Many Bothans Died To Bring You THE STAR WARS THREAD

[New haven america]

The fight had emotional power behind it, more than any other fight save Luke and Vader's in ROTJ, at least on a first viewing. And that's more important to me than expositions during fights. And by your logic there could large portions of all the movies taken out as they don't directly add to character or plot.

No, it had emotional potential. And it was wasted on swinging from ropes and balancing on beams.
It's the climax of the film; why would there be exposition?
Quite possibly, although I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make with "directly". Either it adds or it doesn't. Anyway, no scene leaps to mind like the Mustafar duel, but the prequels aren't well-written, so there are probably a fair few. Parts of the Maul duel, I think, though I'd have to rewatch.

You mean you weren't able to feel the emotion or what the characters were going through just by the power behind the blade swings and the pacing?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

No, it had emotional potential. And it was wasted on swinging from ropes and balancing on beams.
It's the climax of the film; why would there be exposition?
Quite possibly, although I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make with "directly". Either it adds or it doesn't. Anyway, no scene leaps to mind like the Mustafar duel, but the prequels aren't well-written, so there are probably a fair few. Parts of the Maul duel, I think, though I'd have to rewatch.

You mean you weren't able to feel the emotion or what the characters were going through just by the power behind the blade swings and the pacing?

Pacing? What pacing? There was no structure to that fight, no back and forth, no character at all. They fight in one place, we cut away to Yoda vs Sidious (which is guilty of the same, but at least it has nice symbolism in the Senate) we cut back and they fight in a different place. Eventually, Obi Wan wins for the absurd reason of "the high ground".

Interesting that you bring up the power behind the blows. You're right; they fight aggressively--both of them. Obi Wan seems more determined to kill Anakin than he ever did to kill Maul or Dooku. But again, this doesn't fit the character: we're supposed to believe Anakin is like his brother. He should be more reluctant to fight, not less. It doesn't work thematically either: when Obi Wan does finally resolve to kill Anakin, he should represent the control of the Jedi against the passionate aggression of the dark-side.

And that's the problem with this scene, and other prequel duels: it's completely detached from the characters, the themes, the story. It's like the set-piece boss in a video game--skippable filler; watch the cutscenes on either side and you don't lose anything.

[New haven america]

You mean you weren't able to feel the emotion or what the characters were going through just by the power behind the blade swings and the pacing?

1.Pacing? What pacing? There was no structure to that fight, no back and forth, no character at all. They fight in one place, we cut away to Yoda vs Sidious (which is guilty of the same, but at least it has nice symbolism in the Senate) we cut back and they fight in a different place. Eventually, Obi Wan wins for the absurd reason of "the high ground".

Interesting that you bring up the power behind the blows. You're right; they fight aggressively--both of them. Obi Wan seems more determined to kill Anakin than he ever did to kill Maul or Dooku. 2.But again, this doesn't fit the character: we're supposed to believe Anakin is like his brother. He should be more reluctant to fight, not less. It doesn't work thematically either: when Obi Wan does finally resolve to kill Anakin, he should represent the control of the Jedi against the passionate aggression of the dark-side.

3.And that's the problem with this scene, and other prequel duels: it's completely detached from the characters, the themes, the story. It's like the set-piece boss in a video game--skippable filler; watch the cutscenes on either side and you don't lose anything.

1. You know, the fast paced back and forth between Obi and Vader trying their hardest to land a blow on the other and finish the fight as soon as possible
2. It totally does, he's accepted the fact that simply talking to Anakin won't work anymore, because he's not Anakin, he's Vader. He: Helped kill Windu, pledged allegiance to the Sith, massacred children, killed every Separatist leader, and tried to kill his wife and kids because she didn't like what he was doing. Also, the Jedi have been pretty hypocritical in the prequels, that was one of the few story points they actually did well, the Jedi weren't necessarily the good guys anymore, as they were getting more and more power hungry and dangerous. Sure, they were better than the Sith, but still...
3. No it's not, it fits perfectly well.

[Ism]

You mean you weren't able to feel the emotion or what the characters were going through just by the power behind the blade swings and the pacing?

Pacing? What pacing? There was no structure to that fight, no back and forth, no character at all. They fight in one place, we cut away to Yoda vs Sidious (which is guilty of the same, but at least it has nice symbolism in the Senate) we cut back and they fight in a different place. Eventually, Obi Wan wins for the absurd reason of "the high ground".

Interesting that you bring up the power behind the blows. You're right; they fight aggressively--both of them. Obi Wan seems more determined to kill Anakin than he ever did to kill Maul or Dooku. But again, this doesn't fit the character: we're supposed to believe Anakin is like his brother. He should be more reluctant to fight, not less. It doesn't work thematically either: when Obi Wan does finally resolve to kill Anakin, he should represent the control of the Jedi against the passionate aggression of the dark-side.

And that's the problem with this scene, and other prequel duels: it's completely detached from the characters, the themes, the story. It's like the set-piece boss in a video game--skippable filler; watch the cutscenes on either side and you don't lose anything.

Were we watching the same fight? The whole thing is pretty much Anakin advancing and Obi-Wan retreating. As for theme, see it not as a passive Jedi fighting an aggressive Sith, but of two brothers fighting each other. Obi-Wan fights defensively, maybe once or twice in the whole duel he was offensive, but by and far he retreated while Anakin advanced. Even when he moved in to deal the killing blow early in the duel, he walked, he did not run.

As for his determination to kill, no. Again, he constantly retreats, he is reluctant to fight, but he still fights. This is different from his hesitance in fighting Dooku, though in AOTC I recall him moving aggressively, and far different than with Maul, whom he recklessly charged at and in general displayed a more aggressive fighting style.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1.Pacing? What pacing? There was no structure to that fight, no back and forth, no character at all. They fight in one place, we cut away to Yoda vs Sidious (which is guilty of the same, but at least it has nice symbolism in the Senate) we cut back and they fight in a different place. Eventually, Obi Wan wins for the absurd reason of "the high ground".

Interesting that you bring up the power behind the blows. You're right; they fight aggressively--both of them. Obi Wan seems more determined to kill Anakin than he ever did to kill Maul or Dooku. 2.But again, this doesn't fit the character: we're supposed to believe Anakin is like his brother. He should be more reluctant to fight, not less. It doesn't work thematically either: when Obi Wan does finally resolve to kill Anakin, he should represent the control of the Jedi against the passionate aggression of the dark-side.

3.And that's the problem with this scene, and other prequel duels: it's completely detached from the characters, the themes, the story. It's like the set-piece boss in a video game--skippable filler; watch the cutscenes on either side and you don't lose anything.

1. You know, the fast paced back and forth between Obi and Vader trying their hardest to land a blow on the other and finish the fight as soon as possible
2. It totally does, he's accepted the fact that simply talking to Anakin won't work anymore, because he's not Anakin, he's Vader. He: Helped kill Windu, pledged allegiance to the Sith, massacred children, killed every Separatist leader, and tried to kill his wife and kids because she didn't like what he was doing. Also, the Jedi have been pretty hypocritical in the prequels, that was one of the few story points they actually did well, the Jedi weren't necessarily the good guys anymore, as they were getting more and more power hungry and dangerous. Sure, they were better than the Sith, but still...
3. No it's not, it fits perfectly well.

1. That's not pacing. You mean that the fight is intense. V and VI had good pacing in their duels, points where the action rises (in tandem with moments of character development).

2. Again, when does he accept this fact? On his way to Padme's? While hiding on her ship? Are you really telling me that the most significant moment in Obi Wan's character arc, the moment he resolves to kill a man he supposedly regards as his brother, was done off-screen? Because that's shit writing. Again, I'll say that this should have been folded into the fight itself. Action scenes should be part of the story as much as any other; Lucas seemed to forget this between making the OT and the PT.

3. Oh, my mistake. Sorry.
...
...
...hang on. That's not an argument! Why does it fit? How does "I'm super confrontational! Have at you, sitthy-boy!" at all fit Obi Wan's character?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Pacing? What pacing? There was no structure to that fight, no back and forth, no character at all. They fight in one place, we cut away to Yoda vs Sidious (which is guilty of the same, but at least it has nice symbolism in the Senate) we cut back and they fight in a different place. Eventually, Obi Wan wins for the absurd reason of "the high ground".

Interesting that you bring up the power behind the blows. You're right; they fight aggressively--both of them. Obi Wan seems more determined to kill Anakin than he ever did to kill Maul or Dooku. But again, this doesn't fit the character: we're supposed to believe Anakin is like his brother. He should be more reluctant to fight, not less. It doesn't work thematically either: when Obi Wan does finally resolve to kill Anakin, he should represent the control of the Jedi against the passionate aggression of the dark-side.

And that's the problem with this scene, and other prequel duels: it's completely detached from the characters, the themes, the story. It's like the set-piece boss in a video game--skippable filler; watch the cutscenes on either side and you don't lose anything.

Were we watching the same fight? The whole thing is pretty much Anakin advancing and Obi-Wan retreating. As for theme, see it not as a passive Jedi fighting an aggressive Sith, but of two brothers fighting each other. Obi-Wan fights defensively, maybe once or twice in the whole duel he was offensive, but by and far he retreated while Anakin advanced. Even when he moved in to deal the killing blow early in the duel, he walked, he did not run.

As for his determination to kill, no. Again, he constantly retreats, he is reluctant to fight, but he still fights. This is different from his hesitance in fighting Dooku, though in AOTC I recall him moving aggressively, and far different than with Maul, whom he recklessly charged at and in general displayed a more aggressive fighting style.

Apparently we weren't. You've watched some version of the duel where Obi Wan isn't obviously trying to kill Anakin.

Go watch the throne room scene in episode 6. Luke goes on the attack all of twice, both times as he's slipping towards the Dark Side. After the first, he pulls himself back, fights defensively, dodges, runs away, and hides, all the while insisting he won't fight, imploring Vader to stop, insisting he can come back, etc.

That's how you do a character trying to avoid a fight.

[Ism]

Were we watching the same fight? The whole thing is pretty much Anakin advancing and Obi-Wan retreating. As for theme, see it not as a passive Jedi fighting an aggressive Sith, but of two brothers fighting each other. Obi-Wan fights defensively, maybe once or twice in the whole duel he was offensive, but by and far he retreated while Anakin advanced. Even when he moved in to deal the killing blow early in the duel, he walked, he did not run.

As for his determination to kill, no. Again, he constantly retreats, he is reluctant to fight, but he still fights. This is different from his hesitance in fighting Dooku, though in AOTC I recall him moving aggressively, and far different than with Maul, whom he recklessly charged at and in general displayed a more aggressive fighting style.

Apparently we weren't. You've watched some version of the duel where Obi Wan isn't obviously trying to kill Anakin.

Go watch the throne room scene in episode 6. Luke goes on the attack all of twice, both times as he's slipping towards the Dark Side. After the first, he pulls himself back, fights defensively, dodges, runs away, and hides, all the while insisting he won't fight, imploring Vader to stop, insisting he can come back, etc.

That's how you do a character trying to avoid a fight.

Your premise is flawed, Obi-Wan wasn't trying to avoid the fight. He didn't want to fight Anakin, but he was willing to do it. As he says at the start: "I will do what I must." Luke believed Anakin could be saved, Obi-Wan was at the very least doubtful of that, and by the end he was certain Anakin was beyond redemption. Add into this that, yes, Anakin was the aggressor in the fight, and Obi-Wan was largely just defending himself. There was, as I said, a moment where this was inverted, but that was it.

[New haven america]

1. You know, the fast paced back and forth between Obi and Vader trying their hardest to land a blow on the other and finish the fight as soon as possible
2. It totally does, he's accepted the fact that simply talking to Anakin won't work anymore, because he's not Anakin, he's Vader. He: Helped kill Windu, pledged allegiance to the Sith, massacred children, killed every Separatist leader, and tried to kill his wife and kids because she didn't like what he was doing. Also, the Jedi have been pretty hypocritical in the prequels, that was one of the few story points they actually did well, the Jedi weren't necessarily the good guys anymore, as they were getting more and more power hungry and dangerous. Sure, they were better than the Sith, but still...
3. No it's not, it fits perfectly well.

1. That's not pacing. You mean that the fight is intense. V and VI had good pacing in their duels, points where the action rises (in tandem with moments of character development).

2. Again, when does he accept this fact? On his way to Padme's? While hiding on her ship? Are you really telling me that the most significant moment in Obi Wan's character arc, the moment he resolves to kill a man he supposedly regards as his brother, was done off-screen? Because that's shit writing. Again, I'll say that this should have been folded into the fight itself. Action scenes should be part of the story as much as any other; Lucas seemed to forget this between making the OT and the PT.

3. Oh, my mistake. Sorry.
...
...
...hang on. That's not an argument! Why does it fit? How does "I'm super confrontational! Have at you, sitthy-boy!" at all fit Obi Wan's character?

1. Yes it is, it's fast, almost non stop, and every part perfectly leads into the other, the fight started out intense, and just got more intense as it went on.
2. You do know what happened right before Obi pulled out his lightsaber, right? Vader tried killing his wife and his kids because he got a tad bit angry, that was the icing on the cake to the evidence that Anakin was lost, and he knew at that moment that Anakin needed to be stopped; He loved Anakin and he didn't want to take him down, but he knew he had to. It's not my fault you weren't paying attention to the scene.

Also, the character's beliefs and reasoning didn't need to be folded into the fight, because these were already presented to us before the thing started.
3. It was the logical climax to the series of events that came before it. How does that not fit?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Apparently we weren't. You've watched some version of the duel where Obi Wan isn't obviously trying to kill Anakin.

Go watch the throne room scene in episode 6. Luke goes on the attack all of twice, both times as he's slipping towards the Dark Side. After the first, he pulls himself back, fights defensively, dodges, runs away, and hides, all the while insisting he won't fight, imploring Vader to stop, insisting he can come back, etc.

That's how you do a character trying to avoid a fight.

Your premise is flawed, Obi-Wan wasn't trying to avoid the fight. He didn't want to fight Anakin, but he was willing to do it. As he says at the start: "I will do what I must." Luke believed Anakin could be saved, Obi-Wan was at the very least doubtful of that, and by the end he was certain Anakin was beyond redemption. Add into this that, yes, Anakin was the aggressor in the fight, and Obi-Wan was largely just defending himself. There was, as I said, a moment where this was inverted, but that was it.

But he should have been. He should have come down from that ship trying his utmost to avoid a fight. Once Anakin attacked, he should have defended himself, put space between him and Anakin to give himself time to plead. He should have pleaded right up until a key, clear turning point, when he resolved, with the agony of the decision written on his face, to kill Anakin. Then he should have quickly ended the fight with a few strokes.

That would have been good writing. That would have connected the fight scene to a sane and sensible character arc. And that would have been a strong foundation for that heartfelt "you were my brother" scene afterwards.

1. That's not pacing. You mean that the fight is intense. V and VI had good pacing in their duels, points where the action rises (in tandem with moments of character development).

2. Again, when does he accept this fact? On his way to Padme's? While hiding on her ship? Are you really telling me that the most significant moment in Obi Wan's character arc, the moment he resolves to kill a man he supposedly regards as his brother, was done off-screen? Because that's shit writing. Again, I'll say that this should have been folded into the fight itself. Action scenes should be part of the story as much as any other; Lucas seemed to forget this between making the OT and the PT.

3. Oh, my mistake. Sorry.
...
...
...hang on. That's not an argument! Why does it fit? How does "I'm super confrontational! Have at you, sitthy-boy!" at all fit Obi Wan's character?

1. Yes it is, it's fast, almost non stop, and every part perfectly leads into the other, the fight started out intense, and just got more intense as it went on.
2. You do know what happened right before Obi pulled out his lightsaber, right? Vader tried killing his wife and his kids because he got a tad bit angry, that was the icing on the cake to the evidence that Anakin was lost, and he knew at that moment that Anakin needed to be stopped; He loved Anakin and he didn't want to take him down, but he knew he had to. It's not my fault you weren't paying attention to the scene.

Also, the character's beliefs and reasoning didn't need to be folded into the fight, because these were already presented to us before the thing started.
3. It was the logical climax to the series of events that came before it. How does that not fit?

1. Which isn't good pacing.

2. Before he pulled out his lightsaber? Yes, Obi Wan had a go at Anakin, threw off his cloak, had a go at Anakin, circled aggressively, had a go at Anakin, checked Padme was alive, had a go at Anakin, and then had a go at Anakin some more. He was trying to avoid a fight about as hard as a Glaswegian on a Friday night.

3. It was a shit climax that went on too long, failed to capture character or theme, and didn't even have the decency to make clever use of a Chekhov's gun or two.


It's shit writing. You two can try to paint it anyway you like, but talk to people who know this stuff, and they'll tell you that you don't write long swathes of pure, characterless fighting. Scenes should do more than one thing; the Mustafar duel does one (Obi Wan beats Anakin) and it takes a good five minutes to do it (not counting the dialogue on either side).

[New haven america]

Your premise is flawed, Obi-Wan wasn't trying to avoid the fight. He didn't want to fight Anakin, but he was willing to do it. As he says at the start: "I will do what I must." Luke believed Anakin could be saved, Obi-Wan was at the very least doubtful of that, and by the end he was certain Anakin was beyond redemption. Add into this that, yes, Anakin was the aggressor in the fight, and Obi-Wan was largely just defending himself. There was, as I said, a moment where this was inverted, but that was it.

But he should have been. He should have come down from that ship trying his utmost to avoid a fight. A.Once Anakin attacked, he should have defended himself, put space between him and Anakin to give himself time to plead. He should have pleaded right up until a key, clear turning point, when he resolved, with the agony of the decision written on his face, to kill Anakin. Then he should have quickly ended the fight with a few strokes.

That would have been good writing. That would have connected the fight scene to a sane and sensible character arc. And that would have been a strong foundation for that heartfelt "you were my brother" scene afterwards.

1. Yes it is, it's fast, almost non stop, and every part perfectly leads into the other, the fight started out intense, and just got more intense as it went on.
2. You do know what happened right before Obi pulled out his lightsaber, right? Vader tried killing his wife and his kids because he got a tad bit angry, that was the icing on the cake to the evidence that Anakin was lost, and he knew at that moment that Anakin needed to be stopped; He loved Anakin and he didn't want to take him down, but he knew he had to. It's not my fault you weren't paying attention to the scene.

Also, the character's beliefs and reasoning didn't need to be folded into the fight, because these were already presented to us before the thing started.
3. It was the logical climax to the series of events that came before it. How does that not fit?

1. Which isn't good pacing.

2. Before he pulled out his lightsaber? Yes, Obi Wan had a go at Anakin, threw off his cloak, had a go at Anakin, circled aggressively, had a go at Anakin, checked Padme was alive, had a go at Anakin, and then had a go at Anakin some more. He was trying to avoid a fight about as hard as a Glaswegian on a Friday night.

3. It was a shit climax that went on too long, failed to capture character or theme, and didn't even have the decency to make clever use of a Chekhov's gun or two.


It's shit writing. You two can try to paint it anyway you like, but talk to people who know this stuff, and they'll tell you that you don't write long swathes of pure, characterless fighting. Scenes should do more than one thing; the Mustafar duel does one (Obi Wan beats Anakin) and it takes a good five minutes to do it (not counting the dialogue on either side).

A. But he knew there was no point, he saw him massacring kids and trying to kill his wife and children, his resolve was already building up, and when he saw what Anakin's did to Padme, he knew talking would be absolutely pointless.
1. How is it not good pacing?
2. I never said Obi was avoiding fighting, I said he didn't want to but knew he had to. Do you into attention?
3. No it wasn't, it was the perfect logical climax to the events that were building up to it.

Same thing can be said for you. You made it obvious you don't know what your talking about when you claimed "Obi should represent the control of the Jedi against the passionate aggression of the Sith" even though one of the biggest themes of the prequels was that the Jedi were being fucking hypocrites "We only act as protectors, now let's all become military generals! We fight to protect the ideas of the Republic and try not to kill, but let's just kill this dude, I mean, it'll only be once..."

[Ism]

Your premise is flawed, Obi-Wan wasn't trying to avoid the fight. He didn't want to fight Anakin, but he was willing to do it. As he says at the start: "I will do what I must." Luke believed Anakin could be saved, Obi-Wan was at the very least doubtful of that, and by the end he was certain Anakin was beyond redemption. Add into this that, yes, Anakin was the aggressor in the fight, and Obi-Wan was largely just defending himself. There was, as I said, a moment where this was inverted, but that was it.

But he should have been. He should have come down from that ship trying his utmost to avoid a fight. Once Anakin attacked, he should have defended himself, put space between him and Anakin to give himself time to plead. He should have pleaded right up until a key, clear turning point, when he resolved, with the agony of the decision written on his face, to kill Anakin. Then he should have quickly ended the fight with a few strokes.


It's shit writing. You two can try to paint it anyway you like, but talk to people who know this stuff, and they'll tell you that you don't write long swathes of pure, characterless fighting. Scenes should do more than one thing; the Mustafar duel does one (Obi Wan beats Anakin) and it takes a good five minutes to do it (not counting the dialogue on either side).

Says you. Why should he try to avoid this fight? At this point, Anakin has:
1. Played a role in the murder of a Jedi Master/Jedi Council Member.
2. Joined the Sith and supported the overthrow of the Galactic Republic.
3. Partook in genocide, including personally killing children.
4. Just tried to kill his wife and mother of his unborn children.
Why should Obi-Wan be unwilling to fight Anakin? Would you rather he be angsty all throughout the fight? Obi-Wan is a Jedi, whatever his feelings he will do what he views as the moral thing, and in this case that's neutralizing Anakin. You act like Kenobi rushed off the ship screaming bloody murder, but Anakin dealt the first blow, a blow with lethal intent.

And ending the fight with a few strokes, really? They're supposed to be about equal in power, that's not how it would work. And if it did, if Obi-Wan was in control the whole time, how can his letting Anakin live be justified?

As for your view of this fight as shitty writing, well you're entitled to your opinion. But you're not entitled to demand everyone agree with it and accept that your opinion is correct. To do so is not only pretentious and arrogant, but annoying and often insulting.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

But he should have been. He should have come down from that ship trying his utmost to avoid a fight. A.Once Anakin attacked, he should have defended himself, put space between him and Anakin to give himself time to plead. He should have pleaded right up until a key, clear turning point, when he resolved, with the agony of the decision written on his face, to kill Anakin. Then he should have quickly ended the fight with a few strokes.

That would have been good writing. That would have connected the fight scene to a sane and sensible character arc. And that would have been a strong foundation for that heartfelt "you were my brother" scene afterwards.


1. Which isn't good pacing.

2. Before he pulled out his lightsaber? Yes, Obi Wan had a go at Anakin, threw off his cloak, had a go at Anakin, circled aggressively, had a go at Anakin, checked Padme was alive, had a go at Anakin, and then had a go at Anakin some more. He was trying to avoid a fight about as hard as a Glaswegian on a Friday night.

3. It was a shit climax that went on too long, failed to capture character or theme, and didn't even have the decency to make clever use of a Chekhov's gun or two.


It's shit writing. You two can try to paint it anyway you like, but talk to people who know this stuff, and they'll tell you that you don't write long swathes of pure, characterless fighting. Scenes should do more than one thing; the Mustafar duel does one (Obi Wan beats Anakin) and it takes a good five minutes to do it (not counting the dialogue on either side).

A. But he knew there was no point, he saw him massacring kids and trying to kill his wife and children, his resolve was already building up, and when he saw what Anakin's did to Padme, he knew talking would be absolutely pointless.
1. How is it not good pacing?
2. I never said Obi was avoiding fighting, I said he didn't want to but knew he had to. Do you into attention?
3. No it wasn't, it was the perfect logical climax to the events that were building up to it.

Same thing can be said for you. You made it obvious you don't know what your talking about when you claimed "Obi should represent the control of the Jedi against the passionate aggression of the Sith" even though one of the biggest themes of the prequels was that the Jedi were being fucking hypocrites "We only act as protectors, now let's all become military generals! We fight to protect the ideas of the Republic and try not to kill, but let's just kill this dude, I mean, it'll only be once..."

Obi Wan's character arc was practically pre-written, but Lucas still managed to fuck it up: He starts out as a reckless young padawan, and by the end of 3 should be the calm embodiment of Jedi ideals who will serenely sacrifice himself in ANH. It felt like Lucas was trying to do this in TPM, but the character arc in that film was too shallow. Then in 2 and 3 Obi wan is all over the place.

The Jedi may be hypocritical, but Obi Wan shouldn't be, not at the end (so the "only a Sith deals in absolutes line" should probably be hanged or delivered earlier, perhaps by someone else).

I suggest you go read up on pacing. At this point, you're pretty much just a guy pointing at a tree and loudly decrying me for not calling it a horse. The same with climax. This is not a perfect climax by any stretch of the imagination; it's five minutes of flab around the actual climax (Anakin is dismembered), which itself does not have nearly as much of the emotional resonance it could have.

Actually, just go learn a thing or two about writing.

But he should have been. He should have come down from that ship trying his utmost to avoid a fight. Once Anakin attacked, he should have defended himself, put space between him and Anakin to give himself time to plead. He should have pleaded right up until a key, clear turning point, when he resolved, with the agony of the decision written on his face, to kill Anakin. Then he should have quickly ended the fight with a few strokes.


It's shit writing. You two can try to paint it anyway you like, but talk to people who know this stuff, and they'll tell you that you don't write long swathes of pure, characterless fighting. Scenes should do more than one thing; the Mustafar duel does one (Obi Wan beats Anakin) and it takes a good five minutes to do it (not counting the dialogue on either side).

Says you. Why should he try to avoid this fight? At this point, Anakin has:
1. Played a role in the murder of a Jedi Master/Jedi Council Member.
2. Joined the Sith and supported the overthrow of the Galactic Republic.
3. Partook in genocide, including personally killing children.
4. Just tried to kill his wife and mother of his unborn children.
Why should Obi-Wan be unwilling to fight Anakin? Would you rather he be angsty all throughout the fight? Obi-Wan is a Jedi, whatever his feelings he will do what he views as the moral thing, and in this case that's neutralizing Anakin. You act like Kenobi rushed off the ship screaming bloody murder, but Anakin dealt the first blow, a blow with lethal intent.

And ending the fight with a few strokes, really? They're supposed to be about equal in power, that's not how it would work. And if it did, if Obi-Wan was in control the whole time, how can his letting Anakin live be justified?

As for your view of this fight as shitty writing, well you're entitled to your opinion. But you're not entitled to demand everyone agree with it and accept that your opinion is correct. To do so is not only pretentious and arrogant, but annoying and often insulting.

He should want to avoid a fight because he clearly wanted to in the previous scenes. If a character strongly feels one way in one scene, they shouldn't (generally) have flipped by the next one. Character arcs aren't something that happen off-screen. Scenes should feel like they follow logically on one from another. This is fundamental and one of the many things the prequels fail to do.

Between being the Chosen One and using the Dark Side, I'm pretty sure Anakin is supposed to be a lot stronger, but that's academic. Again, if I were writing it, I'd make it a case of arrogance vs control (the same thing that saw Luke so soundly beaten in ESB). Lucas kinda did this, but as I said, the high ground thing is a bit weak, and it comes off the end of five minutes of flab and Obi Wan's characterisation is a mess.

Write in a plausible reason that Obi Wan either can't get near enough to finish him, has to leave in a hurry (maybe Padme has a seizure, goes into labour, something like that and he runs to her) or would genuinely believe Anakin was dead (he could have run him through before the dismemberment). It's not like Obi Wan's sparing him makes much sense at the moment. But this is really an irrelevant detail. You can write anything in to support character arcs; that's easy.

I'm not demanding you agree. But your position is in complete opposition to basic standards of writing. You can hold the opinion that the best prose is laden with adverbs, that putting music in film is just annoying window-dressing that never adds anything, that character arcs are nothing more than pretentious distractions from plot, that the best way to end a story is with a deus ex machina. You can hold all those opinions, if you want. There's no objectivity in art.


Watch this. It's one of the greatest sword fights in cinema. It doesn't just establish that they're great swordsmen; we learn loads about the characters. When they're not talking, actions speak (note the first testing blows, and how they mirror each other. Note how they pause to let one another pick up fallen weapons). The action rises, falls, enters lulls. We get plenty of close-ups and facial expressions. Moments of pure action pretty much don't exist. This is the first time we meet the Man in Black (kinda), but we're not surprised at the end when he spares Inigo. This scene does way more in three minutes than Mustafar does in five, and I think it's far more entertaining to watch.

[New haven america]

A. But he knew there was no point, he saw him massacring kids and trying to kill his wife and children, his resolve was already building up, and when he saw what Anakin's did to Padme, he knew talking would be absolutely pointless.
1. How is it not good pacing?
2. I never said Obi was avoiding fighting, I said he didn't want to but knew he had to. Do you into attention?
3. No it wasn't, it was the perfect logical climax to the events that were building up to it.

Same thing can be said for you. You made it obvious you don't know what your talking about when you claimed "Obi should represent the control of the Jedi against the passionate aggression of the Sith" even though one of the biggest themes of the prequels was that the Jedi were being fucking hypocrites "We only act as protectors, now let's all become military generals! We fight to protect the ideas of the Republic and try not to kill, but let's just kill this dude, I mean, it'll only be once..."

1.Obi Wan's character arc was practically pre-written, but Lucas still managed to fuck it up: He starts out as a reckless young padawan, and by the end of 3 should be the calm embodiment of Jedi ideals who will serenely sacrifice himself in ANH. It felt like Lucas was trying to do this in TPM, but the character arc in that film was too shallow. Then in 2 and 3 Obi wan is all over the place.

2.The Jedi may be hypocritical, but Obi Wan shouldn't be, not at the end (so the "only a Sith deals in absolutes line" should probably be hanged or delivered earlier, perhaps by someone else).

3.I suggest you go read up on pacing. At this point, you're pretty much just a guy pointing at a tree and loudly decrying me for not calling it a horse. The same with climax. This is not a perfect climax by any stretch of the imagination; it's five minutes of flab around the actual climax (Anakin is dismembered), which itself does not have nearly as much of the emotional resonance it could have.

4.Actually, just go learn a thing or two about writing.

1. It took him losing the Republic and the person he loved the most in his life which caused him to actually calm down. Afterwards, he spent the next 19 years waiting, maturing, and accepting his mistakes, which turned him into the man he was a ANH
2. Is Obi a Jedi? Then yes, at that time, he could be hypocritical. However, I'd like to point out that as mentioned above, there was a 19 year difference between RotS and ANH, and he was able to change, grow, and see the mistakes of his younger self.
3. You're avoiding the question, one of the first signs that an arguments faltering. Answer the question, how was the pacing bad?
4. This, coming from the person who avoids questions and couldn't pick out the themes of the prequels, which is a very fucking easy job to do. Round of applause

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1.Obi Wan's character arc was practically pre-written, but Lucas still managed to fuck it up: He starts out as a reckless young padawan, and by the end of 3 should be the calm embodiment of Jedi ideals who will serenely sacrifice himself in ANH. It felt like Lucas was trying to do this in TPM, but the character arc in that film was too shallow. Then in 2 and 3 Obi wan is all over the place.

2.The Jedi may be hypocritical, but Obi Wan shouldn't be, not at the end (so the "only a Sith deals in absolutes line" should probably be hanged or delivered earlier, perhaps by someone else).

3.I suggest you go read up on pacing. At this point, you're pretty much just a guy pointing at a tree and loudly decrying me for not calling it a horse. The same with climax. This is not a perfect climax by any stretch of the imagination; it's five minutes of flab around the actual climax (Anakin is dismembered), which itself does not have nearly as much of the emotional resonance it could have.

4.Actually, just go learn a thing or two about writing.

1. It took him losing the Republic and the person he loved the most in his life which caused him to actually calm down. Afterwards, he spent the next 19 years waiting, maturing, and accepting his mistakes, which turned him into the man he was a ANH
2. Is Obi a Jedi? Then yes, at that time, he could be hypocritical. However, I'd like to point out that as mentioned above, there was a 19 year difference between RotS and ANH, and he was able to change, grow, and see the mistakes of his younger self.
3. You're avoiding the question, one of the first signs that an arguments faltering. Answer the question, how was the pacing bad?
4. This, coming from the person who avoids questions and couldn't pick out the themes of the prequels, which is a very fucking easy job to do. Round of applause

1. No. Bad. We should see this character development.

2. Ditto. Obi Wan's Prequel arc is not as strong as it could and should have been.

3. Because there really is no rhythm, no up and down. It's just two people trying to hit each other in different ways for five minutes. They're hitting each other in a room, in a corridor, on a beam, on ropes. It's just people hitting each other. Again, I really think you need to learn what pacing is; it's not "lots of stuff happening". Five minutes pass, and then one of them wins. It's actually also very slow, which is not what you want as you approach the climax.

4. No, the themes aren't easy to pick out, because the prequels are a hot mess. Lucas kind of goes for a morally grey/Jedi as hypocrites, but fails to really show it.

[New haven america]

1. It took him losing the Republic and the person he loved the most in his life which caused him to actually calm down. Afterwards, he spent the next 19 years waiting, maturing, and accepting his mistakes, which turned him into the man he was a ANH
2. Is Obi a Jedi? Then yes, at that time, he could be hypocritical. However, I'd like to point out that as mentioned above, there was a 19 year difference between RotS and ANH, and he was able to change, grow, and see the mistakes of his younger self.
3. You're avoiding the question, one of the first signs that an arguments faltering. Answer the question, how was the pacing bad?
4. This, coming from the person who avoids questions and couldn't pick out the themes of the prequels, which is a very fucking easy job to do. Round of applause

1. No. Bad. We should see this character development.

2. Ditto. Obi Wan's Prequel arc is not as strong as it could and should have been.

3. Because there really is no rhythm, no up and down. It's just two people trying to hit each other in different ways for five minutes. They're hitting each other in a room, in a corridor, on a beam, on ropes. It's just people hitting each other. Again, I really think you need to learn what pacing is; it's not "lots of stuff happening". Five minutes pass, and then one of them wins. It's actually also very slow, which is not what you want as you approach the climax.

4. No, the themes aren't easy to pick out, because the prequels are a hot mess. Lucas kind of goes for a morally grey/Jedi as hypocrites, but fails to really show it.

1. Well, blame the fact that there's no almost stories focusing on him between RotS and ANH. (Notice how I said almost, there's like 1 comic and an episode of ST Rebels with him in them) Unless you wanted them to fit in the 19 years between RotS and ANH into RotS...?
2. I'll admit, it wasn't, but it was decent setup for what he would become.
3. You do know pacing can be good without requiring upturns and downturns, right? The pacing isn't bad because "Lot's of stuff happens", it's good because it conveys the intensity and urgency of the situation, 2 people with a very close bond are in a life or death situation fighting with all their might, even if they might not want to do it. It's the emotion behind it that's conveyed with the intensity of the blow and speed of movement. A good chuck of the movie was pretty slow pacing-wise (Setting up the character, situations, etc...), and the payoff ended in an intense, fast paced struggle.

[Alvecia]

This video seems awfully relevant all of a sudden

[Alekseandrea]

This video seems awfully relevant all of a sudden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCCPXY__hhY

This is probably what both sides of the debate are thinking.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1. No. Bad. We should see this character development.

2. Ditto. Obi Wan's Prequel arc is not as strong as it could and should have been.

3. Because there really is no rhythm, no up and down. It's just two people trying to hit each other in different ways for five minutes. They're hitting each other in a room, in a corridor, on a beam, on ropes. It's just people hitting each other. Again, I really think you need to learn what pacing is; it's not "lots of stuff happening". Five minutes pass, and then one of them wins. It's actually also very slow, which is not what you want as you approach the climax.

4. No, the themes aren't easy to pick out, because the prequels are a hot mess. Lucas kind of goes for a morally grey/Jedi as hypocrites, but fails to really show it.

1. Well, blame the fact that there's no almost stories focusing on him between RotS and ANH. (Notice how I said almost, there's like 1 comic and an episode of ST Rebels with him in them) Unless you wanted them to fit in the 19 years between RotS and ANH into RotS...?
2. I'll admit, it wasn't, but it was decent setup for what he would become.
3. You do know pacing can be good without requiring upturns and downturns, right? The pacing isn't bad because "Lot's of stuff happens", it's good because it conveys the intensity and urgency of the situation, 2 people with a very close bond are in a life or death situation fighting with all their might, even if they might not want to do it. It's the emotion behind it that's conveyed with the intensity of the blow and speed of movement. A good chuck of the movie was pretty slow pacing-wise (Setting up the character, situations, etc...), and the payoff ended in an intense, fast paced struggle.

I really don't think you know what pacing in fiction is.

[New haven america]

1. Well, blame the fact that there's no almost stories focusing on him between RotS and ANH. (Notice how I said almost, there's like 1 comic and an episode of ST Rebels with him in them) Unless you wanted them to fit in the 19 years between RotS and ANH into RotS...?
2. I'll admit, it wasn't, but it was decent setup for what he would become.
3. You do know pacing can be good without requiring upturns and downturns, right? The pacing isn't bad because "Lot's of stuff happens", it's good because it conveys the intensity and urgency of the situation, 2 people with a very close bond are in a life or death situation fighting with all their might, even if they might not want to do it. It's the emotion behind it that's conveyed with the intensity of the blow and speed of movement. A good chuck of the movie was pretty slow pacing-wise (Setting up the character, situations, etc...), and the payoff ended in an intense, fast paced struggle.

I really don't think you know what pacing in fiction is.

Chances are I've wasted more of my time reading and watching pointless fictional works than you have, from multiple countries too.

I think I have a better concept of pacing the you believe.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I really don't think you know what pacing in fiction is.

Chances are I've wasted more of my time reading and watching pointless fictional works than you have, from multiple countries too.

I think I have a better concept of pacing the you believe.

I may have you confused with another user, but aren't you a teenager? That seems an odd place to start claiming a wealth of experience from.

Regardless, that's a bit like saying "I've lived in more houses than you; I think I know more about tiling a roof than you think". Simply consuming a lot of media doesn't mean you understand the terms used to analyse it. You can be perfectly literate and not have the faintest idea what the word "paragraph" means, let alone how to use them properly, or recognise when someone is using them badly.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

Darth Maul's fight in phantom menace is one of my favourites, despite the flashiness of it. But Vaders fight with Luke at the end of Return, mainly for the part where he snaps and just goes full ham darkside on vader and overpowers him. Its just so raw and emotional imo.

And ive always been a fan of the more heavy handed less flashy lightsaber fighting anyway, so Rey and Finn's fight against Ren in Force Awakens is one of my favourites too, just because of how rough it looks and i always thought that compared to the fights in the prequels that the lightsabers looked like they actually had weight and power behind them.

but they're light-sabers...they don't have weight.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Darth Maul's fight in phantom menace is one of my favourites, despite the flashiness of it. But Vaders fight with Luke at the end of Return, mainly for the part where he snaps and just goes full ham darkside on vader and overpowers him. Its just so raw and emotional imo.

And ive always been a fan of the more heavy handed less flashy lightsaber fighting anyway, so Rey and Finn's fight against Ren in Force Awakens is one of my favourites too, just because of how rough it looks and i always thought that compared to the fights in the prequels that the lightsabers looked like they actually had weight and power behind them.

but they're light-sabers...they don't have weight.

And thus would be fucking stupid to use irl, but in movies not so because movie logic. And i prefer the more heavy handed style of fighting with them in the original movies, where they definitely seem to have some weight behind them. And in the prequels they definitely seemed to as well though not as much.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

but they're light-sabers...they don't have weight.

And thus would be fucking stupid to use irl, but in movies not so because movie logic. And i prefer the more heavy handed style of fighting with them in the original movies, where they definitely seem to have some weight behind them.

....but your missing the point.
They don't have any weight to them....they're light man...light.
Any visual "heaviness" is that of the dark side....and/or bad directing

[The Huskar Social Union]

And thus would be fucking stupid to use irl, but in movies not so because movie logic. And i prefer the more heavy handed style of fighting with them in the original movies, where they definitely seem to have some weight behind them.

....but your missing the point.
They don't have any eight to them....they're light man...light.
Any visual "heaviness" is that of the dark side....and/or bad directing

And most people using them would die horribly but movies.

Meh anyway, dont care i still that style of fighting more, and irl those weapons would be fucking terrible anyway.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

....but your missing the point.
They don't have any eight to them....they're light man...light.
Any visual "heaviness" is that of the dark side....and/or bad directing

And most people using them would die horribly but movies.

im guessing it takes years of practice to get your hands on a real one.....if they were real.