14 April 2007 @ 11:35 am
The Phantom Menace  






Everyone knows that The Phantom Menace doesn't work.  My 5-year-old Star Wars-obsessed son knows The Phantom Menace doesn't work (two hours into the movie, he asks "Does Darth Maul ever actually fight anyone?").  But the question I must face as a screenwriter is why.  And, after seeing the movie a half-dozen or so times, I believe I have an answer.

The problem is not Jar-Jar.

Let's go back to first principles.  What does the protagonist want?  I thought about this for a long time, and then I realized something -- I wasn't sure who the protagonist was.

So I thought, as a public service, I would run down the most obvious characters and examine their motivations.



Qui-gon Jin: He's tall, handsome, carries a lightsaber.  He leads, others follow.  He's in a lot of the movie.  He's probably the protagonist.

Well, let's think about that for a moment.  What does Qui-gon want?  In the first act of the movie, Qui-gon wants to solve the mystery of the Trade Federation's invasion of Naboo.  How far does Qui-gon get in unraveling this mystery?  Not far at all.  Qui-gon gets chased out of the Trade Federation's battle station, flees with his apprentice to Naboo, meets up with the Queen, tags along with her to Tatooine and then Coruscant, all the while stroking his beard and saying "Hmm, something about this invasion isn't quite right."  Along the way, he gets distracted from his purpose by this little kid Annakin Skywalker, whom he is convinced is The Chosen One.  He spends a lot of time trying to convince the Jedi Council of this, and they tell him to buzz off.  He tags along with Queen Amidala as she goes back to Naboo to be with her people.  He plays a role in the liberation of Naboo, but a Sith gunslinger who's been pursuing him kills him.

So, Qui-gon, master Jedi, how did you do?  You never figured out why the Trade Federation invaded Naboo, even though the Sith Lord responsible for it sent his apprentice to kill you and the Queen, and you did not succeed in training the little boy who you thought was the Chosen One.  You couldn't even put the whammy on a big-nosed junk dealer.  This, dear readers, is not the arc of a compelling protagonist.



OBI-WAN: He's white, he's young, he's good-looking, he carries a lightsaber.  Maybe he's the protagonist.

What does Obi-wan want?  Well, mostly he wants what Qui-gon wants, but sooner.  He's impetuous, daring, impatient, bold and a little snippy.  But he's the apprentice.  He has no clearly-defined goals of his own.  He's Qui-gon's baggage-carrier.  Quite literally, as he is forced to take on the burden of the little kid when Qui-gon dies.  With dire results.



ANAKIN: he's cute, he's blond, he's a slave boy with big dreams and a charmed way with a pod-racer -- a perfect model for a protagonist.

What does Anakin want?  To get off Tatooine, preferably with his mother, but he'll settle for less if he can get it.  Anakin achieves his goal, but his plot line has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.  The Trade Federation did not invade Naboo because Anakin wants to get off Tatooine.  And even though Anakin ends up saving the day on Naboo, he does so by accident -- a disaster in plot structure.  It's as though Luke blew up the Death Star without meaning to, he just happened upon the Death Star battle and accidentally shot some photon torpedoes into the crucial ventilator duct (or whatever it was).



QUEEN AMIDALA: She's young, she's pretty, she's white, she's a ruler, she can handle herself in a battle, she's the focus of the narrative, she drives a good chunk of the story.  Is she the protagonist?

Let's put it this way: she's close.  What does Queen Amidala want?  To get rid of the Trade Federation's invasion army.  How does she go about it?  She puts her trust first in Qui-gon (who has no idea what's going on), then in Chancellor Valorum, then in Senator Palpatine.  She's driving the story, but her naivety and passion for her citizens cause her to make some disastrous decisions.  Even though she takes what could be considered decisive action, she is in fact a reactive presence in The Phantom Menace.



JAR-JAR BINKS: An important, secondary character, a comic reflection of many of the themes of the movie, but sorry, not a protagonist.



NUTE GUNRAY: How 'bout this guy?  What does he want?  He's the leader of the Trade Federation (whatever the hell that is).  He wants -- what?  To take over Naboo?  No, alas, no.  Nute does not want to take over Naboo, that is a secondary goal.  Nute wants to please Darth Sidious.  He's made some kind of deal with the Sith Lord, one that keeps changing for the worse (as deals with Sith Lords tend to).  The invasion of Naboo is a massive distraction (The Phantom Menace is filled with them -- while a plotting disaster, it is, admittedly,  quite thematically rich).



DARTH MAUL: He's striking, he's good in a fight, but he's a tool.  He's no Obi-wan, he'll never question his master.  He's no protagonist -- he's barely even an antagonist.  He's a plot point.



DARTH SIDIOUS: Now we're getting close.  Darth Sidious is the reason all this is happening.  Appears to be, anyway.  Darth Sidious holds all the cards in this narrative has plotted with Nute Gunray to invade Naboo.  When Qui-gon interferes with his plans, he sends his apprentice to kill him and capture the Queen.  He has no effect on the subplot involving little Anakin, but that's okay.  The question is, who is Darth Sidious?



SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN PALPATINE: Here he is, the protagonist of The Phantom Menace.  What does he want?  To become Chancellor.  The entire movie, the invasion, the droid army, the lightsaber battles, the pod race, everything in the movie happens because Palpatine wants to become Chancellor.

Now then: let's look at Palpatine's plan.  Palpatine puts on his dark cloak, calls himself Darth Sidious (it is apparently his alter ego), makes a deal with Nute Gunray, which leads to the invasion of Naboo, which leads to Queen Amidala fleeing to Coruscant, which leads to Palpatine pressuring her into forcing a vote of no confidence in Valorum.

Four things wrong with this:

1. Palpatine does not show up until the beginning of ACT III, a major plotting disaster.  How can we feel the dramatic tension of an evil plot if we don't know who has formulated it?  All we know is there's a guy in a black hood who seems to hold the Trade Federation in some kind of sway, we have no idea what he wants or why he wants it.
2. His plan makes no sense.  If he wants to become Chancellor, and his plot to become Chancellor involves Queen Amidala's vote of no confidence in the Senate, why does he try to keep Amidala on Naboo?  He needs to get her to Coruscant -- she goes there, but without him causing it to happen.  What kind of evil plan is that?
2. Qui-gon, Obi-wan, Amidala and Anakin never know that he's their antagonist, a plotting disaster of the first magnitude.  They never even know that Sidious is their antagonist.  They spend the entire movie in complete ignorance of their antagonist.  Think about that for a moment.  A protagonist who spends the entire movie in ignorance of his antagonist -- it's like if Neo spent all of The Matrix learning to manipulate the Matrix while Agent Smith sat in a room somewhere watching him, rubbing his hands together and saying "Some day, Neo, some day..."
3. Worse, the audience doesn't know he's Darth Sidious.  Unless they've seen the other Star Wars movies.  Which is why it's imperative to watch them beginning with Episode IV -- The plot of Episode I makes no sense otherwise.

So there you go.  Here is why The Phantom Menace fails -- it's not Jar-Jar, it's not the acting, it's not the sets or the editing or the production design, or the pacing or the effects, all of which range from passable to excellent.  It's the utter lack of a compelling protagonist.  Everything else wrong with it flows from there.

A NOTE ON THE POD RACE: the pod race is a remarkable set-piece in its own right, but comes out of nowhere and, worse, doesn't mean anything.  It is quite obviously based on the thrilling chariot race in Ben-Hur, but let's compare the two for a moment.  The chariot race in Ben-Hur is, narratively speaking, the culmination of a lifetime of tension, sexual and otherwise, between Judah Ben-Hur and Messala, his boyhood friend.  The two of them have been best friends, worst enemies and almost lovers, and the stakes of the chariot race are unbelievably high.  That's what gives the sequence its charge.  What are the stakes of the pod race?  The stakes of the pod race are we need a part for our spaceship and a boy we just met wants to get off Tatooine.  It's worse than slender, it's actually contrived.  We don't need a pod race there, if Qui-gon is so sure the boy is the Chosen One, why doesn't he just steal the parts he needs and take off with the kid?  Who's going to stop him? hit counter html code
 
 
( Post a new comment )
SHAY-mus D: tim[info]seamusd on April 14th, 2007 08:02 pm (UTC)
I think the problem with this movie is that Lucas, after waiting for years for special effects technology to catch up to his vision, simply forgot about what made the original trilogy work: good story telling. The Phantom Menace is about special effects.
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on April 14th, 2007 08:27 pm (UTC)
I disagree. I think The Phantom Menace is "about" something, but that something is very oblique, hard to grasp and extremely poorly stated.
not_robolizard[info]not_robolizard on April 14th, 2007 08:14 pm (UTC)
Episode I is a movie written with the full knowledge that the audience has already seen Episodes IV-VI several times. A lot of it is fan service, and that results in the muddled screenplay. Lucas seems to think that our main interest is seeing what these characters were like in thier younger years, but the effect wears off quickly.

Although Binks certainly isn't the cause of TPM's problems, having a black caricature walking about a 1999 movie does take away from whatever it had.
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on April 14th, 2007 08:18 pm (UTC)
But Chewbacca and the Ewoks fulfill the same functions in the original trilogy and we barely even notice it, because their scripts are so much more compelling.
(Anonymous) on April 14th, 2007 09:56 pm (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. Chewbacca is much less annoying than Jar-Jar. Obviously, if Jar-Jar took Chewie's place in The Empire Strikes Back, the movie would be worse. And Chewbacca and the Ewoks, while playing roles often ASSOCIATED with black actors, are not in and of themselves racial caricatures.

It would be more accurate to charge Hollywood with casting black actors in the "Chewbacca role" than to charge Lucas with putting Chewbacca in the "black role". The role filled by Chewbacca is older than the Hollywood practice of assigning it to black actors.

But as for Jar-Jar... he is unquestionably one of the worst things about Phantom. Even if it were scripted as well as Empire, Jar-Jar would be a shitty character. I admit that he isn't the main problem, but he's a big problem anyway. He's an emblem of the movie's lousiness, its selloutishness. The Ewoks cast a similar pall over Return of the Jedi, but they were much less prominent and flagrant than Jar-Jar.
(no subject) - [info]teamwak on April 14th, 2007 10:35 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 02:21 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]mcbrennan on April 15th, 2007 04:02 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]teamwak on April 15th, 2007 01:03 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 03:37 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on April 15th, 2007 08:58 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 04:10 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]teamwak on April 15th, 2007 01:05 pm (UTC) Expand
(Anonymous) on April 14th, 2007 08:17 pm (UTC)
Protagonist: Lucas' bank account.

Antagonist: the audience.

Lucas Bank Account 1, Audience 0.
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on April 14th, 2007 08:20 pm (UTC)
But Lucas's bank account and the audience, like the Naboo and the Gungans, like the midiclorians and everything, are locked in a symbiotic relationship. They need each other. The audience needs Lucas's bank account to make good Star Wars movies, and Lucas's bank account needs the audience to keep feeding it.

Although I will say that if there is a "phantom menace" hanging over Episode I, it is, indeed, Lucas's bank account.
(no subject) - [info]gazblow on April 16th, 2007 02:15 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on April 16th, 2007 03:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Mike "the Human Obstacle" D[info]mikeyed on April 14th, 2007 08:53 pm (UTC)
And even though Anakin ends up saving the day on Naboo, he does so by accident -- a disaster in plot structure.

I completely agree. The worst thing to happen in all three of the new movies. They had the most excellent space battle set up. The audience loves space battles. Remember Return of the Jedi? I'm sure everybody who loves star wars or even just sci-fi could barely stay in their seats when they first saw the string of star destroyers in the distance and heard "it's a trap!"

So you have the Naboo fighters heading for what seems like a suicide mission into the heart of a Trade Federation battleship. They're fighting, a few nice little bits of dialogue between the pilots, and then what does Lucas do? Skywalker hobbles along not knowing how to pilot the ship he currently occupies, slams his way into the docking bay, and accidentally fires a torpedo into the droid control thingywutchamucallit, which simultaneously somehow destroys the battleship and ends what could've been a really amazing dog fight.

Most disappointing scene in the whole trilogy.
Doug Orleans[info]dougo on April 14th, 2007 09:31 pm (UTC)
That was no accident, that was the guiding hand of The Force! Not that that makes it any better.
AEnigma: Star Wars[info]greyaenigma on April 14th, 2007 10:36 pm (UTC)
I agree with this comment.
Barnaby Jones: Matchgame[info]eronanke on April 14th, 2007 08:54 pm (UTC)
Amidala was my hero; even the subterfuge in which she switched places with her handmaid endeared her to me. But her putting trust in Qui-gon and then the senator shows her veneration for the status quo; the establishment, that the Jedi are good and always victorious, and that the Senate is effective and not corrupt. Her realization that all is not as it seems NEVER comes. Not even in the last movie. She continues to believe that the universe is static and unchanging, that Anakin *can* become good again, and all can go back as it was, the Jedi and the Senate restored. I... I wanted to like her so much... The first movie, her speach about preventing war on her homeplanet, her dresses and her sure-shot aim... But then the sequels made me die inside.

I think, really and honestly, Lucas hates, or, at the very least, infantilizes women.
He did the same thing with Leia; in the first movie she's badass, then, slowly and surely, she becomes nothing but a damsel in distress... To Jabba no less. A BLOB WHO CAN'T EVEN FIGHT BACK.
(SADFACE)
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on April 14th, 2007 08:58 pm (UTC)
Another problem with Amidala is the people of Naboo -- mainly, they don't exist. We hear about them but never see them. They are, apparently, dying in record numbers from starvation, even though Amidala is gone for, I think two days.
(no subject) - [info]eronanke on April 14th, 2007 09:01 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]eronanke on April 14th, 2007 09:02 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]greyaenigma on April 14th, 2007 10:38 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]jacksonpublick on April 15th, 2007 04:06 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]mr_noy on April 15th, 2007 06:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Doug Orleans[info]dougo on April 14th, 2007 09:28 pm (UTC)
First of all, I don't see why there has to be only one protagonist. Who's the protagonist of Nashville, or any episode of "The Love Boat"? Okay, maybe those aren't epic sci-fi action movies. But I don't think it's a requirement that those can't have multiple protagonists too.

Also, clearly Lucas wants you to think of all 6 parts as one long story, in which case the protagonist is probably Anakin (or R2D2, as some wags have noted). If there had been episodes 7-9, I guess the nonology would have been split between Anakin and Luke, who overlap in the middle 3.

I don't see how "the guy who causes things to happen" (which indeed is Palpatine through all six movies) has to be the protagonist. That's like saying Voldemort is the protagonist of the Harry Potter books. Then why aren't they called the Voldemort books?! What's the word for what Harry and Anakin are, if not protagonist?

Regardless, I agree that this is all crappy storytelling.
(Anonymous) on April 14th, 2007 10:37 pm (UTC)
I agree. The protagonist, especially in action-oriented films, is usually not the one causing the action. It's almost always the villain. The action protagonist is characterized, I would say, by his relationship with the villain - whether or not he is a threat to him.

In the original trilogy, Luke is a perfect protagonist because of his unique relationship with the collective villain, Vader/Palpatine, a relationship not shared with, say, Han. Throughout the prequel trilogy, but especially in Episode I, there is no obvious UNIQUE relationship between the villain and anyone in particular. The villain is promiscuous.

I think perhaps Lucas's intention was to be "realistic", hence the rather dull and uninspiring Trade Federation. Had I been Lucas, I would have established a clear and early link between Sidious and Anakin. Perhaps Sidious, using his Sith mojo powers, had detected Anakin years before Qui-Gon did, and had posted agents on Tatooine to keep watch over him. Perhaps Maul was sent after Qui-Gon in order to prevent Anakin from ever developing his skills and thus becoming a threat. There are a million ways to make Anakin into an actual Luke-like protagonist, with a central significance that is obvious without even watching the original trilogy. Why Lucas didn't plant that seed I can't imagine, but once again, I suspect he was operating according to some incongruous and ill-advised "realism principle", which might also explain that midichlorian nonsense. Its fantastic unrealism is what distinguishes Star Wars from all other major sci-fi franchises, but I think Lucas forgot that, or never realized it to begin with.
(no subject) - [info]greyaenigma on April 14th, 2007 10:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 02:19 am (UTC)
I don't see why there has to be only one protagonist.

There does not. The problem with The Phantom Menace is not that there are multiple protagonists, it's that there are no protagonists, there are just a bunch of characters with unfocused or flawed goals. A movie like Nashville is compelling because you're following the clearly-stated goals of a dozen different individuals. In The Phantom Menace you're watching a bunch of stuff going on and, ultimately, none of it makes any sense.

clearly Lucas wants you to think of all 6 parts as one long story

Lucas has also said that he wants future generations to begin with Episode I, which seems absurd to me. Who beginning with Episode I would feel compelled to continue on to Episode II?

I don't see how "the guy who causes things to happen" (which indeed is Palpatine through all six movies) has to be the protagonist.

Well, that is, basically, the definition of the word, although it has come to mean "hero" or "main character." And while it is true that, say, Indiana Jones or John McClane are reactive, the fact is they react to the antagonist, something that none of the characters in The Phantom Menace do.

That's like saying Voldemort is the protagonist of the Harry Potter books.

The main dramatic problem with the Harry Potter books is precisely this: Harry Potter is not the protagonist of his own stories. He's astonishingly reactive, passive even, relying on all kinds of devices and deus ex machina to save his bacon throughout the stories. You've hit the nail on the head, sir.

What's the word for what Harry and Anakin are, if not protagonist?

Harry is a passive protagonist (which Hollywood generally refers to as a "bad" protagonist, and which, believe me, they would change in Harry's case in a flat second if JK Rowling dropped dead tomorrow). Anakin in The Phantom Menace is crafty and desirous, but his character arc depends on luck and accident, not the pursuit of his desires.
(no subject) - [info]jacksonpublick on April 15th, 2007 04:16 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 04:33 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]mcbrennan on April 15th, 2007 04:48 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 04:23 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]mikeyed on July 15th, 2007 08:07 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]rennameeks on April 15th, 2007 11:22 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]mattyoung on April 16th, 2007 02:55 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]adam_0oo on April 16th, 2007 06:14 pm (UTC) Expand
thunder24: hotdog facial by kevinblanchard[info]thunder24 on April 15th, 2007 02:29 am (UTC)
I personally, have always thought that R2D2 was the protagonist for the entire Star Wars story. He's clearly the most competent member of the troupe, is there for the whole story, and seems to be the only one privvy to most of the secrets.
Besides, he's the most likable character, IMO.
penelope danger incorporated[info]mcbrennan on April 14th, 2007 11:22 pm (UTC)
I sense Dooku
You're right on the money. Whose story is this? I kind of chuckled when [info]dougo mentioned "Nashville" in the comments, because on the surface it's similar--a bunch of tenuously related characters bumbling towards some seemingly ill-defined goal. But the characters in "Nashville", of course, are actually headed towards a life-changing moment, each subplot informing the others, and more to the point, they're compelling characters whose individual stories combine to tell a greater story about an America falling apart. If there's a greater meaning here, I don't see it. Maybe in Revenge Of The Sith (informed as it is by our illustrious President and his pet war), but here?

Even as a lifelong Star Wars fan, I found nobody to root for in this thing. Qui-Gon seemed bored, unfocused and inept, not wise or powerful. Palpatine was a non-entity and Amidala was a droning bore. Anakin lacked everything one looks for in an interesting character. By my way of storytelling, his mother should have been the soul of the thing. A lone slave on a hostile, barren world, fighting for her child's life against impossible odds, knowing he's destined for a better life and willing to do anything to get him there. That's a story. But no, she was a cipher, just as much of a drip as everybody else. And Darth Maul, who was obviously intended to be this dangerous, edgy, breakout character, was a two-minute throwaway, all marketing and no menace. After the first movie Lucas turned his iconic, archetypal characters into plastic action figures. In this movie, he tried to turn plastic action figures into characters.

Here's where I think The Phantom Menace (and indeed the entire "new" trilogy) went wrong. The foregone conclusion of the original films--Anakin must turn into Vader, kill the Jedi and destroy the Republic--drags the plot into tedious, inexorable predictability. The scene in "Star Wars" where Luke stares out at the setting suns, Joseph Campbell's "call to action", is compelling. When Anakin has the same moment, it's meaningless; he's just thinking "sigh, oh what a mess I am in." One never truly believes his struggles with right and wrong because we know which one he'll choose. We know Amidala will die. We know the Jedi are toast. We know Yoda and Obi-Wan will survive. There is no dramatic tension, because we know the outcome. And by the end of The Phantom Menace we no longer care.

This is storytelling by checklist. "Clone war". Check. "Exterminate the Jedi". Check. "Lava pit". Check. "Put Obi-Wan in Tattooine cave." Check. "Build Death Star." On and on. The entire trilogy, especially the ending of Revenge Of The Sith, is way too on-the-nose. It was like he felt the need to explain every tiny thing, he left no space for the audience to imagine anything, and imagination is what breathes life into a fantasy universe. And his "explanations" made the audience sorry they heard it. Find me one person who thinks it's "cool" that Darth Vader built C3P0 (and then they both mutually forgot it for 30 years). Instead of the Force being a mystical energy field surrounding all life, open to all who would willingly seek its council and guidance, it's a fluke biological infestation that occurs only in select individuals. Who thinks eugenics is more compelling than the infinite mysteries of God and the meaning of life? Was that "clone war" anywhere near as fascinating as the one you imagined 30 years ago when you first heard it mentioned? It certainly wasn't for me.

None of this was necessary. Lucas could have taken the story off in new and surprising directions, exploring new parts of the myth. Unexpected alliances, revelatory twists, transcendent questions about what it all means. Life does not march in a straight line the way these movies do. The extermination of the omniscient knights who have protected the galaxy for a thousand years against all enemies could have taken more than ten minutes, for example. There are 20-something years between episode 3 and episode 4, room for plenty of mystery and story twists and audience speculation--but by the end of Sith</>, everybody's in place for "A New Hope", patiently waiting on set for two decades. Such a waste.
Lew: Eye Contact[info]ghostgecko on April 15th, 2007 12:47 am (UTC)
Re: I sense Dooku
>>>Instead of the Force being a mystical energy field surrounding all life, open to all who would willingly seek its council and guidance, it's a fluke biological infestation that occurs only in select individuals.

I consider that one of the stupidest bits of backstory. David Brin (davidbrin.com) wrote an excellent article on what this says about Lucas's politics - that we should be led by a small, select group of the chosen, the superior. Essentially antidemocratic, despite all the stuff about scruffy, scrappy rebels.
Re: I sense Dooku - [info]mcbrennan on April 15th, 2007 03:52 am (UTC) Expand
Re: I sense Dooku - [info]dougo on April 15th, 2007 04:27 am (UTC) Expand
Re: I sense Dooku - [info]mcbrennan on April 15th, 2007 04:39 am (UTC) Expand
Re: I sense Dooku - [info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 04:41 am (UTC) Expand
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - [info]mcbrennan on April 15th, 2007 09:08 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - [info]ghostgecko on April 15th, 2007 02:21 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - [info]rennameeks on April 15th, 2007 07:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - [info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 09:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - [info]rennameeks on April 15th, 2007 11:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - [info]mcbrennan on April 16th, 2007 08:17 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - (Anonymous) on April 16th, 2007 07:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Renna Meeks: film geek[info]rennameeks on April 15th, 2007 07:38 am (UTC)
So many things I agree with, both in the original post and in the comments....

What it comes down to, ultimately, is that Lucas should have gotten more established screenwriters to attack the prequels. If anything, the prequels needed more structural help simply because episodes I and II were just setup for III.

Originally, Qui-Gon did not exist. He was added later, presumably to give Obi-Wan something to do and perhaps to draw more of a parallel between Obi and Luke. However, I don't think that's where the problem truly began.

In episodes IV, V, and VI, Leia and her rebellion drove the plot. In episodes I, II, and III, Darth Sidious/Senator Palpatine's lust for power drives the plot (or it's supposed to, at least). However, there is a major problem with this. If his (presumably) evil plot is kept "hidden" from the audience, then there is no visible driving force to the story until it's all brought out into the open, starting in episode II. If the audience *is* allowed to see him scheme, then there's no suspense. We already know that he succeeds. We already know which characters have to survive. Of course, the way things turned out, the scheme was kept "hidden," but since anyone who's seen the other movies already knows that Palpatine and Sidious are the same guy, there's STILL no suspense. Basically, the story is flawed from its very conception: "Evil guy sneakily comes to power." It wouldn't make sense to suddenly center the plot around the antagonist, especially since said antagonist doesn't even appear in episode IV.

The only four of the main characters who made it through every single Star Wars film are Obi-Wan, Anakin/Darth Vader, C-3PO, and R2-D2. They should have been the protagonists throughout the prequels (Anakin becoming a tragic hero in the end). Say that we hadn't gotten to see Threepio being built or Obi-Wan maturing: the focus could have been more on Anakin, with the other three supporting him. The political storyline could even be shoved further into the background - tell more by showing less. Luke was certainly isolated from the war while he was growing up on Tatooine. If less of the plot of episode I had involved Palpatine's plans and focused more on young Anakin, it would certainly have been more character-driven. Of course, he couldn't be a reluctant hero, like Luke, since we've seen that before - besides, we know that the two of them made very different choices.

Why bother introducing Watto as Anakin and his mother's owner? Make Jabba own them, then play up the difficulty of obtaining freedom. Even though podracing is a deadly sport, yadda yadda yadda, it's still too easy for Anakin to gain his freedom. Watto himself is hardly a threatening character. But if Jabba had said no or decided to reneg on a deal, it would have been harder to challenge him. There also would have been a neat parallel between Leia's grandmother and father being enslaved by the Hutt who later laid a claim to her. The podrace could stay, just don't have Anakin be an incompetent or lucky pilot - have him be the incredibly talented boy he should have been. Jabba could have been using him for entertainment as well as making money off of his talents. Now his cameo appearance in episode I is fully fleshed out. So Anakin wins freedom for himself and his mother, then Jabba says no, I'm not giving up the boy. Then let Qui-Gon somehow trick Jabba into going for the dice game (or something) and win Anakin.

One of the greatest appeals of the original trilogy is that we were thrown into the middle of the action rather than being bogged down in the political side of the story. It would have been much more interesting to learn along with the characters that the whole war with the Separatists had been rigged. After all, as an audience, we already knew that Palpatine would rise to power, but we didn't know just how much he had manipulated the situation to work in his favor.

I'd better stop here before I restructure the entire prequel trilogy. To make a long story short (too late), the Palpatine storyline was doomed to fail, but if other things (involving character rather than special effects) had taken center stage, it might have been salvageable.
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 04:34 pm (UTC)
I'm starting to see a more viable Menace come into focus, one that involves all the same characters and situations, but one in which Qui-gon, instead of farting around with Anakin on Tatooine, goes after Darth Sidious. He can do this alone, and against resistance from Obi-wan, Amidala and the Jedis themselves, and there could be dramatic irony as he faces Darth Maul and then Sidious (and dies) and no one else knows about his struggle and death, but he stuck to his guns and found out the truth, even though it killed him. That would be a totally cool structure, watching Amidala be "good" while screwing up the galaxy, watching Obi-wan find the kid and take him on as his apprentice, watching the Gungan/Droid battle being fought for no reason, but one man knows the truth.
(no subject) - [info]rennameeks on April 15th, 2007 07:41 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 09:31 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]rennameeks on April 15th, 2007 11:07 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]dougo on April 16th, 2007 04:35 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]adam_0oo on April 16th, 2007 06:02 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]rennameeks on April 17th, 2007 03:17 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on April 17th, 2007 10:56 pm (UTC) Expand
teamwak: sonic boom[info]teamwak on April 15th, 2007 01:15 pm (UTC)
Semi serious question now.

So what should the protagonist want? Should they always have a sucessful arc, or should it just be a clear arc, if not sucessful, like Arlington Road? What about The Man Who Knew Too Much? Could you say he doesnt know what he wants until the final act?

I take your point on coincidence. Surely accidentally destroying the baddies cannot good for your story!
Todd Alcott[info]toddalcott on April 15th, 2007 03:57 pm (UTC)
"So what should the protagonist want?"

Each film narrative presents a "problem." A shark is attacking a town's beaches, a crime family is attacked by a mysterious enemy, the Civil War starts, so forth.

The protagonist exists within the world of the problem and, generally speaking, must act to restore the balance thrown off by the problem. Sheriff Brody must try to get rid of the shark, Michael must avenge his father, Scarlett must deal with her life getting thrown out of whack.

The protagonist may succeed or may fail. Plenty fail; many of our greatest narratives get their greatness from the protagonist failing in one way or another. Often, the protagonist wants something, but in the pursuit of his goal learns new things that make him not want the thing he was pursuing any more. The end of the story either comes when the protagonist gets what he wants or is utterly defeated.

In putting together the above list of folks, what I discovered is that not one of the characters in The Phantom Menace does a single thing to address the problem at hand, the problem being that Darth Sidious is making a power grab. None of them even know that the problem exists.

Qui-gon senses that something is up. Fine; he should spend every moment of his arc finding out what's up, battling the obstacles put in his way as he gets closer to the source of evil, facing resistance from his own friends who try to get him to give up his mad pursuit of a phantom, so on. It could be that they get to Tatooine and Qui-gon says "You guys screw around with your political solution, I've got a bad guy to catch!" and he could steal a spaceship and take off after Darth Sidious. Then you'd have a protagonist, and great irony, as Amidala does what she thinks is "proper" and instead blows it for the whole galaxy. Then it could be Obi-wan who discovers the boy and takes him to the Jedi council, bla bla bla.

Or, as suggested above, tell the whole story from Anakin's POV. Why not? Nobody cares about the political bullshit in the story. The movie could be about this little kid who knows he's special and wants to get the hell off this godforsaken rock. It could be about his mother teaching him that anything is better than living as a slave, and little Anakin could carry that message with him through to adulthood.

The Man Who Knew Too Much has an extremely clear protagonist arc: the parents want their boy back. They don't care who's getting assassinated, they don't care who the terrorists are or what they want (and neither does Hitchcock) -- they just want their boy back. When the boy is back the story is over in nothing flat.
(no subject) - [info]teamwak on April 15th, 2007 07:27 pm (UTC) Expand
craigjclark[info]craigjclark on April 16th, 2007 11:21 pm (UTC)
The main reason The Phantom Menace fails is because Lucas the director didn't kick Lucas the screenwriter off the project. Of course, the fact that Lucas the producer didn't kick Lucas the director off the project also had something to do with it.

Has nobody ever pointed out to him that the best film in the whole series is the one where he got a story credit and that's all?
Renna Meeks: film geek[info]rennameeks on April 17th, 2007 03:45 am (UTC)
That's arguable. Empire doesn't stand on its own as a film.

There are two main ways of constructing a filmic trilogy. Take Spider-Manand Shrek as examples of the first. Each film stands on its own. They all connect to each other, but they don't depend on each other to exist. You could watch the films in any order and have a pretty fair idea of what's going on, though obviously, watching them in order would give the later films more depth. The other way of creating a movie trilogy is to have the first film stand on its own, then link the second two. Pirates works like that, The Matrix works like that, and, yes, the original Star Wars trilogy works like that. The middle film ends on a cliffhanger, often a downer, which is resolved in the third and final movie. Some people prefer a downbeat ending, so they like those movies more. However, from a writing standpoint, these are incomplete films.

So yeah, "best" is subjective. :)
(no subject) - [info]toddalcott on April 17th, 2007 04:12 am (UTC) Expand
Curtis Holman: WorldsFinest[info]curt_holman on August 17th, 2008 03:55 pm (UTC)
FYI, I give this post a shout-out here: Defending the Star Wars prequels from the Clone Wars