Phantom Menace and bad writing

[Vympel]

^ Indeed. The point of RLM's review for those who watch it is not that you can't tease out what TPM's actually supposed to be about, the point is that it's poorly written and completely uncompelling. You shouldn't have to do any of this speculative shit. Once you get to the point where you're repeatedly asking yourself "why is any of this happening" the movie's script has failed utterly.

Its the same with Qui-Gon's convoluted idiot plan to get off Tatooine. It makes absolutely no sense on any level. Its all there so they can have a pod-race.

[Imperial Overlord]

Half the things you say here are based on your own assumptions and inferences; none of this is stated or even implied in the actual movie.

Oh plenty of it is implied or indirectly stated in the movie.

You're the one who is off base because I've never defended the quality of the prequels. You are quite right that the writing is inferior to that of the original series. In my opinion The Phantom Menace is the weakest movie of the six. The plot is muddled and poorly laid out, with action scenes jammed in between slow stretches, poor pacing, wince inducing scenes, and poor writing overall. That said, it is quite possible to deduce Palpatine's motivations and goals in hindsight. I'm not arguing that the movie is well written, easy to follow, or anything other than the weakest of the six. I'm solely arguing that despite the poor presentation and mangled writing, Sidious's plans do make sense in the context of the larger Star Wars universe.

[Jim Raynor]

I think people are nitpicking Palpatine's plan here. I saw the movie when I was fourteen, and all I needed to know was that "the bad guys are invading this planet to make the Chancellor look bad." Anybody was able to understand that. That the motivations can be picked at and then defended with deeper analysis is a good thing.

The invasion of Naboo is the whole fucking plot of the movie – all the stakes, all the danger, all the suspense that the audience is supposed to feel rests on this invasion. Throughout the movie, we have to watch countless scenes of Trade Federation battle droids marching around, and various Trade Federation officials threatening people, etc., and yet there is literally no fucking suspense because nobody's goals or motivations are compelling. Why the fuck is the Trade Federation even invading Naboo, and why should we (the audience) be nervous that their plan will succeed?

How was anyone supposed to be in suspense about the Trade Fed's goals? Their motivation was clear: economic gain from possibly strong arming the government into lifting their taxes (explicitly stated in the opening text), while being prodded and manipulated by a mysterious mastermind who was way out of their league.

The point was that the bad guys had already succeeded in conquering the planet, and that the Republic government was powerless to stop them. This was a movie that follows a handful of heroes trying to liberate a planet and fight against massive odds because their own government and military pussied out. That is the "suspense."

It's not like TPM was the greatest movie ever. It had its flaws, but I also think that it's very underrated and that a lot of people go out of their way to find things wrong with it.

[adam_grif]

Half the things you say here are based on your own assumptions and inferences; none of this is stated or even implied in the actual movie.

Oh plenty of it is implied or indirectly stated in the movie.

You're the one who is off base because I've never defended the quality of the prequels. You are quite right that the writing is inferior to that of the original series. In my opinion The Phantom Menace is the weakest movie of the six. The plot is muddled and poorly laid out, with action scenes jammed in between slow stretches, poor pacing, wince inducing scenes, and poor writing overall. That said, it is quite possible to deduce Palpatine's motivations and goals in hindsight. I'm not arguing that the movie is well written, easy to follow, or anything other than the weakest of the six. I'm solely arguing that despite the poor presentation and mangled writing, Sidious's plans do make sense in the context of the larger Star Wars universe.

That you have to analyze it with a team of SD.net level "enthusiasts" to get a handle on it is indicative of the general weakness of the story and the way it was told. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not Palpatine was well motivated and acting in his best interests, because his goals, motivations and plans are completely opaque to the audience. Yes, it's the "Phantom" menace, but that doesn't stop the movie from blowing, in some part because of that. It's not like there was some third act dénouement where everything becomes clear to the audience, irrespective of whether you want to consider TPM's ending to be "Act 3" or perhaps RotS in its stead.

All in all, TPM was a shining beacon of sloppy storytelling, which is made all the more surprising by the largely exceptional resume that Lucas has.

[Jim Raynor]

You don't need to analyze it with SD.net-level nitpicking to "get a handle of it." The average kid watching the movie understands that there's a conspiracy to make the chancellor look incompetent and undermine the government. The SD.net-level nitpicking here is in the criticsm.

[adam_grif]

You don't need to analyze it with SD.net-level nitpicking to "get a handle of it." The average kid watching the movie understands that there's a conspiracy to make the chancellor look incompetent and undermine the government. The SD.net-level nitpicking here is in the criticsm.

You know what I meant. To understand why things happened the way they happened for the villains. Even after this, we still have rampant character stupidity (like the entire time they're on Tatooine). The only way to reconcile a lot of it is to invoke "the force told them to do it like that", which is bordering on in-universe authorial fiat.

[Dooey Jo]

It's pretty obvious the film won't make any sense if you don't want it to. Meanwhile, kids who hadn't seen the OT had no such problems.

Now, again, I agree that the examples in the video were chosen for humour, and were skewed towards making TPM look worse, but that doesn't mean the analysis idea is bad. In fact, I'm suspecting this RedLetterMedia guy has some actual filmmaking education by the way he explains some things, but he also comes across as a fan, and a heavily biased one.

It can't be a very good one considering he must have managed to miss that Star Wars is not exactly a character-driven drama. My point is that it's a ridiculously shallow type of analysis, and doesn't even help his point if applied honestly. Chewbacca and Jar-Jar have similar parts in the films, as side-kicks, but one of them is useless for the larger story and cannot be well described without addressing his appearance, and unfortunately it ain't Jar-Jar. Or what about Darth Vader? Would this person claim that Vader's appearance is irrelevant to his success as a character? Characters in fiction, at least most fiction, are meaningless if you ignore what they do or what their relation is to the other characters and the story. Coming up with adjectives is in fact probably the worst way to talk about a character, as Stephen King would have everyone know. It's their actions that matter, but RLM guy completely ignores this. Until he starts talking about Qui-Gon making morally questionable choices (which are about cheating a slave-owning douchebag out of some money, so he can save a fucking planet), but maybe we can somehow pretend that doesn't tell us anything about Qui-Gon as a character.

[Oskuro]

Erm, the idea is to see the strength of a character, not its relevance to the story. It is indeed fine to have characters based solely on visuals or deeply tied to the background setting, but they are weak as characters compared to those you can define without making use of said features.

I'm thinking about this independently of Star Wars. Take the typical superhero-sidekick relationship. Usually the main hero is more fleshed out in terms of personality, while sidekicks tend to be quasi-humorous addons with the depth of a matte painting. Batman is a troubled man with a traumatizing past and a very strict moral compass, as well as a life-mission. Robin is... a kid. (Yeah, there's more to it, I'm using the general perception of the characters to exemplify this).

Actually, your mention of Chewie and Jar Jar is exactly what I mean. They are visually interesting characters, with their use in the story, but they are sidekicks with little personal development beyond being a Wookie or a Gungan.

As for Vader, in ANH he is a stereotypical bad guy with a looming pressence, almost exclusively defined by his visual impact and background significance as enforcer of the Empire. It is in the next two movies that the character gains strength as we get to learn more about him through his actions and behaviour.

So yeah, I agree that character actions matter, if by actions we mean those that reveal the character's motives and attitudes, rather than just being told what to do, or being dragged around oblivious to everything (Like, you know, Anakin in TPM)

Mind you, I'm discussing this analysis idea not because of the RedLetterMedia review, but because I find it interesting as a character development tool for my own fiction.

It's pretty obvious the film won't make any sense if you don't want it to. Meanwhile, kids who hadn't seen the OT had no such problems.

Of course, one of the big problems here is that TPM is aimed at young audiences, probably as the OT was, but the audiences that liked the OT and were looking forward to TPM were not young anymore, and more importantly, the sensibilites of young people back then (wich may have had a part in shaping the OT) are not the same as today (or more precisely, as back when TPM came out). So even if the movie is a decent SciFi flic that kids can enjoy, it fails at being a proper Star Wars movie, wich is the source of most of the derision felt towards it.

[Channel72]

It can't be a very good one considering he must have managed to miss that Star Wars is not exactly a character-driven drama.

Star Wars characters in the OT are basically mythic archetypes. They're not exactly nuanced 3-dimensional characters, but they're the same sort of characters that have worked well in Western mythology since the time of Homer. However, the actors were really able to bring these archetypes to life; there was a real sense of camaraderie between Luke Skywalker, Leia, and Han Solo, and there was a lot of fun banter between them. Phantom Menace just doesn't have anything like that; almost every main character is a serious, detached Jedi or a boring politician. And Yoda, who in the OT was often playful and satirical, has become completely detached in the Prequels.

[starfury]

Of course, one of the big problems here is that TPM is aimed at young audiences, probably as the OT was, but the audiences that liked the OT and were looking forward to TPM were not young anymore, and more importantly, the sensibilites of young people back then (wich may have had a part in shaping the OT) are not the same as today (or more precisely, as back when TPM came out). So even if the movie is a decent SciFi flic that kids can enjoy, it fails at being a proper Star Wars movie, wich is the source of most of the derision felt towards it.

So go back to the Nerds and "enthusiasts", demanding the movies only catering to them and Delibertely Forgetting what the OT was never aimed at them to begin with, something Mike Wong discussed several years back, as for the latter part of Sensibilites changing with times, well that was natural and the Older stuff simply lacks it original power since it only be new once and the enviroment obviously changed by them, AKA the Mortal kombat violence debate during the day and now is seen as postively cute compared to modern games.

So as Far as I am concerned the actual quality of the Two Trilogy was that different in terms acting, charactization, I mainly didn't like the first Two simply because they felt superflous since 80% of all the material was in EP III, in terms of actual characters and dialogues and effects I didn't feel the need to Nitpick.

[starfury]

So as Far as I am concerned the actual quality of the Two Trilogy was not that different in terms acting, charactization, etc I mainly didn't like the first Two simply because they felt superflous since 80% of all the material was in EP III, in terms of actual characters and dialogues and effects I didn't feel the need to Nitpick.

[starfury]

@Alan De Smet / AR:

I’d be happier with that article if it demonstrated basic competence with facts. (E.g., First National Pictures was NOT absorbed by Paramount but by Warner Bros., which is why so many 1930s and 1940s movies on TCM carry the line “A Warner Bros.-First National Picture” at the bottom of the credits.) Carelessness with the small facts in this case also stands for carelessness with the larger facts.

SHORTER THORNTON: The vertically integrated movie industry put adults in charge, and they could efficiently produce mass entertainment that could be enjoyed by all audiences. By busting up the system, the government unleashed economic forces (intra-industry competition between actors, producers, crew members, etc.) that sap efficiency and prevent the kind of self-regulation that allows intelligent cinema to flourish.

SHORTER ME: The movie industry always adapts to most efficiently meet audience demand. The audience composition changed dramatically between 1950 and 1975, and the industry has adapted to serve an audience that is disproportionately young and male. The best way to serve that audience is to make movies that are … well, much stupider than the average movie made in 1939. Meanwhile, overall changes in the economic landscape since 1950 also means that it is more efficient for Hollywood to radically decentralize its production structures while simultaneously consolidating its control over distribution and copyright resources.

Every major historian/analyst of Hollywood economics I have ever read has asserted that the Paramount Decrees that broke up the old Hollywood system were, at best, irrelevant to the changes that were already occurring, and may have benefited the studios because they quickly destroyed an economic structure that was coming down anyway.

LONGER ME: Between 1910 and 1950 the movie industry had a captive audience with little better to do with its free time than go to the movies. During the 1940s especially, when government rationing left urban workers with lots of nominal pay but nothing to buy, they spent disproportionate amounts of their income on movie tickets. Because everyone went to the movies, Hollywood could make movies for everyone in the reasonable expectation that they would be financially successful, and adults (especially adult women) were far and away the largest audience segment, so movies that appealed to adult sensibilities dominated.

After TV began to spread, audience attendance collapsed dramatically. Suburban flight and industrial decentralization also took its toll. (Before 1950, Hollywood revenues came disproportionately from urban movie palaces in the US’s largest cities.) Today, a family trip to the movies is a major undertaking, typically involving a lengthy drive time, dinner, parking, babysitting (possibly), all on top of finding something that everyone wants to see. And that’s before paying non-matinee prices for several people and then loading up on outrageously overpriced snack foods. Most adults would prefer to stay home, and most of them do just that.

As a result, the movie audience today is disproportionately composed of teenagers and young adults, who have the time and discretionary income to spend on matinees, and who find it much easier to organize movie-going expeditions from among their friends. Exhibitors (who pay close attention to these things) have noticed and reported to producers that their key audiences don’t care for story, characterization or dialogue; they only care for spectacle. This is why contemporary movies are (to be brutally frank) dumb: because the people who go to see them are drawn by action- and spectacle-filled trailers and concepts, not by anything that could credibly be called a story. If you hype it, they will come.

You can see that Thornton is mostly talking nonsense when you see that Hollywood has reorganized into something like the old studio system, and yet the benefits he claims for vertical integration have not materialized. Today the entertainment industry is dominated by a smaller group of conglomerates (six vs. the “Big Eight” of the 1940s) whose grip is even more far-reaching than that of Golden Age Hollywood, encompassing TV networks (Disney-ABC, NBC-Universal), cable networks (Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, Fox, NBC-Universal), TV stations, and cable systems. The only things they don’t (in general) own are theaters. They don’t because the exhibition business is now outside their area of expertise: A theater is nothing but a concession stand that covers its mortgage payments by selling cheap food at exorbitant prices, and uses a short-term licensed monopoly on film exhibition to attract patrons. For Paramount to buy a theater chain would make about as much sense as for it to buy Burger King.

Again, this goes back to a change in audience composition: Studios make most of their money by selling to kids, and they actually make most of their money by selling ancillary stuff: all the toys and games and keychains and theme park rides. The Star Wars prequels are a case in point; apparently only about 15% of the total revenues collected off those films by Fox/Lucasfilm came from North American theaters, and only about 30% came from theaters worldwide. The rest of it? Well, go down to a store that sells books/CDs/DVDs/comic books and look around–that’s where almost 3/4 of George Lucas’s money comes from. And people buy it even though they HATED the prequels. You want to punish George Lucas for ruining your childhood? Stop buying his crap.

This, by the way, is why my reaction to “Panic Attack” is one of stark, staring horror rather than Shamus’s eager sense of anticipation. Hollywood tries to make movies that are (a) as cheap as possible while (b) as popular as possible with the typical moviegoer. “Casablanca,” to take a beloved classic almost at random, will never be cheap to make, for all the reasons Alexander Ibrahim has listed. And it will never be popular with today’s movie audience (14-year-old boys, mostly). But if you could take “Casablanca” and for only $500 add zombies and spaceships and giant robots and an asteroid crashing into the Mediterranean … Well, you’d ruin the movie, but now all those 14-year-old boys will rush out to see it because of that awesome shot in the trailer of Ilsa Lund (played by Megan Fox in the remake) surfing on the back of a Transformer and shooting Major Strasser with a missile launcher. The new Casablanca will be much more popular than the old, and not much more expensive. Bottom-line: The stuff that makes for a good story–script, character, plot development, acting–will be cheap, and will never get cheaper to put on screen. But the special effects that nowadays substitute for these thing have gotten cheaper and will get cheaper still, and will continue to crowd out the good “story” elements.

You think I’m exaggerating? Everyone here loves to complain about how bad the Matrix sequels were. Yeah, but also remember how many box office records they shattered at the time. You laugh at the sequels now because it makes the pain go away for a little while. But Warner Bros. is still counting its opening weekend grosses, and they’re laughing (hard) at how well they rooked each and every one of you. And they know they can (and will) do it again with another stupid movie sold with a flashy trailer. Probably one that looks a lot like “Panic Attack.”

I found this amusing Post on twenty sided blog about Movie Making.

[Oskuro]

So go back to the Nerds and "enthusiasts", demanding the movies only catering to them and Delibertely Forgetting what the OT was never aimed at them to begin with

Exactly my point. My personal opinion is that it would've been better for a new trilogy to be made set in a different timeline, or even for an actual remake. The most jarring element of the prequels is that they try to inhabit the same space as the OT, and since the circumstances have changed dramatically, it doesn't work well. It's like the Episode 3 trailer where Alec Guiness as Obi Wan is super-imposed on footage of the new Anakin, while delivering his lines about how Vader turned to the Dark Side, it's a futile attempt at continuity.

That's a reason why I really like the new Star Trek movie, as well as other recent reboots (like Batman), they allow filmmakers to tell a story without trying to connect to the stories told so long ago that the target audiences and their expectations have changed dramatically. Take Superman Returns. I loved that movie because it catered to me, to someone who was a fan of the Christopher Reeve movies as a kid and wore nostalgia goggles so thick they could stop bullets. But it sucked for other audiences, and it would have probably been better to have a full reboot.

As for fan outrage, no matter what route you take, you'll have it.

[starfury]

Exactly my point. My personal opinion is that it would've been better for a new trilogy to be made set in a different timeline, or even for an actual remake. The most jarring element of the prequels is that they try to inhabit the same space as the OT, and since the circumstances have changed dramatically, it doesn't work well. It's like the Episode 3 trailer where Alec Guiness as Obi Wan is super-imposed on footage of the new Anakin, while delivering his lines about how Vader turned to the Dark Side, it's a futile attempt at continuity.

Funny Enough I agree with you, since the overall Vibe of the New Trilogy with the it's sleek modern appearance was far to jarring when attempting to mate it to the OT, which itself also had a smaller version of the same problem, Empires's Glossy 60's Look contrasted far too much with the 70's vibe of the Other films there. I that being said being Prequels still worked better then Terminator Salvation where we literally saw the Future already in T1 and T2 and Terminator Salvation look was far too jarring different to be part of the same continuity. Lucas by not giving out too much info the EU about the Clones wars give the Prequels some identity of their own and the whole Affairs felt like a flashback to another age

[Formless]

Funny Enough I agree with you, since the overall Vibe of the New Trilogy with the it's sleek modern appearance was far to jarring when attempting to mate it to the OT, which itself also had a smaller version of the same problem, Empires's Glossy 60's Look contrasted far too much with the 70's vibe of the Other films there. I that being said being Prequels still worked better then Terminator Salvation where we literally saw the Future already in T1 and T2 and Terminator Salvation look was far too jarring different to be part of the same continuity. Lucas by not giving out too much info the EU about the Clones wars give the Prequels some identity of their own and the whole Affairs felt like a flashback to another age

Actually I think that's a feature, not a bug. The line "a more elegant weapon, for a more civilized age" comes to mind. The prequels are supposed to depict the end of an age, so it only makes sense for them to feel different in that regard. For that reason the sleek futuristic aesthetic of the prequels doesn't faze me, because while the "used future" aesthetic was nice for establishing the setting of the original trilogy, it doesn't really fit the era the prequels are supposed to represent. Notice how the prequels get grittier and grittier as time passes. For example, the clone's armor in AotC looks new and polished, and by RotS all the military equipment is starting to look worn and scarred from battle. Though the aesthetic still looks relatively new and futuristic, the visual progression helps establish the feel of the prequels as the story marches inevitably towards the grim state of affairs of the original trilogy.

[starfury]

True but even in the Original Trilogy TESB was always had a far more glossy clean look even compared to the rest of the Trilogy and was actual closer to the sleek futuristic aesthetic of the Presequels, Vader's armor in particular was very clean and sleek in the movie and didn't look even close to that again till ROTS, I know Elfdart made that comment alwhile ago, of the different visual appearance differences that made the individual movies of the OT jarring different from each other, while the entire Presquels had a nice consistent look.

[adam_grif]

I always found it amusing that Lucas didn't write or direct TESB, with it being easily my favorite one in the series, and the one generally considered to be the best.

[Formless]

I always found it amusing that Lucas didn't write or direct TESB, with it being easily my favorite one in the series, and the one generally considered to be the best.

So sorry to undermine your point, but if wiki is to be believed, he may not have written the final screenplay, but he was part of the writing process, having written the second draft.

[adam_grif]

I always found it amusing that Lucas didn't write or direct TESB, with it being easily my favorite one in the series, and the one generally considered to be the best.

So sorry to undermine your point, but if wiki is to be believed, he may not have written the final screenplay, but he was part of the writing process, having written the second draft.

I thought that Lucas wrote some kind of plot outline then the other writers did the heavy lifting?

Either way, it still seems that he was less involved than with any of the other films.

[Formless]

I always found it amusing that Lucas didn't write or direct TESB, with it being easily my favorite one in the series, and the one generally considered to be the best.

So sorry to undermine your point, but if wiki is to be believed, he may not have written the final screenplay, but he was part of the writing process, having written the second draft.

I thought that Lucas wrote some kind of plot outline then the other writers did the heavy lifting?

Either way, it still seems that he was less involved than with any of the other films.

So? He recognized talent where he saw it, which is no small skill for someone who just started their own movie studio. Executive producers are not uninvolved just because they aren't the director. For example, who was the guy who went out of his way to make sure the "Luke, I am your father" bit was a secret even to most of the cast and crew? The big reveal that everyone remembers as being totally awesome and without which the movie would suffer for lack of? Yup. Lucas. He may not be the best writer in town, but give him some credit.

[adam_grif]

So? He recognized talent where he saw it, which is no small skill for someone who just started their own movie studio. Executive producers are not uninvolved just because they aren't the director. For example, who was the guy who went out of his way to make sure the "Luke, I am your father" bit was a secret even to most of the cast and crew? The big reveal that everyone remembers as being totally awesome and without which the movie would suffer for lack of? Yup. Lucas. He may not be the best writer in town, but give him some credit.

Never said he was bad, I'm just amused that the work that is considered the greatest in his franchise was the one with the least involvement form him, both in writing and directing. I kind of wish he'd taken a more collaborative approach with the prequel trilogy, they might have turned out better.

[Formless]

So? He recognized talent where he saw it, which is no small skill for someone who just started their own movie studio. Executive producers are not uninvolved just because they aren't the director. For example, who was the guy who went out of his way to make sure the "Luke, I am your father" bit was a secret even to most of the cast and crew? The big reveal that everyone remembers as being totally awesome and without which the movie would suffer for lack of? Yup. Lucas. He may not be the best writer in town, but give him some credit.

Never said he was bad, I'm just amused that the work that is considered the greatest in his franchise was the one with the least involvement form him, both in writing and directing. I kind of wish he'd taken a more collaborative approach with the prequel trilogy, they might have turned out better.

Lucas also did not act in the movies. He didn't build the props. He didn't design the sets. He didn't make the special effects. It takes a lot more than a good director or writer to make a good movie. I don't think you quite appreciate that.

[adam_grif]

Lucas also did not act in the movies. He didn't build the props. He didn't design the sets. He didn't make the special effects. It takes a lot more than a good director or writer to make a good movie. I don't think you quite appreciate that.

I fully appreciate that, but writing and directing are incredibly important to a film. Do you not agree with my conclusion, that it is amusing that the film he was least involved with was also the one that is the best? Because that's all I said. Don't jump to conclusions like "you're saying that Lucas is awful" or "you think writing and directing are the only things that matter".

[Formless]

Lucas also did not act in the movies. He didn't build the props. He didn't design the sets. He didn't make the special effects. It takes a lot more than a good director or writer to make a good movie. I don't think you quite appreciate that.

I fully appreciate that, but writing and directing are incredibly important to a film. Do you not agree with my conclusion, that it is amusing that the film he was least involved with was also the one that is the best? Because that's all I said. Don't jump to conclusions like "you're saying that Lucas is awful" or "you think writing and directing are the only things that matter".

Better writing wouldn't save Hayden Christensen's or Natelie Portman's acting. Your conclusion is moronic considering the fact that Lucas WAS THE FUCKING EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF THE FILM. Does that mean nothing to you?

[adam_grif]

Better writing wouldn't save Hayden Christensen's or Natelie Portman's acting.

Maybe not, but it certainly would have helped. I hate sand, it's so sandy.

Your conclusion is moronic considering the fact that Lucas WAS THE FUCKING EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF THE FILM. Does that mean nothing to you?

It's moronic to think that another writer or director being on board might have improved the prequel trilogy? How so?