Chancellor's office and informs him that the Senate will decide his fate and THEN, when Annie shows up, Mace tells him that the Chancellor's "too dangerous to be kept alive." That he controls the courts and the Senate. Lucas is such a frigging handjob ... he can't even keep his own facts straight, within the context of a single scene.

Between the attempt to arrest and the end of that scene, Palpatine had wasted three Jedi in a couple of seconds. That might lead to a change of heart. Dunno.