In ANH whenever the lightsaber came out it was eventful, and I remember the instant Vader drew his red blade to duel with Obi Wan it blew my mind. As it was already mentioned, the duel was modeled after the fighting style in jidaigeki films. It had suspense and tension.
But the prequels were a different matter. I haven't watched A Phantom Menace in over 20 years. I just remember Ewan McGregor running around flourishing moulinets all over the place for absolutely no reason.
I think -- and have thought for some time -- that the prequels suffer because they try to cover too broad a time period for what feels to me like less focused reasons. Ultimately, I think George was just kinda making it up as he went, or had ideas and revised them along the way, and nobody was really collaborating with him to kind of sand down the rough edges and focus the story better. As a result, the "big dramatic fights"
look amazing, but
feel hollow because they have less narrative weight. The one exception to this is the duel on Mustafar which is full of narrative significance. There are some silly moments in the duel, and some "epic" segments that feel a little forced, but the fight overall has real weight to it because, again, we know the stakes, we know the parties, and we know what the fight will mean.
But the meaning of that fight still feels somewhat unearned and more what I call "positional" (as in, when characters occupy traditional positions/roles/tropes in films which act as a shortcut to providing narrative significance instead of actually developing the story itself). We know Obi-Wan has to defeat Anakin who has to fully become the Vader in the suit we know, and somehow Obi-Wan has to get the lightsabre to give to Luke in ANH. We know by virtue of trilogy structure that this is the end, and thus is climactic.
But what precedes it hasn't quite earned the emotional weight that the scene wants to evoke, because...the rest of the PT's structure has already undermined it. And that gets me back to my first point: the PT structure feels...kind of haphazard and it doesn't end up holding together that well as a result.
To me, it's ultimately the decision to set TPM up as it is that weakens the rest of the story. TPM takes place before the Clone Wars. TPM is about Anakin (and Obi-Wan) as kids. In Anakin's case, as a really little kid who's only, like, 9 years old or so. And it's a fun kids romp adventure story in and of itself.
But the question nobody really stopped to ask George is "Ok, but what is the
trilogy about? How does this play into that story, and is this the best way to tell that story, or are you just indulging yourself because you want to make a kids adventure movie in the Star Wars universe with this character?" So, as a result, the
trilogy feels...unfocused. It's overall supposed to be about Anakin's fall set against the backdrop of the fall of the Republic, but there are far better ways to tell that story.
AOTC -- or something kind of like it -- should have been the
first film in a story. It's got a lot of the elements you'd want in a first story. You don't have to have Anakin even know Padme before they meet; this can be their first meeting and it is
instant sparks (I mean, if there was better dialogue than the "I hate sand" scene, unless you're intentionally trying to show Anakin as a doofus with no game). Then you set a 2nd film in the midst of the worst of the Clone Wars. Maybe show Anakin getting close to his clone soldiers, as compared to other unemotional Jedi, or the Senators who view them as a disposable army. Maybe show the cost of the war on civilians, soldiers, etc., and Anakin gradually developing this attitude of never, ever wanting to allow this to happen again, and struggling with the rest of the Jedi who seem incapable of responding emotionally to the pain and suffering around them. You've got Chancellor Palpatine in the background manipulating him, struggling on his own with the bureaucracy, struggling to get troops the equipment they need, etc., etc., basically putting on a show to suggest that he needs to get rid of the bureaucracy and be given ever more power because the system doesn't work. Then you do ROTS, where Anakin finally falls, but when he does it's because he's just too emotional and the Jedi are too unemotional, and Anakin keeps telling himself that the awful things he's doing are in service to "the greater good."
But no, George got hung up on the
why of the story, namely that Anakin has unresolved separation anxiety issues and the Jedi apparently don't have very good behavioral health benefits. It all just saps the focus of the trilogy, and in turn robs the fights of dramatic meaning.
From an story perspective, the different styles made sense. In the OT, lightsaber fighting is a forgotten skill only a few know. And those few have not trained in years. I’d expect a more stilted, slower style. In the PT there are thousands of Jedi in their prime, training daily. I’d expect a more acrobatic style, using more moves.
I think there's a different argument to be made here, which was brought up in various EU sources and made sense. And as I recall, Nick Gillard used it as the basis for designing the style he described. At this point, most opponents of the Jedi were not other Force users or lightsabre users. As a result, their training and style was much more about using the blade to reflect blaster bolts and protect them and others near them from attackers with blasters. In that sense, you'd get why they'd spin around a lot. Doing that would (arguably) create a kind of "shell" through which blaster bolts can't penetrate because the sabre keeps intercepting them. With more control, the sabre wielder would be able to redirect bolts back at the attacker, and only later move in for the kill stroke with their blade, if necessary.
Another way to think of it is this. It's more like training with a tennis racquet. If you expect your opponent to throw a bunch of tennis balls at you, then your first bit of training is how to use your racquet to stop the balls from hitting you, and that probably involves more spins, twirls, etc. Eventually you train to "reflect" the balls back at an enemy. But what you aren't assuming is that your opponent will ignore the balls and come try to hit you with a sword/baseball bat. So the bulk of the Jedi are ultimately ill equipped to seriously go toe-to-toe with another sabre wielder, unless, like people today, they just kinda wanted to learn and trained for that because they found it interesting. (e.g., Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, and others like them).
When you consider the "tennis racquet" approach, most of the PT moves start to make sense. It's only when they get into the actual duels vs. other sabre wielders that it starts to look silly.
I also agree they need tension. Thats where the PT failed. Much less tension, even the final Anakin/Obi-Wan fight didnt hit like it should have. Having said that, my favorite bit of lightsaber fighting is from The Phantom Menace. The short, 10 second beginning after Qui-Gon dies and Obi fights Maul. There is tension as you feel Obi-Wan with a rush of anger and energy. The choreography is really crisp and works extra well because each move feels like they are trying to kill each other. The moves are deliberate and don’t feel like a performance or a dance, the way some later fights do. After those first few moments, it kind of goes back to being a bit performative, but that short, opening burst is incredible.
Yeah, that's the other really good fight in the trilogy. Again, clear stakes, and the choreography matches what they're trying to do. The Mustafar fight is good
overall, but it still has bits in it where it just looks dumb like that part where they're swinging at each other and don't hit each other the whole time or even connect their respective blades. WTF
was that?!
Question: How are Jedi Force powers "isolated" by being placed in hand cuffs/shackles? We saw this in ROTJ, AOTC, TLC, and countless times in the animated series.
1) Just because your hands are secured, you can't use the Force?
2) You can't use your Force powers to remove the cuffs from yourself?
In Jedi, Luke surrendered willingly so he didn't bother trying to take them off because he was there to save his father by risking his own life. Same with the Ewoks. He went willingly and gave the Ewoks a chance to earn their trust, only using the Force to lift 3PO as a last resort.
As for the other stories? Who knows? I guess it would depend on the circumstances of the story whether it would matter or not?
Come to think of it, most Jedi use hand gestures to use the Force. Perhaps binding their hands makes it difficult for them to concentrate on moving objects with their minds while their hands are inhibited because that's a component of their training? Seriously look at all the uses of the Force to move things, they always reach their hands out.
From a narrative perspective, when you have characters that have powerful abilities, whether it's the Force, or it's espionage skills, etc, you have to balance those abilities with limitations, otherwise the story can get away from you and the audience can no longer suspend it's disbelief. As questionable as some of George's choices were, even he understood the need to keep the Jedi from becoming invincible, otherwise the conflicts would have zero tension. Just look at his concept for Grievous's bodyguard staffs. By being able to withstand blows from a lightsaber, it presented a combat challenge that the Jedi might not overcome every time.
So many of the writers/ producers seem to forget this cardinal rule and treat characters as if they were immortal. When death, or the threat of death, loses all meaning, it's really difficult to care about what's happening.
Yeah, I think it's just one of those things where we accept it because...uh...reasons. But if you think about it for a minute, the gestures shouldn't mean anything. If the Force is more about your mind and feelings, then it should be relatively simple to pop off a sent of binders. From a filmmaking perspective, waving your hands around makes sense because it lets the audience know "They're doing that Force thing again."
