Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 3D - The Mr. Plinkett review...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
It's funny because it's the exact same original review made in 3d :D

its not exactly the same, there are a few changes/additions to make the 3D really pop, such as the part where he starts listing main characters and ends with Kevin Bacon, Kevin Bacon is now a cat instead of it showing a picture of Kevin Bacon
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Bleh, they just changed the video and kept the commentary intact, and since I dont have 3d glasses...

Anyway, really people cant tell the main character? I always thought the main character for the 3 prequels were Obi-wan > Anakin > Anakin

Dont see how it could be any other way

Obi Wan is not a protagonist. He is a Jedi, a complete stranger in the movie. There is no reason to think that he is a protagonist, nothing ever happens that makes us relate with him.
 

coloumb

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,069
0
81
OMG - my eyes hurt... and now I have a headache..but I LOL'd so everything balances out. :)

I think the problem with the prequels is they were filled with a lot of "special effects" with a broken story written for CHILDREN. Sure - we were informed on the back story of a few main characters those of us grew up with [yoda, anakin, chewy, c3p0, r2d2, boba fett, etc] - but it was too clean and neat.

The original trilogy - it was more difficult and time consuming to create special effects so the writing was more about the character development. In addition - the movies had that gritty dirty feeling and there was death and mayhem - everything you'd expect in a "war" situation.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
The protagonist? Qui Gon. He probably gets 70% of the screen time in the movie and every character's actions are based off of his.

So? How does that make him the protagonist? Qui Gon is the Jedi master training his younger peers. None of the movie is told from his perspective. You don't know what kind of guy he is, he's a mystery character.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
its not exactly the same, there are a few changes/additions to make the 3D really pop, such as the part where he starts listing main characters and ends with Kevin Bacon, Kevin Bacon is now a cat instead of it showing a picture of Kevin Bacon

I think it's a massive improvement. Especially because it's Plinkett's original vision, finally realized through the wonders of 3D.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
So? How does that make him the protagonist? Qui Gon is the Jedi master training his younger peers. None of the movie is told from his perspective. You don't know what kind of guy he is, he's a mystery character.

I assume you haven't seen the movie in 10 years or so.

The movie is told from his perspective, and he is the catalyst for Luke's arc in the originals. Qui Gon was the original "rebel".

The Republic crumbled, as did the Jedi order, in the prequels because they were rigid and emotionless. Yoda and the rest of the order were wrong in trying to separate emotion from action. This pushed Anakin away and towards Palpatine.

Luke triumphed over Vader and the Emperor by tapping into his emotion, and forcing Vader to re-tap back into his. It wasn't just a triumph of good versus evil, it was a triumph of the silly notion the Jedi were putting forth in the prequels. The notion that lead to their own demise. The notion that Qui Gon didn't agree with or adhere to.

The first scene with Qui Gon in it he is telling Obiwan that Yoda is full of shit and to ignore what Yoda had told him. As he meets with the Gungans and those on Tatooine he uses his force powers to manipulate people that pose no credible threat to him. He gambles and cheats. Away from the reaches of the Jedi order he plays by his own rules and lets his feelings guide him. There are a few points in the movie where he advises others to trust their feelings, and gives advice based on his feelings.

Qui Gon is no mystery character. He was the best Jedi the order had seen until Luke came along and used the same principles to defeat the empire.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
I assume you haven't seen the movie in 10 years or so.

The movie is told from his perspective, and he is the catalyst for Luke's arc in the originals. Qui Gon was the original "rebel".

The Republic crumbled, as did the Jedi order, in the prequels because they were rigid and emotionless. Yoda and the rest of the order were wrong in trying to separate emotion from action. This pushed Anakin away and towards Palpatine.

Luke triumphed over Vader and the Emperor by tapping into his emotion, and forcing Vader to re-tap back into his. It wasn't just a triumph of good versus evil, it was a triumph of the silly notion the Jedi were putting forth in the prequels. The notion that lead to their own demise. The notion that Qui Gon didn't agree with or adhere to.

The first scene with Qui Gon in it he is telling Obiwan that Yoda is full of shit and to ignore what Yoda had told him. As he meets with the Gungans and those on Tatooine he uses his force powers to manipulate people that pose no credible threat to him. He gambles and cheats. Away from the reaches of the Jedi order he plays by his own rules and lets his feelings guide him. There are a few points in the movie where he advises others to trust their feelings, and gives advice based on his feelings.

Qui Gon is no mystery character. He was the best Jedi the order had seen until Luke came along and used the same principles to defeat the empire.

Dead on, and well said.
I think Plinkett fell into "it's the plot man" trap much too easily.
The plot for TPM was just fine.
The acting sucked, the plot devices sucked, the editing sucked, etc.
Plot? A-OK.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Dead on, and well said.
I think Plinkett fell into "it's the plot man" trap much too easily.
The plot for TPM was just fine.
The acting sucked, the plot devices sucked, the editing sucked, etc.
Plot? A-OK.

Those re-edits that float around make a world of difference in the first two movies. The acting in the second one was actually pretty good though. Problems with acting and plot devices can be covered by crafty editing.

The rolling around in the meadows scene from Ep 2 is a perfect example. It is a terrible scene for quite a few different reasons. The rolling part, the goofy CGI or riding that turnip looking thing, the fact that he was surfing that turnip looking thing to begin with, the over the top score, you name it. If you have ten people sit down and watch that scene, they can all hate it for different reasons, or some of them can really hate it for multiple reasons!

That colors your view of the movie and the two characters for the rest of the flick, it stays with you in a bad way. Pile a few "yipee"s and Jar Jar stepping in crap and it just adds to a backlog of minor complaints that DO get in the way of the movie. Editing those out prevents that from happening so the focus can be on the movie itself. You also are able to build more tension removing those scenes that clawback on a viewers attachment all while improving pacing.

If you take Plinkett's protagonist complaint and apply it to the untouchable Empire Strikes Back you could have similar results. Who is the protagonist in Empire? Luke? He doesn't get the screen time that Han Solo does. Luke is decommissioned at the start of the movie and stuck alone in the middle of the movie working out with Yoda. Luke has no character arc in Empire, just a series of setbacks from which he doesn't recover from within the film.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
The movie is told from his perspective, and he is the catalyst for Luke's arc in the originals. Qui Gon was the original "rebel".

The Republic crumbled, as did the Jedi order, in the prequels because they were rigid and emotionless. Yoda and the rest of the order were wrong in trying to separate emotion from action. This pushed Anakin away and towards Palpatine.

What???
The Jedi were just nonsensical; randomly acting against a backdrop where their enemies were likewise acting randomly. There was no conflict set up with the Jedi's way because they had no coherent system. The movies MADE NO SENSE.
They never set up emotion vs cold evaluation -- it was read better as chaos vs order. There was never any wisdom to Qui Gon so his disconnected scenes where he showed a little chip came across as being a leftover from teenage angst. He just looked like he was childishly swinging about. And the fact that his actions ended up with him dead means we have an ending that says, "he went too wide."

Jinn was never made an integral part of the story. (May have had something to do with there BEING NO STORY.) He was as pointless as every other character. The camera may have been on him a lot but he wasn't developed either on his own or against his surroundings. He was just "there" -- an object to be watched, that viewing only having a payoff in mindless action when he kills the enemies that were apparently written in for no other purpose.

As he meets with the Gungans and those on Tatooine he uses his force powers to manipulate people that pose no credible threat to him. He gambles and cheats.

Exactly. He cheats, which shows he his moral fiber is weak. His placing his own desires over others says that he could be easily swayed to the Dark Side. The other Jedi show strength of character while he is just... inconsistent.

The movie never positively set up for your interpretation. It never set up that the Jedi Council lacked wisdom, and it never gave us sensible crises for Jinn to behave against in consistent, sensible ways in order to set that up. So instead Jinn just seems to be acting by completely illogical whim.
 
Last edited:

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
most relevant review

It does the job just fine. That job, as director George Lucas freely admits, is quite simply to thrill the beating hearts and the inquiring minds of 12-year-old boys.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,528
605
126
The main characters thru all six movies have always been and always will be R2-D2 and C3PO
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
If you take Plinkett's protagonist complaint and apply it to the untouchable Empire Strikes Back you could have similar results. Who is the protagonist in Empire?

How the hell are you going to make that argument? By that point it's an ensemble cast. They each can hold their own arc. So we can break up, have Luke do his thing on Dagobah, fill in Han's backstory (with the love interest there to hold things together), and have 3PO and R2-D2 reprise their roles. Episode IV defined them all so well that they can easily do this. So the arcs separate, further define the characters in them, and then tie back together. Brilliant!
The prequels don't define anything except the word "suck."
 
Last edited:

Ben90

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,866
3
0
What you people are watching is called stereoscopy and it still requires your brain to do all the work of generating a 3D image.
Looking out the windows still requires your brain to do all the work of generating a 3D image.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
How the hell are you going to make that argument? By that point it's an ensemble cast. They each can hold their own arc. So we can break up, have Luke do his thing on Dagobah, fill in Han's backstory (with the love interest there to hold things together), and have 3PO and R2-D2 reprise their roles. Episode IV defined them all so well that they can easily do this. So the arcs separate, further define the characters in them, and then tie back together. Brilliant!
The prequels don't define anything except the word "suck."

The original trilogy is Luke's story, but with a strong supporting cast to round out the "feel" of the universe Lucas created. Han has a small role in Return of the Jedi, as is evidenced by missing for the first third of the movie (locked in carbonite) and the fact that he has no arc in it.

If you were to try and make the argument that the entire original trilogy is an ensemble story, then that directly contradicts the complaint by Plinkett that there is a missing protagonist in Ep1 and that it hurts the movie. I do agree it is possible to have great movies without a clear protagonist (Magnolia is a prime example).
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
What???
The Jedi were just nonsensical; randomly acting against a backdrop where their enemies were likewise acting randomly. There was no conflict set up with the Jedi's way because they had no coherent system. The movies MADE NO SENSE.

They stuck to their code throughout the prequels, despite the fact that it was not working. As "peace and order" ran through the galaxy their cold and dispassionate calm worked. Once chaos was introduced into it, their inability to adapt and fight fire with fire was their undoing. It makes great sense. This isn't some deep philosophical revelation, it is something a child could understand.

They never set up emotion vs cold evaluation -- it was read better as chaos vs order. There was never any wisdom to Qui Gon so his disconnected scenes where he showed a little chip came across as being a leftover from teenage angst. He just looked like he was childishly swinging about. And the fact that his actions ended up with him dead means we have an ending that says, "he went too wide."

Palpatine was a mastermind that created chaos, but did so in a methodical manner. To say that his side represented chaos versus the order of the Jedi is missing obvious detail to the contrary. The Jedi lacked a real drive, some initiative, in countering resistance. Qui Gon was different in that regard, as was Luke. If you can't already see how Qui Gon is painted by the same brush Luke was, I don't know how I can help you see that.

I'm not sure why you say his scenes were disconnected, he pretty much had part in every scene in the movie. His character never did waiver from his principles.

Jinn was never made an integral part of the story. (May have had something to do with there BEING NO STORY.) He was as pointless as every other character. The camera may have been on him a lot but he wasn't developed either on his own or against his surroundings. He was just "there" -- an object to be watched, that viewing only having a payoff in mindless action when he kills the enemies that were apparently written in for no other purpose.

His character is the catalyst for all of the actions in the movie. He gets them the transport to Naboo's capital. He gets them to safety out of Naboo. He gets the ship repaired with no money, all while freeing Anakin, who if you recall ultimately fulfills the prophecy by killing the Emperor.

His ideology, which was in contrast to the Jedi order, had a big influence on Obiwan and Anakin. Their characters were then defined by how he had shaped them. If the prequels were about the failure of the Jedi and the Republic, then Qui Gon was the voice of reason to introduce the notion that something was wrong. His ideology sought balance while the rest of the Jedi pushed to the extreme.

Failing to see some of these fairly obvious points in the prequels would lead you to think the movies were about nothing and nobody where nothing happens. The problem isn't with the movie in that regard, the problem is with your inability to digest something most 10 year olds can.

Exactly. He cheats, which shows he his moral fiber is weak. His placing his own desires over others says that he could be easily swayed to the Dark Side. The other Jedi show strength of character while he is just... inconsistent.

Which is is? You complain that he does nothing, then you complain that he does something? How can that be? He cheats because he plays the endgame. Is it wrong to cheat a slave owner to free a slave? Really? That is your argument that he lacks moral fiber? Now you are just reaching. You wanna get work done, you gotta get dirty. He was willing to go the extra mile to do the right thing.

Life isn't black and white. The whole Star Wars saga, especially the originals, fought the notion that there is good and evil, black and white. Empire Strikes Back blurred the two, as did Jedi. It showed tons of greys. The prequels seek to dispel that notion as well, as the Jedi's insistence on rigidity is their downfall. They needed grey but they wouldn't have it. That is why they lost.

The movie never positively set up for your interpretation. It never set up that the Jedi Council lacked wisdom, and it never gave us sensible crises for Jinn to behave against in consistent, sensible ways in order to set that up. So instead Jinn just seems to be acting by completely illogical whim.

He acts on his feelings. He literally states that. Literally. He trusts the force will guide him correctly and it does. Without Qui Gon, Anakin would have never defeated the Emperor.
 
Last edited:

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
I assume you haven't seen the movie in 10 years or so.

The movie is told from his perspective, and he is the catalyst for Luke's arc in the originals. Qui Gon was the original "rebel".

The Republic crumbled, as did the Jedi order, in the prequels because they were rigid and emotionless. Yoda and the rest of the order were wrong in trying to separate emotion from action. This pushed Anakin away and towards Palpatine.

Luke triumphed over Vader and the Emperor by tapping into his emotion, and forcing Vader to re-tap back into his. It wasn't just a triumph of good versus evil, it was a triumph of the silly notion the Jedi were putting forth in the prequels. The notion that lead to their own demise. The notion that Qui Gon didn't agree with or adhere to.

The first scene with Qui Gon in it he is telling Obiwan that Yoda is full of shit and to ignore what Yoda had told him. As he meets with the Gungans and those on Tatooine he uses his force powers to manipulate people that pose no credible threat to him. He gambles and cheats. Away from the reaches of the Jedi order he plays by his own rules and lets his feelings guide him. There are a few points in the movie where he advises others to trust their feelings, and gives advice based on his feelings.

Qui Gon is no mystery character. He was the best Jedi the order had seen until Luke came along and used the same principles to defeat the empire.

I'm pretty sure you put more thought into this post than George Lucas put into writing the entire plot line for Episodes 1 through 3.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
The original trilogy is Luke's story, but with a strong supporting cast to round out the "feel" of the universe Lucas created. Han has a small role in Return of the Jedi, as is evidenced by missing for the first third of the movie (locked in carbonite) and the fact that he has no arc in it.

Everybody ends up at Jabba's because Han is there. He is central to their motivations. And he does have his little "overcoming blindness" arc within the entire Jabba arc. Luke is the one who shows up late and then gets himself caught just like Leia did. That there sets up just how "ensemble" the cast is -- Luke isn't set apart as the hero. He gets caught and has to dodge Rancor for his life. His only major trick -- the super jump to the ceiling bars -- nets him nothing. If it was really "his story," at some point in there he'd just have yelled, "Bankai," whipped out his hollow mask and cut down every enemy in the room in three strides and a pirouette.

2l9vrd.gif


If you were to try and make the argument that the entire original trilogy is an ensemble story,

It isn't. Han, Leia, C3PO, and R2D2 need IV to set them up sufficiently to have a V. IV is Luke's story, but it sets those up enough to have their own arcs later.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,162
126
Obi Wan is not a protagonist. He is a Jedi, a complete stranger in the movie. There is no reason to think that he is a protagonist, nothing ever happens that makes us relate with him.

The movie could have been fixed if they cut the role of Qui Gon Jinn completely, made Obi Wan the new Jedi out of the gate, and blamed a lot of the plot on his inexperience.

Also, Jar Jar kind of took over the role that C3P0 filled in the previous movies. Instead of Aniken "making" him, they could have found him in a scarp heap and needed a protocol droid to talk to the local Hutts to bargain for the ship parts they need.

Change some things at the end of the movie so it revolved around Obi Wan winning from actions surrounding the protection of Aniken (instead of Ani blowing up things by luck and yelling "YIPPIE" while doing it"), and it could have been a decent script.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
The movie could have been fixed if they cut the role of Qui Gon Jinn completely, made Obi Wan the new Jedi out of the gate, and blamed a lot of the plot on his inexperience.

Also, Jar Jar kind of took over the role that C3P0 filled in the previous movies. Instead of Aniken "making" him, they could have found him in a scarp heap and needed a protocol droid to talk to the local Hutts to bargain for the ship parts they need.

Change some things at the end of the movie so it revolved around Obi Wan winning from actions surrounding the protection of Aniken (instead of Ani blowing up things by luck and yelling "YIPPIE" while doing it"), and it could have been a decent script.

/this

the movies could have been so much more. they are a mess. just a jumble of ideas he had he put into a movie. so many fucking plot holes its silly.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
The movie could have been fixed if they cut the role of Qui Gon Jinn completely, made Obi Wan the new Jedi out of the gate, and blamed a lot of the plot on his inexperience.

Also, Jar Jar kind of took over the role that C3P0 filled in the previous movies. Instead of Aniken "making" him, they could have found him in a scarp heap and needed a protocol droid to talk to the local Hutts to bargain for the ship parts they need.

Change some things at the end of the movie so it revolved around Obi Wan winning from actions surrounding the protection of Aniken (instead of Ani blowing up things by luck and yelling "YIPPIE" while doing it"), and it could have been a decent script.

First they'd need to give the Trade Guild SOME sort of motivation. A sensible plan for them would be very helpful as well. "Following the little hooded holographic man 'just because'," really doesn't cut it.

the movies could have been so much more. they are a mess. just a jumble of ideas he had he put into a movie. so many fucking plot holes its silly.

Yeah. The thing is, if you chopped them up into segments and then played the prequels from the END, using what came before just to keep filling things in (Here's Vader and the Emperor at the end; here's where Vader came from -- how he had to be put together; here's why he had to be put back together -- because Obi-wan took Anakin apart; here's Palpatine becoming the Emperor...) -- if you looked at that you'd say, "Well god damn, this is Star Wars!" But played from the beginning, you have no enemy motivation (what the hell is the Trade Guild doing? Who the fuck is Darth Maul? Who is Count Dooku? Who is General Grievous? WHY THE HELL IS EVERYBODY FOLLOWING THE DISTANT, POWERLESS HOLOGRAM MAN?), you have no clear motivation against them, and so you have no plot.
 
Last edited:

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
The movie could have been fixed if they cut the role of Qui Gon Jinn completely, made Obi Wan the new Jedi out of the gate, and blamed a lot of the plot on his inexperience.

Also, Jar Jar kind of took over the role that C3P0 filled in the previous movies. Instead of Aniken "making" him, they could have found him in a scarp heap and needed a protocol droid to talk to the local Hutts to bargain for the ship parts they need.

Change some things at the end of the movie so it revolved around Obi Wan winning from actions surrounding the protection of Aniken (instead of Ani blowing up things by luck and yelling "YIPPIE" while doing it"), and it could have been a decent script.

Yeah, the problem with identifying the protagonist in this movie is that none of what should be the protagonist fits the bill. The Star Wars saga is very archetypical, which does it credit because it makes the story accessible and identifiable to everybody. The focus of the earlier movies was the journey of Luke from being an inexperienced and impressionable young man into the mythical warrior that he becomes in the last movie. In the same way, the prequels were to follow the story of Anakin. But in the first movie, Anakin does not share much screentime throughout the entire film. So do we focus on Qui Gon? But he is less interesting as a protaganist because he's already a matured character. So we are left with Obi Wan who has the screentime and is undergoing that part of a hero's journey. But Obi Wan is never really felt to be central to the plot.