Quote:Titanic WAS a great movie. Any movie combining the skills of James Cameron and James Horner cannot be anything less than amazing. Terminator II, perhaps you've heard of it? Oh--but George Lucas didn't make that one, and there's virtually not CG in it---so you wouldn't be interested in that crappy, old-fashioned thing.

Ryan Wrote:I haven't seen it yet. I plan to with lazy when I go see him.

So did we find out anything about Palpatine? Were at least some of his motives explained? Did he finally transcend, climb the ladder from one-dimensional shitty evil candy-thief and reveal himself to actually have a cogent reason for doing any one of the things he's done?

I'm very, very curious about this point. Since OB1 has yet to make a "haha told you he had reasons" thread, I'm willing to bet he finished Episode III as the same retarded, completely amateurish character he always was.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Actually Palpatine is a LOT deeper than you think and has a great motivator to do what he does.

He did it to see if he could.

I mean, as the only intelligent person in the entire series of movies, you can tell just how embarressed he is at being able to manipulate everyone like that.

Quote:but I just don't think every single scene needs to have gigantic CGI landscapes.

OB1 Wrote:You are given all of the information on Palpatine that you need in the OT, but yes Episode III does delve deeper into who he is and why he does what he does. But as I said before, this will most likely not be enough for you since your perspective on storytelling seems to be limited to the very narrow idea that good characters must have long backstories and unrealistically convoluted motives in order to be considered good enough.

DMiller Wrote:I wasn't complaining about the landscapes, per se, but about how busy they were. There is too much going on in the wide angle shots of the landscapes and cities to make them interesting. The eyes want to focus on things but with so much going on in one scene it makes it impossible to focus and, thus, the shots do not have as much appeal.

OB1 Wrote:Please, just because you read Steven King books doesn't make you any sort of authority on good storytelling.

Quote:Long and convoluted backstories are most certainly not needed to make for interesting characters in a story. You don't need to know what Palpatine eats for breakfast and how he spent his childhood summers. And lust for power, the urge to make things right in your point of view by having absolute control, is the very motive of just about every single major "villain" in history. Call it cliche if you want--that is realism.

Quote:What makes a good character is defining characteristics. That is the most important thing. Everything in addition to that helps but isn't necessary. You can have a great character even if you know nothing about his/her past and only understand them in the present tense, and likewise you can have a great character if you understand every single thing there is to know about them. But the true testament to their quality is that first thing I mentioned, their defining characteristics. Everything else helps but isn't nearly as important as you suggest. To you the most important thing is the background. Who cares if the character is interesting without that information or not. People still remember Han Solo, and why is that? Most people don't know a thing about his past. Yet he's endured for 30 years. Han Solo might be better appreciated by knowing more about his past, but without those defining characteristics none of that matters.

Quote:You are given all of the information on Palpatine that you need in the OT, but yes Episode III does delve deeper into who he is and why he does what he does. But as I said before, this will most likely not be enough for you since your perspective on storytelling seems to be limited to the very narrow idea that good characters must have long backstories and unrealistically convoluted motives in order to be considered good enough.

OB1 Wrote:Complex and busy backgrounds have become a staple in cinema since Fritz Lang's Metropolis. That is of course not the only way to do it as there have been plenty of directors with a more minimalist style, but Lucas follows the tradition of Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa and therefor uses very visually stimulating areas. An important element to this is the sense of being overwhelmed. :)

Quote: It helps. He's more of a storyteller than Lucas could ever hope to be.

Quote:1. I fail to see why you think there are either only long, convoluted backstories, or none whatsoever. It doesn't have to be long or complex. But it does need to exist. Some effort has to be made.

Quote:2. You are so wrong about that second point it's not even funny. That you think so proves just how little experience you have in characterization. Beleive it or not, sometimes things can be driven by purely personal motives too.

Quote:Han Solo isn't deep either. He has some basic motivation, moreso than Palpatine, but he's nowhere near Shakespearean either. Defining characteristics are trite. How many characters out there share the same character as Han Solo? He's a walking cliche himself, a badass space cowboy who ogles chicks and yells YAHOO a lot. He doesn't develop much throught the series. In fact, pretty much every Star Wars character except Vader begins and ends in a mostly-cliched role. These characters endure because expectations among the fanbase are suitably-low, and they sell a lot of licensed merchandise. None of the characters are great, or even that good. They are merely suitable for the roles they play.

DMiller Wrote:I still haven't seen Metropolis even though a lot of people have recommended it to me. Anyway, I guess if that was the effect Lucas was going for I can't really fault him much for it, but I just think those shots introducing the cities and locales would be more visually appealing if you were allowed to focus on something instead of having that overwhelming feeling with ships flying everywhere.

Quote:As DJ said, the prequel trilogy was tragically aimed at kids.

OB1 Wrote:A better writer yes, but a better storyteller? I dunno, time has been awfully favorable to Lucas' stories.

Quote:Some of the best characters in fiction over the centuries have had no backstories at all. You're saying that exposition is needed in every single instance, which is idiotic. SW literally drops you into the middle of a story. It was a very conscious decision not to have tons of exposition.

Quote:You obviously don't have a wide spectrum of knowledge on this topic if you think that only this one way is good. Perhaps you need to start reading more than just Steven King.

Quote:Sure they can, but then nobody remembers the characters, just the motives. Or they simply become plot devices.

Quote:Yet you seem to remember them so well and can explain just how poor they are with such conviction.

Yes, truly these are unmemorable characters that nobody cares about.

Here, let me help you take your foot out of your mouth..

Quote:As they have been to the bestselling novelist in American history, if not the entire world.

Quote:But to have none. At all. You keep seeing things in the extremes. For you, it's all or nothing.

Quote:I read quite a bit more than Stephen King. And I know poor, one-dimensional characters when I see them.

Quote:Anakin Skywalker's reasons for turning bad are inherently personal, pushed along by outside interference. And everyone remembers his character. He's the best the series has to offer, by far. He has motives.

Quote:That I was able to describe them so well in so short a turn only proves my point. If a character is merchandised well enough, people will remember them, but they're remembered for their image, not their character. Star Wars characters are to the last remembered for their image. Especially Vader, which is sad as there was actual effort put into his character.

OB1 Wrote:But they are big futuristic landscapes. Are you suggesting less life on Coruscant? Or fewer wide shots?

I really don't understand this complaint. Seems like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Quote:It is just nitpicking, but it was the only part of my post you commented on so I felt I needed to defend it. It's not a big deal so I'll let it die.

alien space marine Wrote:Its a good thing not everyone has to be the same, Even if stephen King is well regarded writer, He has written some good stuff and some bad stuff. I liked "The dead Zone" and "Cristine".

Somtimes a good writer will always leave the reader with questions ,Always asking for more, Somtimes not knowing leaves a level of mystery and some interest always having somthing left to explore, Over establishing Palpatine before the apropriate time would have ruined the plot for the movies he was the "phamtom menance" as it were.

Villains alot of times are just mysterious figures often sharing the same usual characteristics, Its just fallen heroes like Anakin which are the exception that are far more complexe.
Could Anakin have become the way he was without the mysterious little known devil Palpatine in the works it was necesarry?

Palps is part of the story indeed but not the main focus, Its Anakin "Darth Vader" and the conflict caused by him .

Do we need to know anything about "Darth Maul"? He was just a grunt henchmen are just secondary characters.

Quote: Well, not the entire world. That's a ridiculous claim, don't you think?

Ryan Wrote:*activates the Goron/Weltall alliance*

I still disagree.

Now, I think that aside villains like Darth Maul don't need much, if any, backstory. He appeared for maybe twelve minutes. He was a henchman, a foil, and a vehicle to sell tons of licensed toys. After he's dead, he's meaningless. A backstory would pretty much be wasted on him.

But Palpatine is far more important to the story, and this is what I'm trying to impress. He's responsible for everything! He is REQUIRED to have motives of some sort! He doesn't just show up and disappear without a trace, he's there for every movie, except four. He is the catalyst driving the entire series of events. He is the Hitler, the Caesar, the Joseph Stalin. Each of those men were men of extraordinary power, and each of them has a laundry list of motives and back story. Stalin for example, fabricated his role in the events of the October Revolution, making himself seem far more important that he was, in order to seize power upon Lenin's death. He was driven by both his own desires and an attachment to his ideology, so strong that he slaughtered countless millions trying to build his vision. He wasn't some two-bit fool who liked to kill because he thought killing was fun, or ruled the USSR just so he could say he ruled the USSR. He had goals and motives abound. All three men did. Most such men do. As such, we find them incredibly interesting long, long after they are dead. Stalin and Hitler both go beyond themselves and are known as well for the ideologies they so fervently forced on others, but no one sees them as mere vessels for those ideologies. Palpatine's cause or goals are never well-fleshed, he just seems to be on a huge power grab for whateve reason, but he doesn't seem like anything but a vessel to advance this goal. Major, earth-shattering villains like this cannot get away with having no motive, even one that is merely semi-apparent. It's bad writing. After all, if not for Palpatine, nothing in the series would have happened. The people of the Republic would have gone about their lives normally, more or less. Palpatine came along and turned the galaxy upside down in a major way. He had to have had a somewhat decent reason for doing it. But we're never privy to that reason, if there is one. Thus, he's a bad character.


No, I don't think so at all. If you think I'm wrong, you can try and find proof of it. But right now, I think he's most certainly the best selling novelist in the world.

Quote:I triple dog dare OB1 or anyone else to step in and say that Episode III's score can hold a candle to those of the classic trilogy.

Quote:This fanboy... er girl...

Quote:And OB1 has still yet to say a single word against any of my impeccable flaws. A tip to the witless: You don't win arguments with a bunch of sarcasm and smiley emoticons. In your world, we know that your divine intellect is beyond question, but in the real world, it takes something more than arrogance to drive home a convincing argument.

Quote:I was talking about the person next to me. In case you didn't notice from the... entire history of me being here... I'm not a Star Wars fanboy.

Ryan Wrote:*activates the Goron/Weltall alliance*

I still disagree.

Now, I think that aside villains like Darth Maul don't need much, if any, backstory. He appeared for maybe twelve minutes. He was a henchman, a foil, and a vehicle to sell tons of licensed toys. After he's dead, he's meaningless. A backstory would pretty much be wasted on him.

But Palpatine is far more important to the story, and this is what I'm trying to impress. He's responsible for everything! He is REQUIRED to have motives of some sort! He doesn't just show up and disappear without a trace, he's there for every movie, except four. He is the catalyst driving the entire series of events. He is the Hitler, the Caesar, the Joseph Stalin. Each of those men were men of extraordinary power, and each of them has a laundry list of motives and back story. Stalin for example, fabricated his role in the events of the October Revolution, making himself seem far more important that he was, in order to seize power upon Lenin's death. He was driven by both his own desires and an attachment to his ideology, so strong that he slaughtered countless millions trying to build his vision. He wasn't some two-bit fool who liked to kill because he thought killing was fun, or ruled the USSR just so he could say he ruled the USSR. He had goals and motives abound. All three men did. Most such men do. As such, we find them incredibly interesting long, long after they are dead. Stalin and Hitler both go beyond themselves and are known as well for the ideologies they so fervently forced on others, but no one sees them as mere vessels for those ideologies. Palpatine's cause or goals are never well-fleshed, he just seems to be on a huge power grab for whateve reason, but he doesn't seem like anything but a vessel to advance this goal. Major, earth-shattering villains like this cannot get away with having no motive, even one that is merely semi-apparent. It's bad writing. After all, if not for Palpatine, nothing in the series would have happened. The people of the Republic would have gone about their lives normally, more or less. Palpatine came along and turned the galaxy upside down in a major way. He had to have had a somewhat decent reason for doing it. But we're never privy to that reason, if there is one. Thus, he's a bad character.

Quote:No, I don't think so at all. If you think I'm wrong, you can try and find proof of it. But right now, I think he's most certainly the best selling novelist in the world.

DJ Wrote:Also, regarding the cartoon comment I made. You misunderstood. I wasn't talking about power when I called him a wuss. (They seemed pretty much equal im power from cartoon to movie anyway if you ask me.) I was talking about something that actually matters, his personality. In the cartoon he was a badarse hunter that mercilessly killed many jedi. In the movie, he was a wuss that ran at every opportunity and could barely hold his own against ONE jedi, and he was comic relief! I thought I was supposed to be afraid of him, not laugh at him rolling his hands in a tribute to villians tying women to railroad tracks everywhere.

DJ Wrote:I also wanted to say one more thing. I am aware of what Lucas is doing. Here, more than the previous movies, though it was fairly obvious there too, it was VERY clear that it was meant as a nonstop tribute to cheesy 1940's sci-fi serials. But, he chose like the WORST things to make a tribute to. The acting in some parts was pretty nice. It was both good and a nice tribute to the past. For example, I thought Obi Wan and Anakin's shouting match after The Delimbing (apparently "having the high ground" is the greatest weakness of a sith/jedi, I should remember that) was very well done actually. It was the only part of the whole movie where I actually felt some emotion, and it was pretty strong. The scene where he took out the lightsaber in front of the "younglings" (cute word Lucas, what is that supposed to be a reminder that Galactic Basic isn't english? Wow, you are a genius) didn't hit home at all to me. This fanboy... er girl... next to me seemed pretty emotionally hit by it, but to me it was just... ugh. But, I don't think that's because the scene itself was badly done so much as the story leading up to it... well I guess I'll get to this point a little later actually.

DJ Wrote:Final Fantasy 7's Sephiroth had a much better "fall from his role as the chosen one". At least there he spent a whole night constantly reading books after finding out something shocking that made him question his existance, and there was a show of him actually slowly "seeing" things and "realizing" the darkness was the way to go. Anakin just sort of said "eh, I've got nothing left to lose, why not?" even though he DID still have stuff to lose. That whole scene was akin to one of those caught on camera high speed police chases where some stupid teenager is afraid of getting caught so he instead just keeps doing more and more stupid things just making it worse and worse for himself, only even THERE there's a progression from bad to worse, even if it's quick, not "what have I done?!" to "yes my master I will MURDER CHILDREN". Having him mad at Palpatine and running off for a time to think about everything he's seen and actually come TO a decision would have been a lot better. Instead, with the entire saga of Star Wars told at last, my final opinion of Darth Vader is that he was a stupid punk teenager who went to the dark side, in the end, as the final straw, just because he was afraid of being caught helping a sith. Darth Vader is an idiot.

OB1 Wrote:Palpatine's role in the OT is sufficient. You find out more about him in Episode III, but there is absolutely no need for that in the OT. You can figure out what his motive is in Return of the Jedi, but if you're too dense to catch it then Episode III will spell it out for you.

Quote:If you still have this complaint after you see that movie, then I suggest you just resign yourself to your narrow-minded perspective and stop thinking about Star Wars at all. For someone with such dislike towards the movies you sure do spend a lot of time talking about it. It's pretty sad, when you think about them...

Quote: That's the most absurd claim I've heard from you yet. Do you really think he's sold more books than say, Mark Twain? Come on now...

Quote: Besides "I want to be king of the universe"? What?

Quote:http://tcforums.com/collegetextbook.jpg

Quote:Absolutely. King is a far more prolific writer than Twain or Dickens or Melville, and has exposure those men could have only dreamed of.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Manipulating? Jenova seemed completely incapable of THOUGHT in that game.

Private Hudson Wrote:Well, she does speak to you directly a couple of times. But all the history that is provided to you in the game suggests that she was the puppeteer behind everything. And it basically explains to you when you find out abou the Ancients that she had the abilities to manipulate, to implant images into peoples minds, etc. I can't remember the exact quotes anymore, though.

Otherwise, it's all just one big coincidence that you find out that she was 'discovered', then immediately following everything bad starts happening in the world.

Oh, and certain portions in the game where she directly controls the characters gives it away, too. :p

Anyways, this is way off topic, so I'll drop it.