All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
You know, I recall the heady days of 1999 when Star Wars burst back onto the screens (aside from the original trilogy's special edition) to a chorus of disapproval - something as a big Star Wars fan I obviously ignored. That said, I recall being a little disappointed but certainly not to the degree that critics (who had been waiting 16 years to stick the knife in) were.
It's odd to think that it's 13 years since it was released and reflecting on the different world we now live in, it's actually welcome to see this come back to the big screen for reassessment.
I have to say, though, that 3D is a gimmicky nonsense that still doesn't draw me in. I'll always opt for the 2D when the option is there. For this, however, there was no choice. Was this a good 3D adaptation? Who knows, who cares.
Jar Jar Binks and young Jake Lloyd appeared to annoy a lot of people far more than they should have back in '99. Yes, they were whiney, and yes that meant they slotted perfectly into the world established in the first trilogy. Did people forget that these are movies aimed primarily at kids? And adults who cannot shake off their inner geeky kid? I don't think these characters were as overbearingly disappointing as was the prevailing thought. Sure, in the case of Jar Jar, the focus on the clumsy comedic sidekick (a character also lacking the brilliance of C3-PO and R2 D2) went too far, but not compared to the shrieking proportions of disapproval they met.
The actors chosen as leads (Neeson, McGregor and Portman) were choices based on talent rather than suitability, IMO. Neeson and Portman adapted to this better than McGregor. Ewan struggled to deliver (and he must've known the clumsiness of the dialogue in advance!) the lines with sincerity or subtlety. That was jarring for me. He did get better with subsequent episodes, but I think he was a poor casting choice.
The film is a little long but packs in an awful lot of action whilst organically bringing Anakin into the Jedi path. The pod race was wonderful, as was the standard issue 3 front attack ending to bring us to our happy conclusion. They could have probably cut down on the political manoeuvring (although it was necessary in establishing the undertones of the conflict and Palpatine's route to Supreme Chancellor) and used that time to explore Maul.
And that was perhaps the most disappointing aspect - fact they never utilised Darth Maul like they might have, and whilst his makeup was excellent, his clothing and height were issues for me. I just found myself being distracted by it. That black number with the MC Hammer trousers just didn't work. He was a potentially cool villain and yet we knew nothing of his motivation or perceived ills to justify the attack on the Jedi.
All in all, though, this was an enjoyable ride. For some, it seems to be the worst movie ever made. This isn't the worst movie in the Star Wars series, for Pete's sake! It's a much maligned movie that is seemingly not getting the reassessment this release should allow it to receive. That's a shame. I think it will grow a bigger audience of appreciation as the years go by and that's a credit to George Lucas for making the film he felt needed to be made.
It isn't the worst movie on the Star Wars franchise?
Course it is, by a long, long way...unless you're including the Ewok abortions.
I'm a massive Star Wars fan, but it just didn't work as a film.
The problems were basic and fundamental. Simple screenwriting and structural deficiencies...it starts off illogical and absurd when the Jedi's come to visit the Space Station (they release killer gas, and then open the doors) and it just went from bad to worse.
It seemed to go out of its way to undo any tension. The robots are weak and ridiculous. Why deliberately create antagonistic forces that are so pointless and weak?
The introduction of the midichlorians was an abomination as well...undoing the Joseph Campbell inspired universal idea that anyone could access the force through faith and turning it into a genetic birth right....a horrible idea that would have killed Star Wars stone dead if he'd put it in the original trilogy.
Part of the problem with the film is that the Star Wars Universe grew continuously between the two trilogies. There is a whole collection of stories that are chronological. A novel called Cloak of Deception was released before Phantom Menace that explains the whole plan and the role the Trade Federation plays...but it's not acceptable to have to know the contents of a book to make sense of a film.
Another problem is that you've got three films whose sole intention is to get Anakin to become Darth Vader. Three films to get to an already understood point. That's a challenge and Lucas has nothing like the skill required to deal with such emotion and couldn't allow the ratings to be raised to tell that particular story effectively.
None of the characters are interesting either. The original trilogy was remarkable in that even minor characters seemed imbued with life. Here, even the mian characters are flat and formless.
I don't know if you've ever seen that Buffalo Bill inspired review of the film, but it points out individual flaws better than I could right now. I agree with every word of it.
One illuminating moment was footage of the editor watching the film with Lucas and pointing out that the ending is a massive problem because you are going from comedy in one scene (Jar Jar) to tragedy, to something else, to something else....the film has no consistent tone at all.
The face of the Producer (Rick Callum or something similar) was priceless as he was watching the abortion unfold!
I will always be grateful for Lucas for creating Star Wars. It's probably the reason I'm a filmmaker (I have merely swapped Star Wars figures for live actors). However I have reached the point where I want him to stop interfering with it and pass it on to others.
Judging by the films he makes when he has total control, I think it's fair to say that it's his collaborators who did more to make the Star Wars universe so good. It's clear he wants it to be a chilish, idiotic type creation, but other people have made it far more than that.
Lucas seems intent on destroying the only legcay he has ever created. If it wasn't for writers like Timothy Zahn, Karen Miller etc he probably would have succeeded a long time ago.
Originally he wanted to create a Universe and let other people make films in it...that's what he should do. He should retire from Star Wars completely and let it find a new voice.
On the other hand, I'm sort of glad he made the new films, if only because the novels written based on this period have proven to be of a decent standard.
Even Darth Maul has two stories: Shadow Hunter and Saboteur that explain his past and make him an interesting character. Basically, the dozens of writers working in the Star Wars Universe are able to rectify all the nonsense that Lucas keeps coming up with and filling in all the gaps in logic.
[Darth Maul survives that scene btw...he appears later with robot legs in Star Wars visonaries. He's killed by Uncle Owen, after a fight with Obi Wan, when he tries to get back in favour with the Emperor by killing Luke Skywalker! For the sake of your own knowledge, he was raised from an early age by Palpatine and was essentially a Special Ops/Assassin type. He was brutally tortured and killed all his rivals. Palpatine comes to realise he's made a mistake in his education by making him hate the Jedi too much...meaning he's not capable of dispassionately planning their exctinction...so he turns to Count Dooku as his next apprentice.]
I'll always love Star Wars for that reason...it's one story that is continuously being expanded. Characters who are on the screen for a few seconds are suddenly given entire histories and futures meaning that the films are continually reinvented.
As a sort of literary phenomenon, it's a bizarre and incredible achievement.
I remember the day very well when I saw The Phantom Menace. I grew up watching the original Star Wars movies mainly because they were shown on TV every bank holiday. I also remember the end credits rolling and thinking 'Man, that was a poor film'. I hated it, I hated Jar Jar fecking Binks and his stupidity and basically everything else that followed. I did then think of the Ewoks and thought they too were pretty poor but at least it had a decent story. Maybe it was an age thing but I've never watched the episodes 1 & 2 more than once and I don't even think I've seen number 3 at all.
I am however completely pissed by the ridiculous amount of 'milking' that the franchise has been up to. Episodes 4,5 & 6 were released so many times I lost count and now 3D! They should just leave it alone. It was cack the first time and isn't going to get any better.
Check out my scripts...if you want to, no pressure.
When I actually think about the film in depth (it was too traumatic an experience to really dwell on at the time) it really is just utterly terrible...it's offensively bad.
Even as far as the racial sterotypes that exist amongst the alien species...the Rastafarian type idiot that's Jar Jar, the Asian parodies that are the Trade Federation.
Even on the most basic film level it fails. Annakin destroys a spcae station by mistake, whilst at the same time the idiotic Jar Jar is winning a battle by falling over and being an idiot.
These things belong in a comedy movie...not an Epic film about Good vs Evil.It's Revenge of the Pink Panther type stuff.
There's no chemistry between Amidala and the ridiculously young kid (what is it Lucas has about under age sex? His original version of Indiana Jones was that Indy had been shagging an under age girl).
This reveals a problem throughout the whole thing...the story only goes where it has to..the plot is entirely manipulated. They fall in love because they have to have a couple of kids, not because it was realisitc or organic to the story.
The other thing is that Annie never even shows any particular talent. Think about how obvious that should be...the kid should be like a maelstrom of power. His pod racer breaks...fuck it...he just uses the force.
That problem continued throught the first three films...he lost every battle he ever fought...Count Dooku, Obi Wan. Bizarrely, it was only when he became less powerful by losing most of his body that he started to win a few fights.
I'm not sure there's a single scene that actually makes sense within the story's own Universe.
Clones is by far the worst film, in my opinion. Phantom Menace, to me, has a sense of movement, whereas Clones is utterly stagnant and interminably boring. Plus, as painful as Jake Lloyd is, I'd take his "Yippies" over the Christensen/Portman romance any day. I submit the following:
Quoted from Anakin Skywalker
I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth.
In my book, points also go to the (original) Menace for puppet Yoda and, of course, for the Darth Maul showdown. I do agree with Rick, however, that Jar Jar "Sambo" Binks is an ugly contribution to the world.
I gotta strongly disagree, Rick, about the characters in the original trilogy. To me, Guiness' Obi-Wan is the standout that gives us something to figure out in a universe populated by staggeringly simple characters. That many of the characters happen to be appealing depends much more on an action-figure mentality than a film-character one, in my opinion. This isn't meant as a slight against the films by any means; I do think that the characters, at least in Hope and Empire, are exactly what they needed to be. But to me, the main characters are archetypes, and nothing more, and the supporting characters are interesting and entertaining, but certainly one-note. Again, to me Obi-Wan is the only performance suggestive of any actual life. I don't, of course, deny that the characters in the prequels are largely uninteresting as well.
And the bit-part actors in all six films are uniformly laughable; though perhaps this isn't a particularly unwelcome phenomenon, all things considered. Two fighters against a Star Destroyer?!
The characters may be archetypes, but they have strong personalities...not least of which is Han Solo.
You know what they all represent and their dialogue exchanges (largely ad-libbed due to such a poor script, apparently) are convincing and more importantly, energetic and fun.
You can't even say what archetypes the characters in the new trilogy are even supposed to represent, due to how bland they are.
I strongly disagree that the bit part actors in the first two films in particular are laughable...the likes of Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing) were great...far better than the main characters in the new trilogy.
Even C3P0 seems like a comic genius when compared to the tripe dished up later.
There is the kernel of a decent film in Phantom Menace...the way Palpatine engineers the whole conflict in order to secretly get power over the entire Galaxy. It's analogous to things like the Patriot Act and conspiracy theories surrounding the likes of the Rothschilds. He was a decent character and, a bit like the Joker in Dark Knight, he overshadowed everyone else in the film.
It's sort of ironic to me that people try to defend it as just a kids film...when the only times it works (pod race aside) is when it's delving into disticntly adult territory.
Just google the opening credits to the film...it's on about trade embargos and levels of taxation...what sort of kids are going to get any of that?
That's not the premise of a kid's film.
Star Wars was pretty dark..it opens with Stormtroopers wiping out a whole ship and then the implied torture of a Princess. Then the Stormtroopers kill Uncle Owen and his wife in cold blood, leaving their burning corpses outside.
if lucas had just given all of his ideas for the original trilogy over to more capable writer/director....episodes I II and III could have been truely epic..
and that's where most of the vitriol from fans comes from....
I didn't think Episode I was the worst. Episode III was the worst for me.
That last scene with the tying up of the plot holes when Yoda says:
"Right, send that twin there. Send the other twin there. Oh, by the way, Liam Neeson has learned how to appear as a ghost, he''ll teach you how, Obi-wan -- so you can talk to that twin when you peg it in twenty years" etc etc.
F*ck off!
And don't get me started with Episode II when they throw Boba Fett's dad in just because we all had a hard-on for Boba when we were kids. (yes, he was cool. But his fucking Dad shows up? Seriously?).
oh look, more people pissing and moaning about the star wars prequel...havent heard that before.
i'm not disagreeing with what you all are saying. is it bad? yeah. is it the worst film to ever plop out of lucas' moist, sweaty loins? eh not really (I'm looking at you Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal bullshit)
as a huge fan of the original trilogy, every expectation we could have possibly had about episode I is simply unfair. nostalgia clouds our judgement. we wanted episode I to transport us to those days when we would have gladly sucked the emperor's seared cock just to get a glimpse of princess leia's "death stars". but guess what? NO film could make us feel that way again. that time has passed.
furthermore, it's time to let go of the bitterness and resentment we all have towards lucas for making episode I. ultimately it was a failure, but we did have the opportunity to go back and revisit the star wars universe, not once, but three more times. and even though it pales in comparison to the original trilogy, there were some really kick ass moments in the prequels. general grievous? hells f ucking yes.
i for one thought episode III was pretty g oddamn good. anakin killed a bunch of children. amen.
granted, lucas is beating a dead horse and laughing all the way to the bank, but who cares? he's in it for the money. surprise! directors (and film studios) love money.
I'm certainly pissing into the wind on this one! Great discussion thus far, though.
If I had to rate them, I'd go:
1) Empire 2) A New Hope 3) Revenge 4) Attack 5) Phantom 6) Return
I feel bad putting Return last, 'cos there's a lot of good stuff there. The climatic scene with Luke, Darth and the Emperor with the battles through the window was excellent. On top of that, we get Han back and the scene that ends Jabba on Tattooine is very cool.
There could some currency in stating Lucas' material is better handled by other hands. Kershner directed Empire, of course, but he also directed RoboCop 2. Could Lucas' material be the missing quality link here. Who knows, but I think there's this odd body of 'evidence' to suggest that Lucas is to blame for anything remotely bad about the Star Wars universe. It's all a little ungrateful!
Part of the problem with the film is that the Star Wars Universe grew continuously between the two trilogies. There is a whole collection of stories that are chronological. A novel called Cloak of Deception was released before Phantom Menace that explains the whole plan and the role the Trade Federation plays...but it's not acceptable to have to know the contents of a book to make sense of a film.
Another problem is that you've got three films whose sole intention is to get Anakin to become Darth Vader. Three films to get to an already understood point. That's a challenge and Lucas has nothing like the skill required to deal with such emotion and couldn't allow the ratings to be raised to tell that particular story effectively.
I don't know, man. We come from this at very different angles. Whilst you enjoy the universe, I find it a huge turnoff. These huge, extended anthologies of universes like Star Wars and Star Trek just don't appeal to me, whereas, as you say, that's one of the things you do like. The whole body of work of Star Wars, such as the novels, animated series, etc, lacks legitimacy in my mind. Lucas developed and authored this unparalleled world and yet gets only a modicum of credit for it! It's bizarre. I know there's a polemic out there that he's a surly director with no idea of how to relate concepts to actors, but come on! He deserves more credit.
Judging by the films he makes when he has total control, I think it's fair to say that it's his collaborators who did more to make the Star Wars universe so good. It's clear he wants it to be a chilish, idiotic type creation, but other people have made it far more than that.
Lucas seems intent on destroying the only legcay he has ever created. If it wasn't for writers like Timothy Zahn, Karen Miller etc he probably would have succeeded a long time ago.
Come on, man! You talk about him like he was washing the dishes after communicating this world to more talented superiors. I'm not sure Zahn or Miller would agree with you. It takes a brilliant mind to develop and conceptualise a world like that of Star Wars. Lucas was pioneering in so many ways with Star Wars. He has weaknesses like any director, but to suggest he was more passenger than creative genius is too far. I loved the script Chewie as it tapped into the idea that Star Wars was a ramshackle production that just worked by accident. Sure, there's probably some credibility to that, but if Lucas is such a drag on the productions and essentially a talentless hack, why is it that Zack Synder can't make a decent movie? Much less a set of classics like Star Wars.
I don't know if you've ever seen that Buffalo Bill inspired review of the film, but it points out individual flaws better than I could right now. I agree with every word of it.
If it's anything like a Mark Kermode, I'd rather not. Kermode is the ultimate talentless hack, with an enormous superiority complex. Mark, if I could meet with you or Michael Bay to discuss movies, it certainly wouldn't be you, you Morrissey wannabe. Bay makes films and you talk them. *Kermode rant over*
I gotta strongly disagree, Rick, about the characters in the original trilogy. To me, Guiness' Obi-Wan is the standout that gives us something to figure out in a universe populated by staggeringly simple characters. That many of the characters happen to be appealing depends much more on an action-figure mentality than a film-character one, in my opinion. This isn't meant as a slight against the films by any means; I do think that the characters, at least in Hope and Empire, are exactly what they needed to be. But to me, the main characters are archetypes, and nothing more, and the supporting characters are interesting and entertaining, but certainly one-note. Again, to me Obi-Wan is the only performance suggestive of any actual life. I don't, of course, deny that the characters in the prequels are largely uninteresting as well.
I agree with Chris. There isn't a huge difference in the depth of characters throughout the series. If anything, the difference lies with the quality of performance, and ability to own the role and nonsensical nature of some of the dialogue. I agree with Rick that nobody owned a role in the second trilogy like Ford did in the first, though. I think they made some howlers in casting and particularly with McGregor and Christensen. Obi Wan needed a twinkle in his eye, and Anakin needed a Di Caprio. I recall rumours at the time of him being interested. Had he starred, it could've made all the difference.
Oh, and these are definitely kids' films, IMO. I think that got lost between trilogy one and two, which accounts for some of the despair. Granted, there are some dark themes and occurrences, but that doesn't detract from the conceptualisation of movies for kids. That was part of the genius in appeal: it did only apply to just kids, but the kids in all of us.
Pages: 1, 
Author
Star Wars Episode One: Phantom Menace (3D)
Logged
Locked Board