Phantom Menace and bad writing

[Galvatron]

He spoke up and addressed Boss Nass about the life debt only after he quietly told Obi-Wan that they'd need a navigator to get through the planet's core. There was no indication that he was just humoring the silly Gungans about their supposed geological ignorance.

[RedImperator]

I think you're missing the point here. Ignorance of basic geology is so widespread that the author might seriously not know the difference, so why should we treat it as unrealistic that fictional creatures might not know the difference? If the author is dumb enough not to know the difference, that actually proves the point that it's not something we should treat as common knowledge.

The problem is that most people approach fiction--written or filmed--with the idea that unless they're given an explicit reason to believe otherwise, spoken dialog is reliable; that is, the character speaking it is being honest and accurate, especially when dialog is being used to advance the plot (as opposed to establishing character traits). Writers know this, so when they intend for a character to be wrong, dishonest, or stupid, they generally indicate it.

Lucas did precisely that in the ANH screenplay when Han Solo used his stupid "Kessel run in 12 parsecs" line, but the EU authors ignored that and tried to rationalize it as if it must be precisely accurate. There is precedent for Lucas taking the blame for EU authors who promoted literal interpretations of what were actually meant to be incorrect statements.

My long-held opinion has been that the EU isn't worth the paper it's printed on; I wasn't the least bit surprised to discover they rationalized the "planet core" line in the stupidest possible way. So I'm happy to throw out the EU and any statements Lucas made regarding the EU for the purposes of this discussion. Let's just stick to the film.

Regarding ANH, I tend to believe the "12 parsecs" line was a gaffe, too. What differentiates it from the "planet core" line is:

1. Obi-Wan's reaction. "You're full of shit" works whether parsecs was really meant by Lucas to be a unit of time or Han was just making up space-ish argle-bargle to fool the two hayseeds.
2. Related to #1, it's really easy to rationalize.
3. The rationalization makes sense as a writing decision. It helps establish something relevant about Han (and Obi-Wan's) characters. If it was meant to be intentional, then it was actually a pretty little piece of writing. Better, in fact, than if Solo had just said "made the Kessel Run in 12 hours" or something.

There was nothing on-screen to walk viewers through the process of deducing that Solo was full of shit in ANH either, but it's in the screenplay. This has happened before. Why is it necessary to spell everything out? As long as we're talking about whether writers or characters are stupid, why is the audience supposed to be stupid?

Obi-Wan's reaction in ANH tells the audience Han is full of shit (first his facial expression, and then his line to Luke). There's nothing like that in TPM. I never said you had to hold the audience's hand, but there needs to be something somewhere, especially in a fantastic setting like Star Wars where things that would be ludicrous in a real-world setting happen all the time. In a straight drama, if someone says "Travel through the planet's core", I'm actually a lot more likely to believe the character is lying or stupid because I don't expect the story to attempt something that fantastic.

And speaking of the screenplay, if the "Planet core" line wasn't meant to be taken literally, why does the TPM script describe the submarine voyage as a descent through the planet's core?

If the audience has to think for itself at all, the writers failed? I don't think so. I think the litmus test is more a matter of just how convoluted the rationalizations must be. The idea that the audience should never have to work out anything in their own minds is pointlessly extreme.

I never said that. Anything work of fiction more complex than Dick and Jane is going to leave things implied; film and theater add another layer, where actors' unspoken, er, actions are going to supply information and the audience is going to have to put things together on its own. But when the audience has to stop, say to itself, "Wait, that's stupid," and then come up with a way to make the line make some kind of sense, yeah, then the writers failed.

They totally failed to follow up? The Gungans are consistently portrayed as ignorant savages, right to the end. How is any of this inconsistent? Are you saying that Qui-Gon and Anakin should have had a scene where they joked about how stupid Boss Nass is, just so that there would be no ambiguity?

Yes, if it was intentional, they did fail to follow up. If Boss Nass was ignorant, does his ignorance of geology ever matter at any point in the rest of the movie? Does it establish something that the audience didn't already know, or would learn by other means? What do the Jedi never act as if they know he's wrong or lying? ("Planet core, master?" "Just humor him; we need his help.")

However, you rationalize things based on what leads to the fewest stupidities, and rationalizing his dialogue so that it means the TradeFed forces landed on the exact opposite side of the planet from where they want to go is the worst possible way.

As I said, my approach was to just assume "Planetcore" is some undersea region and that's where they went. However, that's not really relevant to whether or not the line was intentional or a mistake. I just don't see any evidence in the film or the script that it was anything but what it appears to be on its surface: a writer who doesn't understand what a planet's core is.

The problem is that most people approach fiction--written or filmed--with the idea that unless they're given an explicit reason to believe otherwise, spoken dialog is reliable; that is, the character speaking it is being honest and accurate, especially when dialog is being used to advance the plot (as opposed to establishing character traits). Writers know this, so when they intend for a character to be wrong, dishonest, or stupid, they generally indicate it.

How true. Here's Gore Vidal, responding to someone who slammed his novel about Abraham Lincoln:

Although a novel can be told as if the author is God, often a novel is told from the point of view of one or more characters. For those of us inclined to the Jamesian stricture, a given scene ought to be observed by a single character, who can only know what he knows, which is often less than the reader.

Fictional characters (at least interesting ones) often don't know what they're talking about, or they have biases, or they simply fuck up -just like people in real life. Nass is just a small-minded leader in a city -hence the title of "Boss", like Boss Tweed or Boss Daley.

Seeing as I nearly always write in third person limited, I'm perfectly aware that characters aren't honest or correct all the time. But the fact remains that 1) the audience will take characters at face value unless they have a reason to do otherwise (i.e., the character is already established as a liar, or it's a mystery or some other genre where you assume the characters are lying), and 2) as in everything else you do as a writer, there should be some purpose to having a character lie or be wrong. Character development, of course, is one of them, but I just don't buy that it was intentional character development, or anything else intentional, for the following reasons:

1. First, it doesn't actually matter for Boss Nass's character. Why does the audience care if Boss Nass is ignorant of geology? How does it impact the story? It doesn't affect his decision to help the Jedi, it doesn't affect his later decision to fight the Trade Federation, it doesn't affect how he fights the Trade Federation. It doesn't do anything to reinforce the fact that he's a small-time political boss who initially doesn't care what happens on the surface. It doesn't add to the suspense of the climax--"Will the Gungans help? We don't know, and if they don't, the heroes are screwed."

2. There's no reaction from any of the other characters, or anything at all on screen or in the script to indicate he was ignorant or lying. Not even a raised eyebrow from the Jedi, unlike Obi-Wan's reaction to Han's boasting in ANH. At no point in the movie do any other characters act as if they believe Nass is wrong or lying.

3. There's never any consequences, or really any follow-up at all, to the "planet core" line. You can have characters lie, you can have characters lie and viewpoint characters not know it, you can have characters lie and the audience doesn't know it, but there has to be a payoff somewhere.

4. Boss Nass was allegedly ignorant or lying while delivering expository dialog--"This is how you will sneak into Theed. It will be very dangerous." That's a pretty bad failure, because exposition is supposed to inform the audience as to what's going on in the story. I might have characters lie, but if I have character describe how the viewpoint characters are going to get from point A to point B, that's not when I'm going to do it. It runs counter to the point of having exposition in the first place. Frankly, it's worse than making a scientific mistake, even a howler.

Interestingly, there is research that suggests that this is actually what people do in reality too and that only when given a moment to step back and think about it do people consider the possibility that what others are saying may actually be false. Its instinctive, but not an excuse, especially when reading written fiction where they always have the time to step back and think about it. And while Star Wars isn't written fiction, if you are smart enough to step back and realize traveling through the planet's core is a stupid idea, you are smart enough to realize that character's aren't omniscient deities, especially when they are being depicted as primitive natives.

OK...what does any of that have to do with the fact that people engage fiction a certain way, writers know (or should know) people engage fiction a certain way, and at no point in TPM does the story behave the way we would expect it to if Boss Nass's line was intended to be wrong? Remember what we're discussion here: it's not the "truth in fiction" of the line; it's whether or not the line was a scientific gaffe.

People are wrong in fiction all the time. Nobody said anything about characters being omniscient deities. But 1) they're usually wrong for a story reason, and 2) the story clues the audience in on it somehow, either subtly or dramatically. It doesn't have a character be wrong for no real good reason and then rely on the audience's knowledge of geology to get the joke (well, I'm sure some stories do, but do you honestly think a summer blockbuster the creator described as a kids' movie would be one of them?)

You write hard sci-fi. In that genre the audience is expecting you to have done your homework, and anything less is failing to live up to their expectations. But Star Wars isn't hard sci-fi, and the audience isn't expecting much.

I really don't know what you're getting at here. I do my homework, but unless it has some plot or character significance, it's background information; "We'll get to Mars in 3 weeks" instead of "We'll get to Mars in 3 weeks because the spaceship has blah blah blah delta-v". Are you really trying to say that in hard sci-fi, Boss Nass would say, "You'll go through the core" and the Jedi would then say, "Actually, the core is a blazing hot ball of solid iron; you can't get there with a submarine", whereas in space opera, Boss Nass says the line and then it's left up to the audience to figure out he's wrong? Why would this be?

What do you do when the author does not lay everything out in explicit terms? Character interactions, motivations, and decisions are almost universally inferred rather than stated outright in some monologue or soliloquy, yet its considered a mark of a good writer because it engages the audience and forces them to think about the story. Why is that any different than making the audience think about the plot? For example, if we have a character, a villain, behave in a stupid way that causes the hero's to win; a dumb reader might just say "the villain's actions were contrived to make sure the hero's won because that's what hero's do," whereas a smart reader might look more closely and realize that it was the villain's hubris, selfishness, greed, lust for revenge, general ignorance of some human virtue, or whatever that caused him to behave this way. That would still be a rationalization, because you would have to read between the lines to come to that conclusion, but is that bad writing? Why is that any different from concluding that Boss Nass might not be speaking literally or knowledgeably when he says the fastest way to Naboo's capitol is through the planet's "core"?

It's different for the reasons I gave to Darth Wong: there's no payoff, no other character reacts as if he's wrong, and there's no reason to do it. And I'll add one more: it's not as if it's unbelievable that a Hollywood writer would not know what the core of a planet was actually like. It's not like I'm making some kind of unbelievable claim that requires an exceptional burden of proof.

[Vympel]

Regarding ANH, I tend to believe the "12 parsecs" line was a gaffe, too.

It really isn't in any way a gaffe. This is the script on Obi-Wan's reaction:-

Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation.

[adam_grif]

I'd like to point out that the reason characters are usually considered to be right in fiction 100% of the time unless otherwise implied is because details should not be brought up unless they are relevant in some way. This is to prevent the wasting of peoples time with irrelevant detail or dialogue. In written fiction this extends to details of scenes, which ought to either set the tone or be relevant in some way to the plot (if there's a gun above the mantelpiece in the first act, it should be fired by the third, so they say), but in films it's usually just dialogue or on-screen action (since you have to fill in back-ground elements in order to make scenes look right, so you can't only include important ones otherwise it won't look realistic).

Every myth is true, every prophecy is true, every premonition is true. If they weren't going to be true or in some way drive the plot by being false, they wouldn't have been brought up in the first place. So if Lucas wrote a scene discussing going through the planet core, and the only point of the scene was "they're primitive", this was bad writing, since it's not implied by the film. If he was wrong about, it, as Imperiator states, there ought to have been a brief shot of the Jedi raising their eyebrows at the statement, or muttering something to each other about humoring them. This is important for SciFi specifically, and things that play fast and loose with physics like Star Wars even more so, because for all we know people regularly traverse molten planet cores on their way to work. It wouldn't be all that out of place in the universe, judging by it's physical plausibility alone. The characters all behaved as though what he's saying is correct.

If it's intended to be what actually happens, it's poorly written because it was unnecessary and the idea of going through a planet core is silly. We only have these apologetics about the planet core being shallow and close to the surface because of information we got from an external EU website, so even if that's plausible, it's still poor writing because we don't get these established by the movie itself.

Given that my original point was "it's an example of bad writing", I don't see how any of the things being argued actually rebuke that.

[Galvatron]

Regarding ANH, I tend to believe the "12 parsecs" line was a gaffe, too.

It really isn't in any way a gaffe. This is the script on Obi-Wan's reaction:-

Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation.

But what was the misinformation Ben was reacting to? The "parsecs" part or Han's boast of the achievement itself? Why would Han misuse a common term like that? And why did both canon adaptations of the script change parsecs to time units (or time parts) if it wasn't a gaffe?

[Formless]

Regarding ANH, I tend to believe the "12 parsecs" line was a gaffe, too.

It really isn't in any way a gaffe. This is the script on Obi-Wan's reaction:-

Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation.

But what was the misinformation Ben was reacting to? The "parsecs" part or Han's boast of the achievement itself? Why would Han misuse a common term like that? And why did both canon adaptations of the script change parsecs to time units (or time parts) if it wasn't a gaffe?

Why either or? I would think that the parsecs line would be the part that tipped him off that Han was boasting. Even in ANH its clear Obi Wan is no stranger to space travel.

[Galvatron]

If that's the case, it certainly isn't backed up by Lucas himself in his latter-day explanation on the DVD.

[Formless]

If that's the case, it certainly isn't backed up by Lucas himself in his latter-day explanation on the DVD.

Because the EU misinterpreted Han's boasting as actually being true, gave an explanation, and Lucas backed it to save face over his scientific error-- even though he didn't have to. So which holds more weight: Lucas's intentions at the time of writing? Or Lucas's intentions later? This is the same problem as the "Han shot first" bit, only without the film itself having been edited.

[Galvatron]

So which holds more weight: Lucas's intentions at the time of writing? Or Lucas's intentions later?

Since the topic is about bad writing, I'd say the former. And if it wasn't a gaffe, it still doesn't explain why the novelization and radio drama changed the line.

[Big Orange]

if it were a truly god awful movie, people would have forgotten about it at the first opportunity.

I wouldn't go that far, lots of people still hate Alien 3, or Transformers 2 or The Matrix Revolutions. TPM and those films had dedicated professionals working on them, but as the old saying goes, you can't polish a turd (not really fair in Alien 3's case, but true of the other two).

I would say The Phantom Menace is in the same league as Alien 3 in terms of flaws and disappointment. I still like both movies, even though they're still a comedown after their predecessors.

RedLetter has a point about The Phantom Menace's characters being more stoic and formal than the OT's more lively cast of characters, but it is not for no reason at all - in The Phantom Menace the most significant players are a very icy queen, two full Jedi Knights, a Sith warrior, and a few politicians. They're not farm boys, space pirates, and guerrilla fighters; people more prone to impulsive behaviour, having fiery tempers, and other character flaws, with yet unfulfilled potential.

And more of RedLetter's points can be picked apart or called into question: why is the suffering and hardship of Naboo citizens so hard to believe just because the Naboo government had giant hypermatter reactors beneath the capital city? For a start hundreds of thousand/millions of Naboo citizens were forcibly removed from their homes by Trade Fed troops and taken to big concentration camps, where they have no access to proper amenities and were intentionally given starvation rations. The trouble was that it happened almost entirely offscreen and was implied. And while the Naboo had hypermatter reactors powering their cities and facilities, a long drawn out siege from space would grind them down eventually; the giant hypermatter reactors most likely needed raw fuel and replacement parts that could not be attained on Naboo itself.

[Uraniun235]

For a start hundreds of thousand/millions of Naboo citizens were forcibly removed from their homes by Trade Fed troops and taken to big concentration camps, where they have no access to proper amenities and were intentionally given starvation rations.

I really don't remember this part at all.

[Rye]

if it were a truly god awful movie, people would have forgotten about it at the first opportunity.

I wouldn't go that far, lots of people still hate Alien 3, or Transformers 2 or The Matrix Revolutions. TPM and those films had dedicated professionals working on them, but as the old saying goes, you can't polish a turd (not really fair in Alien 3's case, but true of the other two).

I would say The Phantom Menace is in the same league as Alien 3 in terms of flaws and disappointment. I still like both movies, even though they're still a comedown after their predecessors.

Alien 3 has nowhere near the same story/pacing/character problems as TPM, the mise en scene is fantastic, it's well directed, there are good secondary characters, even, not to mention main ones; it's just miserable and not as good as the previous films. The distance TPM fell in comparison to Alien 3 is far, far greater, and not just for its greater cultural standing.

RedLetter has a point about The Phantom Menace's characters being more stoic and formal than the OT's more lively cast of characters, but it is not for no reason at all - in The Phantom Menace the most significant players are a very icy queen, two full Jedi Knights, a Sith warrior, and a few politicians. They're not farm boys, space pirates, and guerrilla fighters; people more prone to impulsive behaviour, having fiery tempers, and other character flaws, with yet unfulfilled potential.

Perhaps that should've been a clue that something was being done wrong? It'd be like if you started an Indiana Jones film being sure to keep away from the archaeological adventure angle. The following films realised that and tried to sort it out.

[Axiomatic]

For a start hundreds of thousand/millions of Naboo citizens were forcibly removed from their homes by Trade Fed troops and taken to big concentration camps, where they have no access to proper amenities and were intentionally given starvation rations.

I really don't remember this part at all.

That's because it doesn't appear in the movie. The closest the movie comes to anything remotely like that is when the Trade Viceroy tells a robot "Process them" when referring to Amidala and some of her advisers, and the robot orders another robot to take them to Camp 4.

[Simplicius]

why is the suffering and hardship of Naboo citizens so hard to believe just because the Naboo government had giant hypermatter reactors beneath the capital city?

Question, meet answer:

The trouble was that it happened almost entirely offscreen and was implied.

You're familiar with 'show, don't tell,' yes? How many civilians did we see being rounded up by soldiers? How many camps were we shown, how much squalor and suffering? Did we see any cities threatened or buildings destroyed to force compliance? The Queen had a line about the Senate arguing while her people suffered and died, but did you see any of her people suffering and dying? I sure didn't.

What the movie shows is the easiest, calmest invasion ever. The bad guys land, take a couple of key government figures hostage, say "we own the place" - and they do. That's it. The weather is even gorgeous the whole time, to lend a pleasant ambiance to the whole affair. In light of that, any claims of mass hardship are not going to resonate with the audience, nor will they be especially believable - not least because they are made by politicians in-film who stand to 'suffer' the most from such a low-key usurpation, so their statements could easily be interpreted as rhetorical exaggeration.

[Channel72]

What the movie shows is the easiest, calmest invasion ever. The bad guys land, take a couple of key government figures hostage, say "we own the place" - and they do. That's it. The weather is even gorgeous the whole time, to lend a pleasant ambiance to the whole affair. In light of that, any claims of mass hardship are not going to resonate with the audience, nor will they be especially believable - not least because they are made by politicians in-film who stand to 'suffer' the most from such a low-key usurpation, so their statements could easily be interpreted as rhetorical exaggeration.

Another excellent point, which further illustrates how little tension this movie really has. Really, the movie barely tries to convince us there's any serious danger. We don't really even know what the consequences will be if the good guys fail. I guess Naboo would continue to be inconvenienced until the Senate got around to doing something...maybe?

Again, contrast this with Episode IV, where the bad guys demonstrate they mean business by blowing up an entire planet. And we know very well what it means if the good guys fail to deliver the Death Star schematics to the rebels.

[Galvatron]

One last thought about the planet core thing: with his love of classic sci-fi in mind, isn't it likely that Lucas was just paying a deliberate homage to Jules Verne? Seriously, of all the problems TPM had, this one doesn't even rate in my top ten.

[Jim Raynor]

I can't believe this discussion about the planet's core has gone on for more than one page. Mistake or not, it was a momentary line that the movie quickly breezed through before going on to other things. The vast majority of the audience probably either didn't notice or didn't didn't give a shit. As I've said before, people find things to complain about in TPM.

I mean, if we're going to lambast TPM over an insignificant little line that could easily be rationalized or outright dismissed, why don't you do that to other movies? I saw the Star Trek reboot a few days ago, and that was a "turn off your brain" movie if I ever saw one. Gaping plot holes that make Naboo's core look like nothing (including the primary driving force of the plot, which is that Kirk is awesome despite being a thuggish punk who demonstrates no actual skills) ran throughout the movie but were excused by most people because the movie was "fun."

So the ST reboot is the new standard in geek cool, but TPM is "the worst movie ever" that "raped" people's childhoods? Oops, I forgot that TPM aimed for all-ages including children, while the Trek reboot aimed to be hip and cool to the twenty/thirtysomething crowd. I guess that's the difference.

[VF5SS]

As I've said before, people find things to complain about in TPM.

Well, I guess you have to point out something if you want to discuss it, no? I think there are a lot of points in this thread that are pretty legit. Like how none of the villains of TPM are very threatening. Personally I think it's a problem of all three prequel movies that the major bad guys are just increasingly gimmicky lightsabre guys all of whom have very little build up in their own movies. I know Palpatine is the real big bad, but even a second banana can get his moment to shine. This problem is pretty big in TPM where the final confrontation involves a guy with no lines in scary red face paint and a bunch of weird robots, most of who act more cute and panicky than truly threatening.

Oops, I forgot that TPM aimed for all-ages including children, while the Trek reboot aimed to be hip and cool to the twenty/thirtysomething crowd. I guess that's the difference.

You don't have to bring the new Star Trek into this. It is a movie with its own problems, but the existence of problems in a movie people like doesn't erase the problems of a movie people didn't like. Also I do not believe the umbrella of children's entertainment necessarily excuses the flaws in the movie. Intended demographic may restrict your content, but not the ability to express your ideas.

[VF5SS]

Just to follow up the idea of threatening villains.

Like take Tarkin in ANH. He's just a stuffy old guy at a glance, but he is genuinely threatening despite never lifting a finger. His steely glare and short, precise performance make him look like a guy who is perfectly comfortable with killing people and you don't even need him to say any words related to death or murder. On the other hand, the Trade Federation are just a bunch of mincing businessmen who don't know what they're doing. Granted that is part of the plot and Sidious kind of brings the real evil, but the movie focuses a lot on the Trade Federation guys without showing them getting their act together. And that can be an issue when they have to form one of the pillars of the Separatists in AOTC. It's a trilogy, you gotta build up the bad guys (we often lambasted Star Trek Enterprise for not doing this). I do not believe TPM would suffer from letting the Trade Federation guys shape up a little. Maybe they can cut out that weird podracer guy with the feet hands.

[Bakustra]

As I've said before, people find things to complain about in TPM.

Well, I guess you have to point out something if you want to discuss it, no? I think there are a lot of points in this thread that are pretty legit. Like how none of the villains of TPM are very threatening. Personally I think it's a problem of all three prequel movies that the major bad guys are just increasingly gimmicky lightsabre guys all of whom have very little build up in their own movies. I know Palpatine is the real big bad, but even a second banana can get his moment to shine. This problem is pretty big in TPM where the final confrontation involves a guy with no lines in scary red face paint and a bunch of weird robots, most of who act more cute and panicky than truly threatening.

Those are legitimate criticisms, but does that make criticism based on throwaway lines any more legitimate? The problem with the PT and villains is that the heroes are the ones on the side of law and order, rather than the villains, which I feel makes it harder to have a developed villain. After all, are the heroes effective if we have a villain who escapes in both the first and second movies so that he can die in the third? I am curious (please do not take this as a smarmy "well what would you do, then" statement) as to how you think that this dilemma could have been resolved. I agree that the droid army is where TPM really begins to break down, as they degenerate into pure comic relief in the final battle. That kills much of the tension in the final battle, especially since the most sympathetic characters are involved in their little lightsabre party.

With that in mind, I think that Maul appearing out of nowhere isn't too bad of an idea, as it could set off a search for the Sith that would continue into Attack of the Clones, (and to complement this, adding a brief scene introducing Count Dooku) and help link the movies together. Of course, I'm rambling into the "what I would do if I had made the prequels" pitfall, so I'll stop here.

Oops, I forgot that TPM aimed for all-ages including children, while the Trek reboot aimed to be hip and cool to the twenty/thirtysomething crowd. I guess that's the difference.

You don't have to bring the new Star Trek into this. It is a movie with its own problems, but the existence of problems in a movie people like doesn't erase the problems of a movie people didn't like. Also I do not believe the umbrella of children's entertainment necessarily excuses the flaws in the movie. Intended demographic may restrict your content, but not the ability to express your ideas.

His point was to criticize people for hypocrisy in their attitudes towards films. After all, why hold Star Wars to a higher standard than Trek? Of course, you can say that TPM was worse in ways than the 2009 Star Trek, and I can understand that. A great many people find "kiddy" or "cutesy" stuff far less tolerable than plot holes. I don't agree in every case, but I can respect that.

Just to follow up the idea of threatening villains.

Like take Tarkin in ANH. He's just a stuffy old guy at a glance, but he is genuinely threatening despite never lifting a finger. His steely glare and short, precise performance make him look like a guy who is perfectly comfortable with killing people and you don't even need him to say any words related to death or murder. On the other hand, the Trade Federation are just a bunch of mincing businessmen who don't know what they're doing. Granted that is part of the plot and Sidious kind of brings the real evil, but the movie focuses a lot on the Trade Federation guys without showing them getting their act together. And that can be an issue when they have to form one of the pillars of the Separatists in AOTC. It's a trilogy, you gotta build up the bad guys (we often lambasted Star Trek Enterprise for not doing this). I do not believe TPM would suffer from letting the Trade Federation guys shape up a little. Maybe they can cut out that weird podracer guy with the feet hands.

Making the Trade Federation more threatening would be a pretty simple exercise. Cutting out most of the droid slapstick would do it. For that matter, making them less panicky might have worked, but that would conflict with the idea of Jedi being bad news, so I'm not sure how well it would go. Putting Maul in the background as a quiet/silent bodyguard who finally reveals himself at the end might help, as it would evoke Vader's presence in the background of Tarkin in parts of ANH, particularly if you keep the brief fight on Tatooine and make him the Trade Fed's apparent muscle, and then revealing Sidious' existence at the very end. Am I making any sense?

[Jim Raynor]

Well, I guess you have to point out something if you want to discuss it, no?

Did you miss the point of what I said? It's not bringing something up to simply talk about, it's about finding trumped-up flaws in the movie to bitch about. I personally don't give a fuck whether or not they drove through the planet's core or not.

Like how none of the villains of TPM are very threatening.

Darth Maul, who looks like Satan himself and impaled the hero and wise father figure of the movie, wasn't threatening? He barely talked but that is not relevant to being "threatening." Darth Sidious, who looks like a fucking evil wizard, who the Trade Federation leaders are scared shitless of, and whose conspiracy goes completely undetected by the Jedi, isn't threatening? The Droidekas that forced two Jedi to run because of their shields and sheer laser spam weren't threatening? The standard battledroids looked and sounded like a joke throughout the movie, but even they could be said to be "threatening" when they dropped out of the Trade Fed transports by the hundreds against the pathetic Gungan army.

Personally I think it's a problem of all three prequel movies that the major bad guys are just increasingly gimmicky lightsabre guys

Jango Fett had a lightsaber? And what was Dooku's "gimmick?"

You don't have to bring the new Star Trek into this. It is a movie with its own problems, but the existence of problems in a movie people like doesn't erase the problems of a movie people didn't like.

I sure as hell will bring it up as an example, when the people who talk about it are the same demographic that talk about and bash TPM. When people are willing to bitch over something as stupidly insignificant as whether the characters drove through Naboo's core, calling it "bad writing." This isn't about one movie versus another movie so much as people not being consistent. I could bring up other movies beloved by geeks too, if you want.

I do not believe the umbrella of children's entertainment necessarily excuses the flaws in the movie. Intended demographic may restrict your content, but not the ability to express your ideas.

I'm not using it as an excuse. I'm pointing out that geeks are far more willing to excuse blatant stupidity if a movie panders to their age demographic. Maybe the prequels would've been better if young Obi-Wan tried to stick his dick in Aayla Secura after sneaking off inside the Jedi Temple, and Anakin got into a bar fight with that alien after being sold bad death sticks.

[Jim Raynor]

Just to follow up the idea of threatening villains.

Like take Tarkin in ANH. He's just a stuffy old guy at a glance, but he is genuinely threatening despite never lifting a finger. His steely glare and short, precise performance make him look like a guy who is perfectly comfortable with killing people and you don't even need him to say any words related to death or murder. On the other hand, the Trade Federation are just a bunch of mincing businessmen who don't know what they're doing. Granted that is part of the plot and Sidious kind of brings the real evil, but the movie focuses a lot on the Trade Federation guys without showing them getting their act together. And that can be an issue when they have to form one of the pillars of the Separatists in AOTC. It's a trilogy, you gotta build up the bad guys (we often lambasted Star Trek Enterprise for not doing this). I do not believe TPM would suffer from letting the Trade Federation guys shape up a little. Maybe they can cut out that weird podracer guy with the feet hands.

You're willing to use Tarkin (supporting character at best) as an example of this awesome villain, yet you tried to claim that all three prequels were lacking in quality villains (forgetting that ANAKIN is the second big villain of ROTS). Oh, I agree that Tarkin was pretty well played, considering his limited number of scenes and the fact that he never actually does anything himself. How is that any different than Dooku? Stuffy old guy, who has the arrogance of an aristocrat because he is one, and he's perfectly comfortable with kicking your ass while being condescending about it. His part was small, but you're the one who's bringing up Tarkin.

[starfury]

I'm not using it as an excuse. I'm pointing out that geeks are far more willing to excuse blatant stupidity if a movie panders to their age demographic. Maybe the prequels would've been better if young Obi-Wan tried to stick his dick in Aayla Secura after sneaking off inside the Jedi Temple, and Anakin got into a bar fight with that alien after being sold bad death sticks.

Didn't we had This Discussion before, amazing how quickly geeks tend to forget and use real flaws as excuses to still make mountains out moundhills, I certainly know that 300 and the Matrix as were very wanked by the geeks before the Matrix sequels tanked the Serias far harder then the even the TPM, Darth Wong pointed that out years ago and still we are right back to this, I didn't even care much for the TPM and never even noticed this crap till this discussion kept bringing it out and off course nerds also overlooked the sheer hatred the OT got for ending the 1970s new wave and bringing in the Blockbusters.

[starfury]

You're willing to use Tarkin (supporting character at best) as an example of this awesome villain, yet you tried to claim that all three prequels were lacking in quality villains (forgetting that ANAKIN is the second big villain of ROTS). Oh, I agree that Tarkin was pretty well played, considering his limited number of scenes and the fact that he never actually does anything himself. How is that any different than Dooku? Stuffy old guy, who has the arrogance of an aristocrat because he is one, and he's perfectly comfortable with kicking your ass while being condescending about it. His part was small, but you're the one who's bringing up Tarkin.

Funny I never thought much of Vader till the TESB, before that Tarkin was actually the better villian then Vader in ANH and Vader in AHN was not the different from Darth Maul, a light saber thug or Bad cop to Stuffy old Tarkin, it was TESB the gave Vader this personal ship, theme and other additions.

[Bakustra]

Like how none of the villains of TPM are very threatening.

Darth Maul, who looks like Satan himself and impaled the hero and wise father figure of the movie, wasn't threatening? He barely talked but that is not relevant to being "threatening." Darth Sidious, who looks like a fucking evil wizard, who the Trade Federation leaders are scared shitless of, and whose conspiracy goes completely undetected by the Jedi, isn't threatening? The Droidekas that forced two Jedi to run because of their shields and sheer laser spam weren't threatening? The standard battledroids looked and sounded like a joke throughout the movie, but even they could be said to be "threatening" when they dropped out of the Trade Fed transports by the hundreds against the pathetic Gungan army.

They're not particularly menacing, because they don't really do much that's menacing. The Trade Fed are far too comical, excepting the droidekas and one or two scenes with the battledroids, to really be menacing, and Maul never does anything beyond appear out of thin air twice to attack the heroes. Sidious is fairly menacing, but his patsies are not, and so he is diminished in comparison. Menacing isn't a matter of looks alone, you know. Tarkin looks as terrifying as only Peter Cushing can pull off, but he also blows up a planet and orders torture casually. He commits evil actions to go with his menacing look. The TPM villains don't really do much that's menacing.

Now, you can argue that they're not meant to be menacing, but that is an entirely different issue.

Personally I think it's a problem of all three prequel movies that the major bad guys are just increasingly gimmicky lightsabre guys

Jango Fett had a lightsaber? And what was Dooku's "gimmick?"

He's old? He has a curved lightsabre handle? He was hired under Title XVII of the Republic Code, under the section forbidding age discrimination in the workplace, with the section Ca provisions for secret societies?

Just to follow up the idea of threatening villains.

Like take Tarkin in ANH. He's just a stuffy old guy at a glance, but he is genuinely threatening despite never lifting a finger. His steely glare and short, precise performance make him look like a guy who is perfectly comfortable with killing people and you don't even need him to say any words related to death or murder. On the other hand, the Trade Federation are just a bunch of mincing businessmen who don't know what they're doing. Granted that is part of the plot and Sidious kind of brings the real evil, but the movie focuses a lot on the Trade Federation guys without showing them getting their act together. And that can be an issue when they have to form one of the pillars of the Separatists in AOTC. It's a trilogy, you gotta build up the bad guys (we often lambasted Star Trek Enterprise for not doing this). I do not believe TPM would suffer from letting the Trade Federation guys shape up a little. Maybe they can cut out that weird podracer guy with the feet hands.

You're willing to use Tarkin (supporting character at best) as an example of this awesome villain, yet you tried to claim that all three prequels were lacking in quality villains (forgetting that ANAKIN is the second big villain of ROTS). Oh, I agree that Tarkin was pretty well played, considering his limited number of scenes and the fact that he never actually does anything himself. How is that any different than Dooku? Stuffy old guy, who has the arrogance of an aristocrat because he is one, and he's perfectly comfortable with kicking your ass while being condescending about it. His part was small, but you're the one who's bringing up Tarkin.

Tarkin is the one who blows up Alderaan. You really can't say that he's a minor villain. I don't necessarily agree that the PT villains are unsalvageable, but they are fairly underdeveloped and we rarely get a chance to see them do evil.

I'm not using it as an excuse. I'm pointing out that geeks are far more willing to excuse blatant stupidity if a movie panders to their age demographic. Maybe the prequels would've been better if young Obi-Wan tried to stick his dick in Aayla Secura after sneaking off inside the Jedi Temple, and Anakin got into a bar fight with that alien after being sold bad death sticks.

Didn't we had This Discussion before, amazing how quickly geeks tend to forget and use real flaws as excuses to still make mountains out moundhills, I certainly know that 300 and the Matrix as were very wanked by the geeks before the Matrix sequels tanked the Serias far harder then the even the TPM, Darth Wong pointed that out years ago and still we are right back to this, I didn't even care much for the TPM and never even noticed this crap till this discussion kept bringing it out and off course nerds also overlooked the sheer hatred the OT got for ending the 1970s new wave and bringing in the Blockbusters.

Okay. This is as good a point as any to say that there are two parts to the criticism here. One is focused on the superficial elements like individual lines and plot elements. This is generally pretty stupid, in my opinion, and only detrimental to the actual case you can make against TPM, focusing on the overall characters, plot, and potential thematic elements, which is the second part of the criticism. If you don't see any problems with the plot or characters of TPM, then one of the advantages of literary criticism is that, unlike many things in life, it is more a broad wading pool than a lake of knowledge. You can jump on in and offer your opinion with ease, and you don't even need much training to do so.