I understand what Lucas was trying to do with the story of Anakin's fall. I just don't think he succeeded.
The problem was that Hayden Christenson was simply not believable as Anakin or Vader. (Vader was decisive and self-confident. Anakin was not. I really don't see how Lucas could get from point A to point B.) And it may be a plausible story to hinge the fate of the galaxy on this whiny bundle of hormones with super-force powers. I just think he could have done a lot better on the explanation. There were so many angles that Lucas could have exploited in this new trilogy, but he left them all untapped.
Hell, we're all like that as teenagers, father figure or not. But a lack of a father figure in itself doesn't explain why Anakin fell so far so fast. There are other factors which Lucas never explores.
Anyway, you and Solomon and everyone else should go read Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster. It starts off a bit schlocky, but at the end, you get a clearer idea of why Anakin became Vader, much more than Lucas could EVER give.
P.S. This afternoon as I'm running errands I am mentally re-writing this entire prequel trilogy to see if I can squeeze in a more plausible story of Anakin's fall.
P.S. Yoda's lines are not clunkers. They are wise, witty, and profound. He packs the most ideas into the fewest lines of any character in the films. Even this last one.
"Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them, do not. Miss them, do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is. Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose."
He didn't succeed with you. He succeeded brilliantly for me. Maybe the problem is you just don't relate.
As for Yoda: Oh give me a break. He's a sanctimonious little jerk who spouts dime-store novel platitudes that sound profound because of his cartoon-character way of speaking.
Oh, and I do like Yoda by the way. But the entire series, starting from the very first film, is full of platitudes and stilted, often wooden dialogue. If Alec Guiness hadn't had that upper-class Englishman's accent and exhuded self-confidence, almost every line he ever uttered would have seemed stupid.
It all seemed cool when we were younger because it was so novel and different from anything we'd seen in movies before is all.
And there's nothing wrong with that--these are great movies. But the critics of the original Star Wars film all the way back to 1977 were saying the same thing: stilted dialogue, hackneyed situations, melodramatic, cheap sentimentality, etc. Those complaints have always been there.
Dean, the other day you were discussing Star Wars and archetypal elements. I wish I could lay my hands on the essay by the novelist Robertson Davies (who also had roots in theater) where he argues that sometimes "hackneyed situations, melodrama, cheap sentimentality, etc." are especially well suited to conveying archetypes. Indeed, sometimes better suited than "higher," more "sophisticated" literature and drama.
My favorite line came out in a "making of" special. At their first reading, Ford turned to Fisher and said; "You know, you can read this stuff, but you can't speak it."
I'm sure all geeks out there realize that a parsec is a measure of distance, not velocity. "I made the L.A. run in 200 miles" ?
If I didn't have my own father to admire, I'd wish I had Dean as a father (and the Queen as a mother). His Princes are very fortunate.
I must confess that I have seen nought but bits and snippets of the Star Wars series -- even as little as I have seen of Star Trek since the days when Dr. McCoy told Mr. Spock to shut up -- so I render no judgement. I grew up on the Lost In Space television series, as well as The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, back in the early 1960s. I suppose that I must see it all (the Star Wars saga) someday, as it seems to be rapidly becoming part of the folklore of our early 21st century Late Western, or at least American, civilization.
That quote from Yoda sounds like the philosophy of Buddhism, the basic premises of which are diametrically opposed to my own. Myself, I prefer our Western philosophies and religions, such as Judaism, Christianity (particularly Catholicism), Asatru, and Objectivism. G. K. Chesterton wrote profoundly on Buddhism vs. Christianity in his Orthodoxy. I am an egoist.
I have to disagree about wooden lines. Go watch the 1st Star Wars movie and see if Obi Wan's lines are wooden. They AREN'T. Maybe, as written, they should be, but they are not.
Also, (keep in mind that I don't have a problem with Annakin's turn- it seemed abrupt but it made sense) the argument that people don't "get" something because they lack necessary life experience is kind of weak. Not just in this individual case, but generally. Not to go into moral relativism and etc., but that argument has vast application.
Finally I have to disagree about Padme. I think he loved her very much and was unable to handle it. If you're saying that real or true love can't be twisted or perverted by insecurity and fear of loss then maybe he didn't love her... But in my experience love can be warped into hate, into feeling of posession, etc. Lots of young men can relate to that, too.
I agree 100% about when Annakin screamed "I hate you!"... whoa! That line really gave me chicken skin.
Dean: OK, maybe the plot in SW has more than its share of clunk. But for ESB, and to a lesser extent ROTJ, there is very little evidence of any of that criticism. Don't dare say that the part with Luke finding out Vader is his father is melodramatic. Like I said in my criticism of ROTS, the look on Luke's face is genuine horror+pain+disbelief. As for hackneyed situations, I remember screaming "nooo!" when I watched ESB the first time (on video)and saw Vader in the banquet room on Cloud City. (Hey, I was 5. Which may also explain why I still have a soft spot for the Ewoks. Five years old watching ROTJ in theater+walking teddy bears=good times). Cheap sentimentality? Han is about to be frozen, Leia tells him she loves him, and Han just winks and says "I know." (IIRC, that line was ad-libbed, not in the script.) ROTJ is a little bit less on this score, but aside from the Ewok thing (that really WAS stupid), I don't think you can make nearly the same criticism. As I have said before, I think ESB and ROTJ are the best films of the set, mostly because Lucas had so little control over them. And one of the reasons this new trilogy falls so flat is because we've seen this all before: Aside from flashier graphics, Lucas really doesn't break any new ground.
SMA: IMO, Lucas drew heavily on Buddhism, esp. Zen Buddhism when he was creating the Jedi Order (the Jedi order's symbol, BTW, is an eight-spoked wheel similar to a Buddhist dharma wheel). Warrior-monks, "unlearning" what you have learned, belief in the illusory and fleeting nature of physical reality, a goal of forsaking all worldly attachments. (Also note that lightsaber combat was heavily influenced by Japanese swordmanship, from the Samurai on down to modern versions like kendo and iaido, all of which were strongly influenced by Zen teachings.)
The thing about Buddhism itself is that it does not have any internal references to a God or gods, or specific divine individuals. Consequently, most adherents of Buddhism either combine its style of worship with local deities/legends (Tibetan buddhism), or practice it along side other religions (Confucianism/Taoism in China, Shinto in Japan). I am a Catholic myself, but even I find myself amazed at the paralells found between Jesus' teachings and those of Buddhism.
"I went back and watched the 1977 original Star Wars this weekend. Wooden lines predominated, especially from Ben Kenobi."
huh...
Different strokes I guess. Or maybe I still see it through my 10 year-old eyes and ears when I rewatch. But would the movie have been that popular if "wooden lines predominated?"
I'm sorry, but the cast of the original - with the exception of alec guinness - were all second rate actors reciting second-rate lines. (I don't count James Earl Jones because he was only the voice) Hamill, especially, hasn't stood the test of time.
The movies were popular for a wide variety of reasons. The criticisms of the time were very similar to the criticisms of the current movies. Audiences didn't care, largely I think for the reasons Paul Burgess mentions above.
The current movies are going to seem weaker for a variety of reasons: the novelty has worn off on a lot of it, the themes explored are not quite as universal, Lucas did try to cram too much in, special effects have become orders of magnitude better and more common (a phenomenon Lucas himself is in large part responsible for), and so on.
I 11 when that movie came out and I can tell you, there had never been anything like Star Wars when it first came out. It was mindblowing. Nowadays of course we have no shortage of great science fiction and science fantasy in movies and television. If that movie had come out in 1997 instead of 1977 it wouldn't have been the hit it was. It came along at exactly the right time, exactly the right moment.
I got cut off before I was able to finish my thought, but I'm with dean. I have said to several classes before that I can't think of another cultural phenomenon (not a technology, but a story, a film, a tv show, a musical phenomenon) since star wars that has had the impact it had. I remember seeing a brochure for the original movie with all the characters together, and my friends and I (i believe we were 8-10 at the time) stared at them and tried to imagine what a "wookie" was like.
Nowadays, nothing seems to ring the cultural chimes quite so large. movies sell lots of tickets, but none changes the culture like star wars.
Still and all, there's a reason carrie fisher and mark hamill haven't done much on screen since the original movies - they are not good actors. As one of the few people who saw "Corvette Summer" in the theatre, I can attest to Hamill's less-than-stellar skills. Harrison Ford made a career of playing harrison ford/hans solo playing whatever part he was playing.
I have seen all the movies but read none of the books, so I don't know the "backstory" stuff. I was aghast in episode I when Qui Gon and Obi Wan so casually took Anakin away from his mother. They couldn't "afford" to free her? What kind of morons take a ten-year-old away from his mother and expect everything to go hunky-dory? Quite frankly, it was clear from that moment why Anakin would become Vadar - I certainly didn't need two movies to show me why.
Well, the backstory, IIRC was that all Jedi children are taken from their families. Usually at such an early age that they barely (if at all) remember their families. That way there is no family "attachment". (Attachment is forbidden.)
Taking Anakin from his mother would not have been unusual in the least, it was routine.
While I individually enjoyed each of the prequels, and thought each one was better than the last, I'm coming to the conclusion that they really didn't need to be made. They ended up de-mystifying the whole Force and Jedi concept while introducing new, and in my opinion, intolerable plot inconsistencies.
In the original trilogy, the Jedi were an obscure and anonymous group with strange mystical powers, who used those powers to do good deeds throughout the galaxy whenever possible. In the new trilogy, they are no longer obscure and anonymous, their powers aren't so mystical or even that special, and they have become a group of self-absorbed elitists concerned only with preserving what is left of their dwindling power.
In other words, Lucas turned the Jedi from being reluctant superheroes of the Spiderman type("with great power comes great responsibility") to university professors.
That said, as entertainment, I enjoyed Episode III, but I'm just not sure it, or any of the prequels, add anything to the Star Wars lore.
But I do agree that Episode III dealt greatly with father-son relationships. While the plot made us believe that Anakin joined the dark side in order to save Padme, the subtext (and I'm not sure if this was Lucas' intent or not) was that he joined the dark side in search of a father figure. While Obi-Wan was mouthing off Jedi "do your duty" platitudes, Palpatine was providing a sympathetic ear.
Again, I'm not sure that was Lucas' intent since he seemed to want to make it all about Padme, but the love scenes between Padme and Anakin were so clunky that you could barely be convinced that he loved the woman, let alone slaughtered the Jedi in order to save her life.
The problem was that Hayden Christenson was simply not believable as Anakin or Vader. (Vader was decisive and self-confident. Anakin was not. I really don't see how Lucas could get from point A to point B.) And it may be a plausible story to hinge the fate of the galaxy on this whiny bundle of hormones with super-force powers. I just think he could have done a lot better on the explanation. There were so many angles that Lucas could have exploited in this new trilogy, but he left them all untapped.
Hell, we're all like that as teenagers, father figure or not. But a lack of a father figure in itself doesn't explain why Anakin fell so far so fast. There are other factors which Lucas never explores.
Anyway, you and Solomon and everyone else should go read Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster. It starts off a bit schlocky, but at the end, you get a clearer idea of why Anakin became Vader, much more than Lucas could EVER give.
P.S. This afternoon as I'm running errands I am mentally re-writing this entire prequel trilogy to see if I can squeeze in a more plausible story of Anakin's fall.
"Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them, do not. Miss them, do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is. Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose."
As for Yoda: Oh give me a break. He's a sanctimonious little jerk who spouts dime-store novel platitudes that sound profound because of his cartoon-character way of speaking.
It all seemed cool when we were younger because it was so novel and different from anything we'd seen in movies before is all.
And there's nothing wrong with that--these are great movies. But the critics of the original Star Wars film all the way back to 1977 were saying the same thing: stilted dialogue, hackneyed situations, melodramatic, cheap sentimentality, etc. Those complaints have always been there.
dale
I'm sure all geeks out there realize that a parsec is a measure of distance, not velocity. "I made the L.A. run in 200 miles" ?
I must confess that I have seen nought but bits and snippets of the Star Wars series -- even as little as I have seen of Star Trek since the days when Dr. McCoy told Mr. Spock to shut up -- so I render no judgement. I grew up on the Lost In Space television series, as well as The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, back in the early 1960s. I suppose that I must see it all (the Star Wars saga) someday, as it seems to be rapidly becoming part of the folklore of our early 21st century Late Western, or at least American, civilization.
That quote from Yoda sounds like the philosophy of Buddhism, the basic premises of which are diametrically opposed to my own. Myself, I prefer our Western philosophies and religions, such as Judaism, Christianity (particularly Catholicism), Asatru, and Objectivism. G. K. Chesterton wrote profoundly on Buddhism vs. Christianity in his Orthodoxy. I am an egoist.
Also, (keep in mind that I don't have a problem with Annakin's turn- it seemed abrupt but it made sense) the argument that people don't "get" something because they lack necessary life experience is kind of weak. Not just in this individual case, but generally. Not to go into moral relativism and etc., but that argument has vast application.
Finally I have to disagree about Padme. I think he loved her very much and was unable to handle it. If you're saying that real or true love can't be twisted or perverted by insecurity and fear of loss then maybe he didn't love her... But in my experience love can be warped into hate, into feeling of posession, etc. Lots of young men can relate to that, too.
I agree 100% about when Annakin screamed "I hate you!"... whoa! That line really gave me chicken skin.
cheers!
I went back and watched the 1977 original Star Wars this weekend. Wooden lines predominated, especially from Ben Kenobi.
SMA: IMO, Lucas drew heavily on Buddhism, esp. Zen Buddhism when he was creating the Jedi Order (the Jedi order's symbol, BTW, is an eight-spoked wheel similar to a Buddhist dharma wheel). Warrior-monks, "unlearning" what you have learned, belief in the illusory and fleeting nature of physical reality, a goal of forsaking all worldly attachments. (Also note that lightsaber combat was heavily influenced by Japanese swordmanship, from the Samurai on down to modern versions like kendo and iaido, all of which were strongly influenced by Zen teachings.)
The thing about Buddhism itself is that it does not have any internal references to a God or gods, or specific divine individuals. Consequently, most adherents of Buddhism either combine its style of worship with local deities/legends (Tibetan buddhism), or practice it along side other religions (Confucianism/Taoism in China, Shinto in Japan). I am a Catholic myself, but even I find myself amazed at the paralells found between Jesus' teachings and those of Buddhism.
huh...
Different strokes I guess. Or maybe I still see it through my 10 year-old eyes and ears when I rewatch. But would the movie have been that popular if "wooden lines predominated?"
The movies were popular for a wide variety of reasons. The criticisms of the time were very similar to the criticisms of the current movies. Audiences didn't care, largely I think for the reasons Paul Burgess mentions above.
The current movies are going to seem weaker for a variety of reasons: the novelty has worn off on a lot of it, the themes explored are not quite as universal, Lucas did try to cram too much in, special effects have become orders of magnitude better and more common (a phenomenon Lucas himself is in large part responsible for), and so on.
I 11 when that movie came out and I can tell you, there had never been anything like Star Wars when it first came out. It was mindblowing. Nowadays of course we have no shortage of great science fiction and science fantasy in movies and television. If that movie had come out in 1997 instead of 1977 it wouldn't have been the hit it was. It came along at exactly the right time, exactly the right moment.
Nowadays, nothing seems to ring the cultural chimes quite so large. movies sell lots of tickets, but none changes the culture like star wars.
Still and all, there's a reason carrie fisher and mark hamill haven't done much on screen since the original movies - they are not good actors. As one of the few people who saw "Corvette Summer" in the theatre, I can attest to Hamill's less-than-stellar skills. Harrison Ford made a career of playing harrison ford/hans solo playing whatever part he was playing.
cheers!
Taking Anakin from his mother would not have been unusual in the least, it was routine.
In the original trilogy, the Jedi were an obscure and anonymous group with strange mystical powers, who used those powers to do good deeds throughout the galaxy whenever possible. In the new trilogy, they are no longer obscure and anonymous, their powers aren't so mystical or even that special, and they have become a group of self-absorbed elitists concerned only with preserving what is left of their dwindling power.
In other words, Lucas turned the Jedi from being reluctant superheroes of the Spiderman type("with great power comes great responsibility") to university professors.
That said, as entertainment, I enjoyed Episode III, but I'm just not sure it, or any of the prequels, add anything to the Star Wars lore.
But I do agree that Episode III dealt greatly with father-son relationships. While the plot made us believe that Anakin joined the dark side in order to save Padme, the subtext (and I'm not sure if this was Lucas' intent or not) was that he joined the dark side in search of a father figure. While Obi-Wan was mouthing off Jedi "do your duty" platitudes, Palpatine was providing a sympathetic ear.
Again, I'm not sure that was Lucas' intent since he seemed to want to make it all about Padme, but the love scenes between Padme and Anakin were so clunky that you could barely be convinced that he loved the woman, let alone slaughtered the Jedi in order to save her life.