Because I'm too tired to come up with something original, here's a repost of several paragraphs from my "Sith" review:

More than anyother filmmaker in mainstream cinema, Lucas promotes the idea of pure cinema through his works in way that establishes themes, introduces complex ideas and thrills audiences. While "Revenge of the Sith" resolves the character of Anakin Skywalker and the nature of his descent towards the dark side, it also resolves the visual storytelling nature of the entire "Star Wars" saga, so much so that to complain about dysfunctional discourse and dialectical character development (or lack thereof) is to miss the point, and indeed the focus, of the "Star Wars" films as works of pure cinema in action.

While "Revenge of the Sith" lacks the pure joy and fun of "The Phantom Menace" and "A New Hope," it more than makes up for it in craft and skill, and what craft and skill indeed. Not only is "Revenge of the Sith" Lucas' finest work as a theatrical filmmaker, it may aslo be the most complex and consistently engaging film to be made within the confines of the Hollywood blockbuster, a cinematic classification that Lucas, along with Steven Spielberg, helped to usher in three decades ago. However, much of this depth is lost when the film is placed in the context of traditional film and filmmaking. Lucas carries out his ideas through compositions, and the use of sound (not dialogue). For those that complain about the lack of "Vader" development in the film: notice the number of scenes punctucated by celestial and mechanical allusions to the now infamous sound of Darth Vader's life support system in action, particularly during the fallout of the fierce duel between Chancellor Palpatine and Jedi Master Mace Windu and the birth of the Skywalker offspring.

I was also surprised to see a number of scenes involving Chancellor Palpatine that were composed in such a way that they are balanced evenly, providing visual harmony or peace, if you will. We know, though, that this peace and harmony are false as he is, infact, the evil Sith lord Darth Sidious.

Even the nature of a Sith Lord, Darth Vader in particular, is revealed through purely visual means. In "Menace," Lucas gave us Darth Maul, a menacing figure whose visage resembled that of a demonic heel. "Clones" brought us Count Dooku, a Jedi Master-turned-Sith Lord, thus instilling the notion of a Jedi turning from the path. "Sith" shows us the fiendish droid general, Grievous; a four-armed robotic fury trained in the Jedi arts. Although it is never stated explicitly, a close-up shot of his eyes during a tense stand-off with Obi-Wan Kenobi reveals that he is a living organism trapped within a metal shell, providing further visual development for the technological terror the boy from Tatooine will become.

The rest of the text can be found at: http://blogs.starwars.com/joe1138/2.

Granted...I was simply saying that the dialogue in the OT is equal to the dialogue in the PT. Great dialogue is not a hall mark of science fiction in general.

Well it should be. Some day, it will be! Sci fi will have the best dialogue ever! I promise you!

There was definitely character development in the prequels.
It just wasn't very good.

I absolutely agree.

Sci-fi dialogue will even learn to stop people from dying.

Character development in Star Wars? Aside from Luke and Anakin (and boy, did they develop), what characters need to be developed?

Star Wars was always about how cool looking and badass these characters were, not about their undeveloped personalities, so much. It's their appearances that mattered more than anything. When you were playing with your action figures as a kid, did you have any problem knowing how those action figures were supposed to act? With the PT action figures, do you have any problem knowing how to play with them?

I thought not.

^ Most of the prequel trilogy figures would stand there and have a chat about trade disputes. "Will you defer your motion to allow a commission to explore the validity of your accusations?" - *kid falls asleep

You're right, Lucas should've cut all that shit out so that we would have no clue who the Separatists are, why they wanted to leave the Republic in the first place or just how badly off the Republic actually was.

GREAT IDEA!!!

^ Hey man, just chill, I'm easy. I love the PT as much as the next Jar Jar Binks.

Fry: Well, what do you suggest? A daring daylight robbery of Fort Knox on elephant-back? That's the dumbest thing I ever heard!

By the way, the guy was responding to the action figure theory right above his post.

How is anything you mentioned character development? At all? Again, the "no character development" complaint needs a prerequisite of what spefically you refer to as character development. In this case, "character development" could be replaced by "the specific idiosyncracies displayed by OT actors". And I agree, the PT lacks the specific idiosyncracies displayed by OT actors. But that has nothing to do with character.

And what was wrong with Anakin's mother's death scene. He goes apeshit and kills tons of innocent people. But he's Darth Vader, so that's what I was kind of hoping for.

Would you really have liked his mother to say "Why haven't you called me?" I would've been cracking up.

I LOVED Shmi's reaction after Anakin took her off that rack thingy. Her depth of character and quality of spirit comes out in what she didn't say. She didn't cry to Anakin about badly the Tuskens hurt her or bitch him out for not calling her or anything. She knew her time was short (mere seconds) so she did her best to express her love for her son.

One last time.

I agree, Yoda's death scene was good, but he had the knowledge that he would have at least the opportunity for further conversations with Luke, that Yoda's mortal death wasn't The End, etc. Shmi has no such ability. She simply loved her son.



As outrageous as that may be to some, I tend to agree with you. I just like the PT more. Something about it just engages me more.

Maybe the character depth we should see in her is that she's really good at recognizing people after not seeing them in ten years when they completely change because I wouldn't've recognized him.

She does say "Ani...Ani...is it you?", to which 'Ani' replies "I'm here, Mom. You're safe". But I see your point.

Man how true, yet I still hear people complaining about how something should've been worded differently to tie it in to the OT and all those arguments. I have gone into this from the beginnng expecting a very different experince from the OT and I for one am very glad I got a very different experience. I think the characters in the PT are easier to relate to because they are so much more developed characters. I sitll wonder though now that he has these completed what the sequetl trilogy would've been like had he decided to do them

Very true. In fact this reminds me of when I first saw the Phantom Menace. I'd heard the bad reviews and was actually blown away by the movie, 'cause I entered the cinema with an open mind. Jar Jar wasn't a problem for me and the pod race was better than anything I'd ever seen at the cinema (I was young!). Throw in the end fight with the cross cutting and you had a pretty damn ok film. Minus some iffy scenes in the second act, the PT has at least lived up to my (perhaps relatively low) expectations.

Well, apparently you didn't carefully read my review. I believe I clearly stated in paragraph four that, "much of this depth is lost when the film is placed in the context of traditional film and filmmaking."

Characters such as Maul, Dooku, and Grievous are intended to form a composite picture of what Anakin Skywalker will become in film three. By introducing a different element of evil in each film, Lucas gradually builds (crescendos) to a narrative apex that results in the birth of Darth Vader; they are not intended to trump Vader but place the figure in a cinematic context that allows for a visually poetic reading of the text and all that it entails (i.e. the rise and fall of the hero). They are each a broad splash of color on the mural of evil known as Vader.



That you don't find ideas carried out through more visual means as opposed to being explicitly stated by character gestures or monotonous monologues interesting is not necessarily a problem with the film itself, but rather a problem that you the viewer have and are perfectly entitled to, but must also acknowledge (whether it be internally or through the written word) before passing judgement on a work, and does not invalidate the methods used to comunicate said ideas and emotions by the filmmaker.



I don't believe I ever said Grievous' extreme close-up contributed to his believeability, but rather informed the viewer of his true biological nature. Again, Grievous is a character who contributes to the development of the mechanical menace Skywalker will become. That the central character arch throughout all six films is Vader's should be justification enough to allow the storyteller license to craft and tailor the otherwise de riguer villainous foils to further advance and develop (there's that word you like) the story of Anakin Skywalker, thus placing Darth Vader on a pedastal as the icon of evil we have all known him to be.



It's no secret that I admire Lucas' work to no end, and I honestly believe Lucas is our greatest living filmmaker. It is an opinion that is not shared by most, (not even on this board) but it is one that I defend and proclaim at every opportunity. Lucas is not, by his own admission, a "literary filmmaker," however, the way he tells a story is much more closely linked to literature than perhaps even he would like to acknowledge. That the structure of his films is not analyzed in greater detail is one of my biggest pet peeves, yet, because his films involve bug-eyed aliens (as opposed to Jeanne Moreau) that can at times dwarf the complexities and, yes subtlties, of his films, his work is never given the proper due and exploration that it so rightfully deserves. Development need not come in the form of dialogue exchanges or character reactions, and I admire Lucas for telling his stories in a way that may be lost on some (or even written off by others) but makes for viewing most interesting for those with the patience, and, above all else, love for film.

By the way, please don't take some of my smart ass comments the wrong way, this is some of the best internet debate I've had in a long while (and the fact that you didn't use the word "fucktard" in your dialogue makes me want to continue this discourse all the more).

I think one of the main problems I have with the PT is that the focus of the story moves from the rise of the Empire to Anakin's fall to the Dark Side.

???

I second that ????, but I think Ternian is trying to say that he would have prefered the story to be driven by events, not character. Or, rather revolve around the Empire rather than Anakin. Personally, I think its infinitely more interesting to revolve it around Anakin, but GL does manage to put all the main steps of the Empire's rise in the films, and juxtapose them with Anakin. Quite a bit happens in Episode II, particularly in Anakin's turning to the Dark Side story, but also obviously in the fall of the Republic, which allows Episode III to work.

That's what Lucas said it was going to be all along, "Anakin's story", he never said it was going to be the rise of the empire, that's a crappy fan invented wannabe episode 3 title.

The PT lacks the militarism of the OT, which is a strong reason why the PT is not liked. This is solely because the PT is, in fact driven by characters and not plot. The OT can afford to spend alot of time discussing the Galactic Civil War and war strategy, the PT knows it's character driven and sticks to it.

Yes, but all 6 movies due contain one main military action:

EI - Battle of Naboo
EII - Battle of Geonosis
EIII - Battle of Coruscant
EIV - Battle of Yavin
EV - Battle of Hoth
EVI - Battle of Endor

In fact, EIII is the only one that really expands and shows montages of many battles and you could argue that Utapau is another main battle. So I'm not sure I understand Ternian's logic. If one was expecting a film in which many military conflicts take place, Anakin and Obi fighting on different planets together, etc., etc., that's just not GL's style. These are serials, we get glimpses of a few days at a time.

It's not the action from battles that he's referring to (I think), it's the storytelling perspective and tonality.

There is no war in Episode I, there is a skirmish. There is no war in Episode II until the very end, and even then it's told from the perspective of the characters, which are not military. In Episode III we have the Clone War going on, and there's a bit more of a military feel to it, but it's still not to the same degree of the OT.

I'll elaborate:

In the OT, we experience from the get go a galaxy in a time of war. There is no build up to hostilities, it already exists, and as such the characters are all 'war torn'. They talk in military terms, and even Luke, who's on the home front so to speak, knows there's a war going on and revolves his life around it.

We've got dozens of characters in military costumes, scenes describing strategy and tactics as well as mission briefings, battle scenes with military talk back....these are all things that the PT does not have. It's not a knock on the PT, nor should it be considered as one, it's just the nature of those stories. The main characters in the PT were never warriors or generals or soldiers, they are just thrown into those roles due to extraordinary circumstances. There's no Captain Needa, Admiral Piett, General Reiken, Admiral Ackbar or even a Wedge in this set of movies and it's all because there was no need for them.

Well guys , here's my 2-cents worth :

I enjoy both the OT and PT.

But , I just wish TPM is more serious ( Jar - Jar ? Yippee ? urgghhh....)

That's it , I've said my part.

GoGro and Shawshank, I agree 100% with those last 2 posts. In fact, the point that GoGro makes is something that occurred to me after the first time I saw AOTC. The title "Star WARS" suddenly took on a newer and deeper meaning for me, and it was because of the prequels.

And again, my only negative about the whole saga now is that I do wish some silliness in both Epsiodes 1 and 6 had been trimmed a bit. But it's not a big deal. I still can't see how TPM is any better or worse than ROTJ.

Just as cogro said it shouldn't be viewed as a knock against the trilogy because it isn't as focused on the military aspect of the saga, the point of the films is to show how the war torn galaxy of the PT became so war torn. so in order to do that it has to focus on the characters individually. For instance how did the emperor amass this army, how did anakin fall, how did the senators let this happen, who where the people that became rebels before this conflict started. All these questions had to be answered through character development, hence the difference in the 2 trilogy's

The OT revolved around the Galactic Civil War - the Rebel Alliance pitted against the Empire. Luke and Leia's story was just a by-product of this war. It was all about Good Vs. Evil - thats all we had to understand.

In the PT, GL shifted the perspective from the rise of the Empire to Anakin's story and the Empire became the by-product. That meant we had to have some solid character development to pull it off - and we didn't. Actually, GL did nearly everything to get rid of character development.

I believe that TPM should have begun with the Clone Wars and the Separatist crisis, AotC should have had the struggling Jedi send Anakin sent on a mission to Naboo to save the besieged planet where he falls in love with Padme, and then RotS should have dealt with the rise of the Empire and the Rebel Alliance.

Thank God you weren't in charge of writing the prequels.

That time of the month again?

That would have been so much better than what we got.

What are you calling character development? I think you are confusing development with backstory. And backstory is typically bad, boring, unnecessary, and should be reserved for a medium other than film. I agree, GL did strip the PT of any backstory really. Padme's backstory was effectively removed, left on cutting room in AOTC, and I have mentioned many times before I don't agree with that cut. But in general, backstory is bad.

We should only be told what we need to know about the character to understand the story he/she exists in. Have you seen The Vanishing? Not the crappy Jeff Bridges version, but the original. That's a pretty great example of how characterization should be in film. What do we know about the main character besides he is obsessed with his abducted wife? Absolutely nothing. Not a single thing. Nor should we know anymore. The story works without it.

In terms of Anakin, we actually learn quite a great deal, and all of it is pertinent. He is a very conflicted and intricate character, but GL makes sure that every piece of info giving to us somehow relates to his journey to the Dark Side inevitably.

I've said it many times, the characterization in the PT is very subtle and welldone. It would be tempting to say that fans are reading to much into these characters, but when you look at it closely, particularly with say Qui-Gon, you'll find his characterization very consistent. So while the development in the PT is often implicit, it has to be. And it should be. Actually, all good movies should and do have such implicit, consistent characterization.

Here's where the deabte becomes borring because I actually agree with your view of "AOTC." Even though I enjoyed it, I felt that, overall, it was the weakest entry in the entire saga due in large part to the writing. Lucas' attempt to mirror the relationship between Han and Leia in "Empire" with the drivel that was saddled Christensen and Portman in "Clones" failed to establish any true romantic leanings the Anakin and Padme characters were supposed to have at that pivotal moment in their story. Still, the romance was saved by Williams' score, in particular his love theme which said more with musical notes than was ever uettered between the two.



Ah, but don't you think Han's trouble with the Falcon was mirrored, in some fashion, by Anakin's trouble with his lightsaber, which eventually leads to his loss of an arm during the duel with Dooku in "Clones?" In this sense, we see a somewhat unecessary thematic element (much like the Falcon's strategic malfunctioning in "Empire") build to a character defining trait. Even more depth is gained when taking in to account Episode III and the manner inwhich Anakin losses yet another arm and his legs as we see that his hubris, once a naive, but bold, facet of his character in Episode I, (on racing pods: "I'm the only human that can do it.") ultimately manifests itself in his downfall.

EDIT: If you take the idea of hubris and the hero in the "Star Wars" films even further, you can draw yet another comparison between the father and son. In "Empire," Luke darringly rushes off to Cloud City to save his friends, thinking that if he does nothing, they will die. Yet, unbeknownst to him, the seemingly treasonous Lando Calrissian devises a plot to rescue Leia and the gang that doesn't take Luke's unannounced arrival as the brash and brazen hero into consideration, and we see that after his loss to Vader, indeed, he would have been better off had he stayed with Yoda on Degobah and continued his training. Luke learns his lesson, as "Jedi" is characterized by the theme of the heroes' faith in their friends, (which also resolves "TPM's" concept of a symbiotic relationship) Anakin, on the other hand, doesn't and becomes even more self centered by "Sith's" climactic duel, "I have brought peace to my empire."

would it be a stretch to theorize that vader knew Luke would rush to Han and Leia's rescue, because it's just what he would've done? Like Father, like Son. Of course, Luke learns his lesson and by Jedi actually says "i can't do it alone," after Yoda's death, Anakin retains his hubris. when Luke goes to face Vader and the Emperor, he is sure he will soon be dead; not a scenario Anakin could ever envision, I'm sure.
In the end, Anakin learns from his son, and the Jedi returns.
so i agree - Anakin suffers hubris, determined to become so powerful he can prevent the losses in his life.
Luke learns humility, to accept the losses inflicted on his life, and continue.

It wouldn't be a stretch, and judging by the fact that Lando mentions that "he's after someone called Skywalker," it's clear that that was his intent all along.



Good point. I think that Luke's being at peace with his own demise for the sake of the greater good also shows that he is in tune with the idea of the living force; a lingering vestige of Qui Gon's influence on the Jedi's perception of the force.

Manny...I didn't mean backstory. Sometimes the less back story, the better. But I am talking about little bits of characterisation like Padme in the kitchen/ family dinner in AotC - glancing looks, interaction with people who know the true her etc. It just fleshed out her character better, IMO.

I'm certainly not going to argue with you about that scene. It would have radically changed AOTC had some of those simple scenes kept in. There were about half a dozen ways in which GL could've achieved adding a great deal of depth to Padme's character in AOTC, and they are all present in the script. Any single one of those scenes could have functioned by itself, and it does bother me that GL chose to remove them all: the "I wish I had a family like my sister scene"; the family scenes; the "I wish he knew I cared for him" scene with 3PO. If he had just left one of those in, the romance would've worked better from Padme's POV. As is, we can only understand and feel Anakin's emotions. At least for me. I feel like Hales' contributions were stripped away. I remember him saying he felt like AOTC was Padme's movie. And had it been centered on her, I feel the romance would've worked better. We know Anakin loves Padme, we knew he had a crush on her in TPM, seeing the romance through his eyes creates a somewhat perfunctory feel to it all. Padme's inner conflict is the interesting story behind AOTC, and it's barely in the film.


Nonetheless, I disagree with your overall assesment that the PT has weak characterization. ObiWan? QuiGon? Anakin? Certainly Padme always got the shaft once the film hit the editing room, but not the others. And even with the Edward Scissorhand like treatment of Padme, her character still has infinite more depth than her daughter. She might not be as spunky and funny, but more developed I'd say.