Phantom Menace is the best Prequel.
- Thread starter TheLobes
- Start date
I thought killing Maul in TPM so quickly was a huge mistake. He was played by great stunt man, voice actor and had an awesome lightsaber. They hit the jackpot with the character just like they did with Vader in the OT. He should have been further developed in the second movie and become the main villain in the PT.
Dooku was meh in comparison.
Imagine if Vader had been killed in ANH and how much of a let down it would have been.
Dooku was meh in comparison.
Imagine if Vader had been killed in ANH and how much of a let down it would have been.
I completely agree with this.
Maul was good but Dooku was a far better character. Didn't mind Maul being a one-movie character.
Maul wasn't interesting enough as a character to be a recurring villain. He had menace and was scary, but he was one-dimensional a bad-ass fighter who didn't really talk.
Dooku's story as the corrupted idealist Jedi turned crafty politician, with the way he can be charming and clever as well make him a very interesting character.
I remember that when I first saw AOTC I was very impressed with the character of Count Dooku.
Then of course all of that was wasted when he was only used for about three minutes in ROTS.
That's another problem with the PT. Many of the more interesting characters are under-used while the bland ones(Padme) or just plain whiny, annoying ones(Anakin) are over-used.
Dooku's story as the corrupted idealist Jedi turned crafty politician, with the way he can be charming and clever as well make him a very interesting character.
I remember that when I first saw AOTC I was very impressed with the character of Count Dooku.
Then of course all of that was wasted when he was only used for about three minutes in ROTS.
That's another problem with the PT. Many of the more interesting characters are under-used while the bland ones(Padme) or just plain whiny, annoying ones(Anakin) are over-used.
Dooku though was kind of meant to be a pasty apprentice...the fallen corrupted Jedi Master who was willing to believe everything that Sidious told him in order to obtain power which he was never going to achieve. He did all the dirty work. It was unfortunate that Darth Maul was killed but it set things up for Palpatine to seek out and contact Dooku and corrupt him further. He's the perfect in-between apprentice before the "superstar Anakin Skywalker.
Exactly! Remember when you were a kid, and at the end of a fairy tale, the narrator would say, "...and the moral of the story is..."? After about age 8, you really didn't need anyone to tell you the moral, if if the story was well written. These movies should be about broad, sweeping mythological metaphors---basic good and evil stuff. When the opening crawl of TPM had the word "taxation" in it, I knew we were screwed.
Blame Shadows of the Empire for that one. According to SOTE, a ten-year old could build such things in the GFFA.
Then you thought right, because your so-called "error in logic" was actually no such thing ( and not coincidentally failed to fit the definition of any known logical fallacy ), while your argument was an appeal to incredulity.
TremblingBluStar said:
That's the whole problem.
TremblingBluStar said:
See if you can find an example where a ruling group used the Force or shot lightning out of their fingers.
TremblingBluStar said:
It still doesn't matter. They were darksiders in the originals, and they were ruling the galaxy. Meanwhile, we know that Sith are darksiders ( even if some of us supposedly didn't during 1977-1983 ). Thus, "two Sith can't rule the galaxy" is an unsuitable candidate for PT criticism, since it carelessly throws the OT under the bus in its blind zeal to discredit the PT.
TremblingBluStar said:
Nice try, but I said no such thing. So-called "flaws" of the PT are flaws of the originals if they occurred in the originals. If they didn't - as in the case of Jar Jar - knock yourself out.
Last edited:
Neither guy is my idea of an interesting villain. But I've been spoiled by Star Trek (DS9 especially). Dooku might have had potential that was never developed, but you could say the same thing of Maul. Any character who is underdeveloped has potential.
Or maybe the solution was to make Padme less bland and Anakin less annoying and whiny. As major characters, they couldn't be shunted to the background. They needed to be written better (and if the actor wasn't up to the task, recast).
Considering how many people I've run into who think Darth Maul was the "Phantom Menace" (including in this thread), they didn't successfully get that point across.
But that's far from being the only thing the PT botched.
I think Maul could have been really interesting if they had bothered to give him a personality. I mean, the dude was Palpatine's Sith apprentice. You'd think there would be a reason for that.
That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Why does anyone become a Sith, or side with the Sith?
The answer needs to have to do with the character's individual personality, not because of external factors like "money" or "power," because those types of motivations just result in interchangeable characters that swiftly become boring.
To side with the Sith is a fast track to destruction. Everybody thinks you're evil and your co-workers are prone to stab you in the back. Not a very pleasant job description, so why do people do it at all? Are they deluded? Insane? Are they actually self-hating and suicidal? Do they just think it's incredibly fun to wield power irresponsibly and they're like addicts, not thinking of the future? Have they convinced themselves that "all those other guys blew it, but I'm special, and I can make this work"? Have they drunk the Kool-Ade and think the dark side is light and vice versa? There are lots of underlying motivations a Sith-allied character could have, but the writing actually needs to communicate that.
Dukat is a great example. He was motivated by power, but not really. His hunger for power was an expression of his unique personality. He was a raving egotist who always thought he could bend whatever situation he was in to his will.
The acting and writing guaranteed that he would be distinct from other power-hungry characters, for instance, Weyoun, whose machinations were an expression of loyalty and reverence. Weyoun did the same sorts of things as Dukat, but for opposite reasons. That's the kind of attention to character that SW needs more of.
The answer needs to have to do with the character's individual personality, not because of external factors like "money" or "power," because those types of motivations just result in interchangeable characters that swiftly become boring.
To side with the Sith is a fast track to destruction. Everybody thinks you're evil and your co-workers are prone to stab you in the back. Not a very pleasant job description, so why do people do it at all? Are they deluded? Insane? Are they actually self-hating and suicidal? Do they just think it's incredibly fun to wield power irresponsibly and they're like addicts, not thinking of the future? Have they convinced themselves that "all those other guys blew it, but I'm special, and I can make this work"? Have they drunk the Kool-Ade and think the dark side is light and vice versa? There are lots of underlying motivations a Sith-allied character could have, but the writing actually needs to communicate that.
Dukat is a great example. He was motivated by power, but not really. His hunger for power was an expression of his unique personality. He was a raving egotist who always thought he could bend whatever situation he was in to his will.
The acting and writing guaranteed that he would be distinct from other power-hungry characters, for instance, Weyoun, whose machinations were an expression of loyalty and reverence. Weyoun did the same sorts of things as Dukat, but for opposite reasons. That's the kind of attention to character that SW needs more of.
I think it's one of the reasons that the Rule of Two is kind of weird. If there really are only two, that means in TMP it's Sidious and Maul. What was it about Maul that made Sidious decide to take him on as his apprentice? The way he was presented, Maul basically comes across as a foot soldier or an assassin-for-hire. There's really nothing about him that makes him feel like he is a Sith Lord.
It's still a dumb and illogical concept.
And saying pointing out flaws in the PT is also criticizing the OT is a pretty lame defense of the prequels. That is like saying you can't criticize Star Trek: Enterprise without criticizing the original series as well.
I'll gladly criticize he original films when they deserve it, and Jedi deserves a lot of criticism, but saying the moronic rule that there can only be two Sith is a flaw of both series because it was introduced in the prequels and the prequels take place chronologically first makes no sense.
It was revealed in one of the comics or novels that Palpatine raised Maul since he was a baby after taking him from his parents. It's been made very clear in the movies that one is Sith because one craves power and has an insatiable need to dominate the galaxy. It is probably through a superiority complex that this happens. It is also being touched by the Dark Side that fuels this path...
Well, maybe he was really good at cross stitching or something. That was one of the problems with the film - we never find out much about Maul. Even Count Dooku was a barely fleshed out villain that I could sum up in a few short sentences.
What was Maul's motivation? Other than ensuring the "Sith rule the galaxy", we don't know. How does him fighting the Jedi ensure the Sith rule the galaxy? It doesn't. By that time in the film, Amadala had already placed the no contest thing, and Palpatine could have sat back and waited for the rest to fall into place. Instead, he sends his apprentice to take out two Jedi he has no reason to want dead just so we can have a cool light saber battle.
Well then, where does that insatiable need come from? Is it an inherent personality trait that some people develop from childhood? Does being Force sensitive factor into this trait? Does the dark side itself create or accentuate this trait, so that someone might think, "oh the dark side wouldn't be dangerous to me, because I'm smart and strong enough to control it," and then WHAMMO?
Just leaving it at an "insatiable craving for power" in the way a vampire craves blood is boring. It doesn't allow the Sith to have unique personalities that could elevate them into characters rather than just wooden blocks for the good guys to fight with.
He didn't send Maul to eliminate the two Jedi just to have a lightsaber battle...he wanted them eliminated because they were investigating the blockade and becoming close to exposing who was behind. Or at least he feared that result.
But, Anakin didn't become a Sith because he wanted to rule the galaxy. He just wanted to save Padme, and though that he was doing what was necessary to make that happen.
Similarly, Luke didn't flirt with the dark side because he had a lust for power. He simply succumbed to hatred, which is apparently a one way track to Sithdom.
^ Indeed so and became corrupted by the Dark Side because his good intentions were manipulated and preyed upon by Palpatine. There were though character traits that hinted on his political views for instance in AOTC the little debate he had with Padme regarding the government of the galaxy. As for Luke, granted he flirted with it, but he was able to overcome the temptation and there was no one manipulating him (tempting yes i.e. Vader but not out right manipulating).
