Sorry, but that seems like a pretty weak explanation for bad writing.
Phantom Menace is the best Prequel.
- Thread starter TheLobes
- Start date
Sorry, but that seems like a pretty weak explanation for bad writing.
Yeah. When I was Anakin's age, I remember taking a girl into my bedroom to show her my Super Nintendo.
Needless to say, she didn't marry me ten years later.
I'm pretty sure a working Protocol Droid is more impressive than a Super Nintendo.
yeah, great reminder of the ridiculousness of nine-year-old slave Anakin building a properly working protocol droid from scrap in his spare time.
I got it! Anakin was a genius like Stewie Griffin!!
"Victory is mine!"
How come? I certainly don't think it's what Lucas intended, and it turns the "passionate romance" of Anakin and Padme into something rather more sinister (and robs her of even more agency, on top of that), but it fits what we see a lot better. And I figure "clouded by a darksider" is at least as positive a character trait as "attracted to murderous psychopath," since the whole Jedi Council fell for a larger version of it.
you're version is actually more clever than what GL thought of. It also would've been an other early indication of Anakin's flirting with the Darkside. Also, it would make Padme's "dying from a broken heart" thing make more sense if her love was manipulated from the start. However...
it doesn't really match what we see with AOTC. Why did she resist his advances for so long and act downright annoyed and creeped out by him if he were influencing her from the beginning?
Some (lucky) person who'd never seen the PT blundering across this thread might get the impression that there was a wonderfully twisted story just underneath the surface of movies that were cleverly disguised as popcorn action fodder.
But for this to work, a different actor would have had to have been cast as Anakin (one with actual charisma - looks alone doesn't make a guy attractive) and of course, a very different attitude on the part of the writer/director.
Playing the Rewrite the PT So It Makes Some Tiny Amount of Sense game for the 347th time, what if we make this a variation on the Faust story? Anakin is a nice kid who is hopelessly in love with an older woman, who won't give him a second glance. He realizes the dark side will give him a tiny edge, hey, just getting her attention, that's all he wants. At first...
Of course, this requires the audience get over the skeeve factor in what it implies about Luke & Leia's genesis. But there are worse problems for a story to have.
It just seems like a rather convenient excuse that the darkside is able to do whatever a sith wants it to. I also think that changing Anakin and Padme's relationship for the better would have to involve them being more in love, not less in love. There was plenty of sinister going on for Anakin, and I really dont think he needed any more. As terrible as it was presented, his apparent relationship with Padme is the one area of the films in which Anakin can come off as even something of a good guy. Also, Anakin is 'apparently' still a good guy in AOTC.
Again though, its so damn hard to imagine making it better because everything in the second two prequels is totally stupid and messed up. Ive heard of the Phantom Edit, though never watched it, and I can imagine it being pretty good, because theres at least something to work with in that film. Not so with AOTC and ROTS. Never have two characters been more awkwardly and lazily pushed together than Padme and grown up Anakin. You can really tell from seeing Natalie in interviews how much she hated playing that part.
Yeah. When I was Anakin's age, I remember taking a girl into my bedroom to show her my Super Nintendo.
Needless to say, she didn't marry me ten years later.
Should have tried the whole 'kill a village full of people and then boast about it' technique. The ladies love it.
Not as much as the leering creepily at her at every chance while bitching about sand.
This is what the dark side should always do: destroy whoever is foolish enough to use it. It may give that person temporary power, even great power, but the story must always end the same way. It's not convenient at all - it's a temptation that will destroy you.
If Anakin uses the dark side, "just a little," even for a good purpose like getting the attention of the lady he loves, or (as The Clone Wars is apparently taking the story), trying to untangle a horrific political and military nightmare that no one else can solve, then he doesn't need to be a nasty person in the least, just a foolish and overconfident young man.
And Anakin using the dark side for mind control becomes less skeevy if (as The Clone Wars has demonstrated), the dark side itself exerts mind control. Anakin is doing no worse than has already been done to him (by his own foolishness), and if there's a snowball effect, where is the point at which Anakin no longer is in control of his actions, and then no longer exists?
I think this idea of the Dark Side, that it corrupts and controls, was the original idea from the OT, and the original idea behind Anakin's fall, way back before the PT was written.
Then the PT made it so there was no corruption and control, Anakin was just a schmuck who got tricked and then continues to go along with the emperor voluntarily afterwards because he's kind of a moron.
It also ruins the confrontation and Vader's redemption in ROTJ, because there's nothing that Vader has to "break free" from in turning against Palpy.
That whole "you don't know the power of the dark side, I must obey my master" means nothing now.
Another nail in the coffin/brick in the wall/really good point why the PT dropped the ball.
To convey the idea of corruption and control would have fell on the writing and acting to a great extent, so it might have been a simple problem of execution. In Anakin's scene with Palps for instance, are we supposed to understand tht the dark side is controlling Anakin's mind to some extent? That would go a long ways towards explaining his stupid and naive behavior.
But there was a big Missing Scene in the PT that probably should have hit halfway through AOTC, which depicts Anakin being tempted to use the dark side "a little" to achieve some goal that in itself is a good one. The key thing here is, we need to understand that he understands the risk and is making the choice freely, because he's overconfident and maybe somewhat arrogant, or alternatively because he is desperate, but definitely not because he's a clueless idiot.
We need to see that Anakin is in charge of his own story, and not just a character who is being dragged along by events that are outside his control. A main character needs to have agency in his own story, or else just rewrite the whole thing to make Palps the lead character, if he's the one with agency (a weird decision, but one that could have been the basis of a valid story).
That Missing Scene, combined with acting and directing through the balance of AOTC and throughout ROTS that underscores the consequences of that seemingly small decision, would have been a good basis for a much better story. And the acting needed to be a lot more subtle than depicting the guy as a tantrum-throwing stalker.
The Sandpeople massacre scene is about the place in the narrative where this scene needed to go. That scene communicated only that "Anakin is unhinged because of his deprived childhood" which doesn't work because a) he was less crazy as a child, which is when he damage supposedly occurred and b) Star Wars is about grandiose mystical hooey, not psychology, especially not shallow and unconvincing psychology written by a guy who would be better off sticking with the hooey.
The Sandpeople massacre didn't need to happen and its role in the story could have been replaced by a better, different scene. This also would have solved the problem of Padme knowing too early in the story that Anakin is getting screwy, before she marries the guy and gets knocked up. She definitely shouldn't see any solid evidence early enough that she has a chance to find herself a better fiance.
Maybe I should have typed 'whatever the fans want it to do'. Ive heard so many explanations of the stupid writing in the prequels put down to 'because of the dark side'.
Why doesnt anybody on the jedi council realise that its obviously Palpatine who's behind the war? Why do Grevious and trade people cooperate? Why is the senate so blind and stupid?
Oh, well the... the dark side was clouding their minds.
In the OT we are told that 'the force can have a strong influence on the weak minded' and that is it. Its a small trick that Obi wan uses on one person when they are standing right next to him. Thats it. The PT took this idea and turned it into the ability to make everybody stupid and lessen the ability of all the 5000 jedi.
I like what you wrote about the need for more careful development of Anakin's fall from grace, though. The idea that he wasnt a sith after he killed all those sand people, but then suddenly was after killing Mace Windu was pretty retarded.
Maybe Anakin could have been in a situation where he needed to help Padme, and in that moment he got a bit worked up like Luke did when he cut off Vader's hand. He would have done it from fear of Padme getting killed; it would have been something to both strengthen and weaken their relationship.
Lucas did make extensive use of Jungian archetypes when he wrote the original movie. I know that doesnt mean its about psychology or anything, but I think the use of those universal ideas in the early stages of the story gave the film a real edge, because it was so easy to identify with the characters.
If it's 100% the dark side, then there's no story. The characters are just puppets. The dark side is the main character, which is an unworkable idea, unless Lucas wanted to get really strange.
But if it's 0% the dark side, then it's not really Star Wars, because light vs dark side is what it's all about.
So there has to be some compromise between 0% and 100%. Not sure what it is (although the number 37.685% appeals to me for some reason). Lucas just needed to decide what that number should be, and then write a story that supports his decision.
That works fine. He can be a normal, heroic likable guy, not a whiny punk, moron or stalker, and he knows very well that he shouldn't mess with the dark side, but he's desperate or arrogant (not stupid) enough to do it anyway.
And it has to be something where he has an expectation of success. Palps' offer to help Padme survive wasn't plausible because any intelligent person would have known not to trust him (and in fact, he didn't deliver on his promise, did he?)
It would have had to have been something like Anakin visiting the Well of the Dark Side, where he can make one wish that is 100% sure to be granted, but there will be terrible consequences. Maybe the whole deal can be frakkin well engraved on the wall so there's no question that he knows the risks. Yeah, that's corny as hell, but it's just an example to illustrate the two elements that are needed: that it be something even a smart person might have done; and that the dark side actually comes through with whatever the ass-save is, of course at the cost of Anakin's soul.
That was more about mythology and iconic themes than psychology per se. Star Wars works the best when it sticks as close as possible to mythology and fairy tales.
If it's 100% the dark side, then there's no story. The characters are just puppets. The dark side is the main character, which is an unworkable idea, unless Lucas wanted to get really strange.
Since you brought it up...
1) Episode I is called The Phantom Menace. Just what is that anyway?
2) In TPM, Obi-Wan's first words of dialog are (according to http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-The-Phantom-Menace.html):
That would be referring to, what, that Phantom Menace named in the title?The Phantom Menace said:
To me, it sounds like the title of Episode I is referring to the Dark Side itself. At the very least, it's referring to a mysterious threat clouded from the minds of the Jedi.
So, not necessarily a main character, but something significantly distinguished?
If it's 100% the dark side, then there's no story. The characters are just puppets. The dark side is the main character, which is an unworkable idea, unless Lucas wanted to get really strange.
Since you brought it up...
1) Episode I is called The Phantom Menace. Just what is that anyway?
2) In TPM, Obi-Wan's first words of dialog are (according to http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-The-Phantom-Menace.html):
That would be referring to, what, that Phantom Menace named in the title?The Phantom Menace said:
To me, it sounds like the title of Episode I is referring to the Dark Side itself. At the very least, it's referring to a mysterious threat clouded from the minds of the Jedi.
So, not necessarily a main character, but something significantly distinguished?
I assume the title is a reference to Darth Sidious.
Or perhaps it's a reference to the whole TF/Naboo dispute, because it's not the "real menace," which is the return of the Sith.
Although that second explanation strikes me as pretty subtle for GL.
I always thought the phantom menace was Darth Maul, but I suppose the threat of the sith makes more sense. Its another point in TPM's favour that the menace of the sith is quite well handled, especially in comparisn to the other two. You really get the impression that this is the first time something like this has happened in a very long time, and the jedi actually seem kind of worried about it. This is especially apparent in the change the comes over Obi wan, from a care free and almost arrogant apprentice to a serious jedi who seems to appreciate that things might be about to hit the fan.
I feel this could have set the stage for increased tension and concern among the jedi (who are very few in TPM) in the following films, where they really make an effort to figure out whats going on, and become characters, as someone else has said, with agency.
In AOTC and ROTS they just sit around and say 'I sense a plot to destroy the jedi' and then do absolutely nothing and seem totally unconcerned.
I feel this could have set the stage for increased tension and concern among the jedi (who are very few in TPM) in the following films, where they really make an effort to figure out whats going on, and become characters, as someone else has said, with agency.
In AOTC and ROTS they just sit around and say 'I sense a plot to destroy the jedi' and then do absolutely nothing and seem totally unconcerned.
Ditto. And since I found Maul to be a completely uninteresting character (so obviously created for his marketing value as a toy), I hated the name because of it.
It would have been cool if the Phantom Menace were actually Anakin...
Yeah, the Jedi needed to be given something to do. Anakin needed something to do. Padme needed something to do. It's amazing how much stuff occurred in those movies, when practically nothing actually happened.
It was just: Palps puts plan in motion. Palps wins. Do you really need three movies to tell that story?
A good dramatic conflict is like a tennis match. The audience knows the basic rules and the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and what they might do to win. And both sides hit the damn ball every so often! One side doesn't just stand there without the faintest idea how to use a tennis racket.
The idea that the title refers to Darth Sidious in particular is plausible.
I actually kind of like your subtle suggestion here, as I'll explain below. GL spent so many years between ROTJ and TPM. Maybe this subtlety is the thing he came up with.
In light of your second subtler idea, I might be technically wrong on this point. Let me revise that to say
Now, a point of grammar. Although the adjective phantom can mean like a phantom, it tends to mean illusory or fictitious, a point that I overlooked. On the other hand, the noun phantom can be an illusion or fake, or something elusive and incorporeal, equally.
The grammar argument would tend to favor the idea that's referring to the crisis on Naboo!
As far as it meaning Darth Maul, I'll admit I hadn't considered that at all either, but it's a fair proposal. At the end of the film, the Jedi are wondering who he was, the master or the apprentice.
Yes.
Also, I'd accept that it means both of sonak's ideas at the same time, or even everything we've said combined.
Subtlety is the wrong way to go with SW. It needs the opposite, something broad, grand and epic. Iconic, mythological. We really shouldn't have to be guessing about any of this.
