Export thread

Star wars? Luke or Darth Vader? Is it about Luke's journey or DV's redemption? In light of the prequels it seems more the latter.
How about Lord of the Rings? Frodo or Aragorn? A buddy of mine was trying to convince me it was the latter but I still feel that it's Frodo's story...

Give me your thoughts my forum-ites...
What other movies/books/etc have multiple possibilities for whom the story is actually about?

Since the prequels mean about jack and shit to me, I'm gonna go with Luke. I don't really care what Lucas says about it.

Lord of the Rings is tougher. It features both prominently in differing roles of the story. I guess I'll go with Frodo.

If you count the prequels I would almost say Vader as all in all he and Luke have pretty equal backstory and screen time. Without them I'd say Luke, though.

I didn't read the second part of the question, so I thought people were voting for Frodo as the main character of Star Wars.

Yeah, sorry for the confusing poll, I don't think you can do two polls in one thread.

Really, when reading the books, I didn't really like Aragorn all that much. I was much more interested in what was going on with the hobbits than the other characters.

Actually I sometimes think Sam is the main character of LotR.

The Ring is the main character of the Lord of the Rings. It's what all the struggle is for, it's present for nearly all of the events, and it has definite effects on all of the people caught up in it's wake.

For LotR I would say Frodo is the main character.

For Star Wars I would say Luke. But that's just because I don't care for the prequel trilogy.

I always thought of Sam as the main character. Frodo almost seems like a foil for Sam. Sam is the strong one. Frodo carries the ring, but Sam carries Frodo and the ring.

AshburnerX said:

The Ring is the main character of the Lord of the Rings. It's what all the struggle is for, it's present for nearly all of the events, and it has definite effects on all of the people caught up in it's wake.

Click to expand...

Ah, interesting, it's the main object in the story, can it be the main character?

Aang or Zuko?

The hero seeking justice? Or the villain seeking redemption?

What are these prequels you speak of? I have never heard of such things. Surely George Lucas is not so greedy a bastard that he would take a crap on the trilogy for which he shall forever be remembered?

Luke. And Frodo (I think the movie foregrounded Aragorn's story quite much).

North_Ranger said:

And Frodo (I think the movie foregrounded Aragorn's story quite much).

Click to expand...

That's very fair. Do you think that Aragorn is the more of the main character in the movie? Or closer to it anyway?

The main char of LOTR is obviously Gollum.

Gusto said:

Aang or Zuko?

The hero seeking justice? Or the villain seeking redemption?

Click to expand...

Both. Their paths mirror each others. They're the same character with different circumstances.

Ravenpoe said:

Gusto said:

Aang or Zuko?

The hero seeking justice? Or the villain seeking redemption?

Click to expand...

Both. Their paths mirror each others. They're the same character with different circumstances.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know. It's kind of a popular device, to show a "bad" character who is basically the same as the hero, save for their differing circumstances.

Also, sorry, currently rewatching the entire ATLA series.

North_Ranger said:

What are these prequels you speak of? I have never heard of such things. Surely George Lucas is not so greedy a bastard that he would take a crap on the trilogy for which he shall forever be remembered?

Click to expand...

Yes he is. And don't call me Shirley.

I chose "other" because I don't think either story has a main character. (Although, I've heard arguments that C-3PO and R2D2 are the main characters of the Star Wars movies)

I'm gonna go with Figment on LotR, although I don't quite agree on Star Wars. Clearly the original 3 movies revolved around Luke.

Gusto said:

Ravenpoe said:

Gusto said:

Aang or Zuko?

The hero seeking justice? Or the villain seeking redemption?

Click to expand...

Both. Their paths mirror each others. They're the same character with different circumstances.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know. It's kind of a popular device, to show a "bad" character who is basically the same as the hero, save for their differing circumstances.

Also, sorry, currently rewatching the entire ATLA series.

Click to expand...

No problem, it's an amazing series, and should get talked about more on this board.

Espy said:

AshburnerX said:

The Ring is the main character of the Lord of the Rings. It's what all the struggle is for, it's present for nearly all of the events, and it has definite effects on all of the people caught up in it's wake.

Click to expand...

Ah, interesting, it's the main object in the story, can it be the main character?

Click to expand...

Why not? You don't need lines of dialog from it to give it depth, as it already has development: It started out as a mere object in The Hobbit and slowly grew into a curse that corrupted everyone who possessed it, even going so far as to control their actions at points. It's clearly a constant part of the story and one that everyone involved feels.

main characters of a pair of ensemble trilogies?

The Force and the One Ring.

For the origian trilogy, obviously Luke.
For the prequels, I still wouldn't say Anakin. Obi-Wan is at least as interesting a character, and his growth is followed through 4 (or 5) movies as well.

For LotR, Sam.

Calleja said:

I'm gonna go with Figment on LotR, although I don't quite agree on Star Wars. Clearly the original 3 movies revolved around Luke.

Click to expand...

Does revolved around make it the story about him? Is the over-arching narrative about DV? That's the argument my friend was making, that the story revolved around Luke but WAS about DV. Which makes sense, Luke was just a part of DV's story.

Considering that this is not "just about the movies" and the franchise as a whole. I'm going with

Luke for Star Wars as the story goes MUCH further after Episode VI. (Just for the movies though, it's obviously Vader)

As for Lord of the Rings? Both were exactly as important in each version (book and film) but the real "main character" was Gollum.

-Luke

- Frodo because Aragorn can do whatever he wants. the key is the ringbearer.

Luke Skywalker is the protagonist of the original trilogy because it follows his plot. Anakin Skywalker is the protagonist of the Prequel Trilogy because it follows his plot. They are two protagonists in two different movie trilogies, regardless of whether the prequel trilogy adds more depth to the antagonist's character.

As for Lord of the Rings, Frodo is the main protagonist because we are shown his perspective mostly throghought, as well as following his dynamic change. Aragon, though he is an essential main character, is not the main funnel through which we view the world, and therefore, not the main protagonist.

-- Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:14 am --

I should mention that all the lovely abstract thought about characters as a whole doesn't really change the fact that there are literary devices in place which cement certain characters to certain roles, especially in a very tried and true story form, being the heroic epic.

Luke is the main character for SW...

Vader is only for those crappy fanfilms that came out in the past 10 years...

Taking the whole 6 movies into account I'd say its Vader's story of his rise to power, curruption and redemption. Luke has always seemed like a bit of a shitty hero to me. In a new hope, he would have been killed if Han hadn't save him at the last minute. All he did was not die long enough to blow up the death star. In empire, he just looses the fight and would have died (again) if leia and lando hadn't saved him. In Jedi he did best Vader in their duel, but the emporer would have killed him if Vader hadn't used the emporers only weakness (poor super weapon design) againt him. The only thing luke was ever good at was living long enough to get his ass pulled out of the fire.

Han, on the other hand went from lowlife smuggler looking out for number one, to respectable general in the rebel army. There's a hero for you.


In LOTR i'd say Frodo is the main character as his mission is the most important. The sooner the ring is destroyed, the sooner this war ends. Aaragon is mainly a distraction to keep sauron's armies busy and maybe as a backup plan at best.

I think Aang is the main character just because Zuko keeps flip flopping. Zuko wants to be with his family, but can't really do so because they are evil. Aang has to deal with being in a world that is not his own, being the avatar, being a kid, being the last of his kind, his feelings for katara... The list goes on. His story is much more compelling and full of hardship and struggle than Zuko.

Yes phil, because the hero must always be the ultimate bad ass, and no one must ever even scratch him...

the emporers only weakness (poor super weapon design)

Click to expand...

And his incapacitating fear of being lifted above someone's head...

Aragorn's whole purpose for much of the Lord of the Rings was to serve as a grand distraction. Not the true protagonist, just an important character.

Now, Sam or Frodo? That's a tricky one. Certainly, Sam got a big share of the story's character development - perhaps more than his master.

Aragorn certainly isn't the main character in LotR. He is fairly important, but most of his actions are described through the eyes of a different character. I'd say Frodo starts out as the main character, but about halfway through, the focus changes to Sam. Luckily, there's nothing wrong with having multiple main characters.

I'd say that Luke is the main character of all of Star Wars including the prequels since it is the story of his birth, his training his skirting along the edge of falling.

As for Aragorn/Frodo. I'd say that they were co-staring from Two Towers on with neither side becoming a "B" storyline that would really make one the main character.

Vader, who did bring balance, first by killing off all Sith/Dark Jedi and Jedi, until only two were left from each side. (There has been hints that QuinLan Vos was still alive, but that doesnt count, as he wasnt really either Jedi or Sith)

Then he helped Luke defeat the Emperor, who brought about a Jedi order that used emotions, but didnt let it lead to the Dark Side, yet weren't so stuck-up as the old Jedi order as to put themselves above all and prohibit family and marriage.

And Luke in the trilogy was a rather bland character anyway, it took The Thrawn Trilogy to make him badass.

On the LOTR, its either the Ring, or Gollum. But ala Star Wars, the reason why its popular isnt because it is a story about someone in a world, but about a world in which stories happen.

Obi-Wan is the main character of the Prequels.

@Li3n said:

Yes phil, because the hero must always be the ultimate bad ass, and no one must ever even scratch him...

the emporers only weakness (poor super weapon design)

Click to expand...

And his incapacitating fear of being lifted above someone's head...

Click to expand...

Exactly! Man, you and I should write a script. :tongue:

for the Original Trilogy, Luke was the main Character. With the ret-conning that followed, Lucas made Annie (I'll never forgive Lucas for calling him that) the main focus.

Frodo is the lead character, but Sam had a very important role of batman for Frodo. Sam was just the lower class working stiff that kept his 'superior' safe and well cared for. Sam did not have a major change in character and outlook on life. He was just the steady personality that held Frodo together.

Just to let you know I am not crazy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(military)

Tolkien modeled Sam after the batman that served him during WWI.

With the ret-conning that followed, Lucas made Annie (I'll never forgive Lucas for calling him that) the main focus.

Click to expand...

Read Darth & Droids... makes the prequels more bearable by being just that awesome.

I no longer feel the prequel hate. I just watched all six with my son, and I have to say, I don't see much of a difference between them anymore. All six have corny plot points, bad acting, and horrible dialogue. But I still love em all. It really takes the hate away to see them one after another. They don't feel discontinuous or different at all. And I hated them at first, too.

So let me phrase it this way, particularly in light of Juskis comments, who is right about the basic story/heros mythology: The first SW trilogy has Luke as the main character but is it his story or Vaders?

The story of the Skywalker family, of course. :tongue:

There is a big difference between Star Wars as the fans imagine it and what was actually the intent with the movies. With that in mind I'm guessing nothing that will ever come from Lucas will ever please the larger fans, their expectations completely in another level from Lucas' scope. Also whenever I get too serious about Star Wars I watch this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2i_nLClAUU:2baxrw80][/youtube:2baxrw80]

I guess what I'm more approaching in my though process here is: What is the meta-narrative of these two stories? That Vader is redeemed and that the ring is destroyed seem to be the main themes/narratives while the main characters only serve to bring about that purpose. My friend argues that Aragorn becoming king, etc is rivals the ring narrative but I think he's wrong on at least 3 1/2 levels.

I've been searching through Tolkien's Letters to see if there was any mention of who Tolkien himself thought was the main character. The best things I could quickly find was a single very brief mention of Sam being the "chief hero", and a few other letters were Frodo is called the hero. He also says that the heart of the tale is the journey of the Ringbearers, so that would probably also exclude Aragorn from being the main character.

Sam may have been inspired by a servant, and I haven't read that letter, but I just always got the impression that Tolkien himself was championing Sam. He's the guy who comes through. I'd also strongly argue against a lack of character development for Sam. The meek little Sam who cowers at Gandalf is hardly the same one who takes on a giant spider monster and a tower full of Orcs. He's also one of maybe two characters who weren't tempted by the ring (in the books...the movie had both BE tempted).

There isn't really a main protagonist through all 6 Star Wars movies. It makes more sense to see the two trilogies as parallel narratives, one with Anakin at the center, the other with Luke there. Both trilogies have obvious parallels- the first movie of each ends with Anakin and Luke using their intrinsic grasp of the force to destroy a large military base, and both protagonists have a big jump in skill between the second and third movies- Episode 2 ends with Anakin getting his arm cut off by Dooku; at the beginning of Episode 3 he kills Dookku. Similarly, Empire ends with Vader cutting off Luke's hand; at the beginning of Return he's able to take out Jabba the Hutt's lair with only a small amount of assistance from Han and Leia.

The significance of these parallel storylines is that they show the struggle between the Dark and Light sides of the Force- the Light Side tries to bring balance to the galaxy through Anakin, but the Dark Side manages to corrupt him, as he's overtaken by hate. However, the love he once felt for Padme, which leads to the birth of Luke and Leia, gives the Light Side a chance to start over, and bring balance with the next generation. Anakin/Vader is the Corruption narrative, where the hero is brought low by his weaknesses and allows evil to dominate the world, and Luke is the Redemption narrative, where the good aspects of man are preserved in the hero, who overcomes the forces of evil, correcting the errors made in the Corruption narrative. A storyline that works along similar lines can be found in the Bible, where the Garden of Eden is the Corruption narrative, and Christ's sacrifice is the Redemption narrative, correcting for the original sin that made all other sins possible.

This all feeds into Obi-Wan's brief speech in A New Hope about the way the Force works- essentially, all the characters are pawns in a struggle between two forces greater than any of them. Han Solo plays the skeptic in that scene, saying he's traveled all over the Galaxy and seen nothing that would suggest a some great force at work in the universe, but that's essentially what all six movies combine to show- the forces of dark and light constantly at war with each other, fighting the same battles over and over down through the generations, the narrative repeating itself innumerable times.

Aisaku said:

[snip video]

Click to expand...

That was awesome! I can't believe I had never seen that before!

Aisaku said:

*snip video*

Click to expand...

I needed good laugh thanks

i think a better question might be

which franchise, expanded universes and all, is the better (more entertaining, or quality) one?

You could say the same thing about Bilbo Baggins and Frodo Baggins between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. The prequel trilogy and the original trilogy are separate works, despite being locked into the same universe and time frame. You can watch the original trilogy and have a complete viewing session of the characters, and the dynamic changes and resolutions that happen in their world. You can also watch the prequel trilogy and have a complete (although much, much shittier) viewing session of the characters and the dynamic changes and resolutions that happen in their world. The main difference is that the prequel trilogy, being a prequel in nature, and using the same characters and universe, only helps to add further complexity to the original story at hand.

Now, the ultimate moment in Revenge of the Sith, act 3 of the prequel trilogy, is the birth of Darth Vader, yes, but more importantly, the birth of the twins, which includes Luke Skywalker. The prequel acts as a prolonged setup for both the central protagonist, antagonist and conflict that will arrive in the original trilogy (and which is already well established in the original trilogy). The original trilogy already has all of the pieces in play; the prequel trilogy helps to magnify and clarify (though mostly it just confounds the original trilogy more), but the dynamic that is set up as the events continue will always follow the conflict between the father and the son, and the son's redeeming of the father (and balancing the force blah blah blah). It doesn't change the dynamic of this central conflict to observe how in the prequel this central conflict came to be. The central motif has long been in play with the original trilogy, the basis point for the prequels, and not vice versa.

Nicely written, ElJuski.

Crone said:

i think a better question might be

which franchise, expanded universes and all, is the better (more entertaining, or quality) one?

Click to expand...

If we're talking quality i'm gonna have to go with the Oxford professor's reinterpretation of nordic mythology...

For entertainment though it depends heavily on one;s preferences.

Also, TROLL!

fade said:

Nicely written, ElJuski.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I was pretty drunk and feeling really motivated to wax on about literary B.S I'm just glad that what I wrote didn't come off completely bullshit and rambly.
:toocool:

But, I apparently killed the discussion in this thread. Go me! :smug:

Espy said:

So let me phrase it this way, particularly in light of Juskis comments, who is right about the basic story/heros mythology: The first SW trilogy has Luke as the main character but is it his story or Vaders?

Click to expand...

fade said:

I no longer feel the prequel hate. I just watched all six with my son, and I have to say, I don't see much of a difference between them anymore. All six have corny plot points, bad acting, and horrible dialogue. But I still love em all. It really takes the hate away to see them one after another. They don't feel discontinuous or different at all. And I hated them at first, too.

Click to expand...

This and this.

you're saying "this" to a question? So you're asking too?

Bilbo Skywalker is the star. Everybody knows that.

Luke Baggins sounds like a porn star name.

Arwen Organa Solo.

Calleja said:

you're saying "this" to a question? So you're asking too?

Click to expand...

To his - "The first SW trilogy has Luke as the main character but is it his story or Vaders?", because people sometime overlook that a protagonist may just serve to tell (or in the case of SW end) another character´s story.

Sam2-D2?

Han Gamgee?


This is way more fun than it should be.

JCM said:

To his - "The first SW trilogy has Luke as the main character but is it his story or Vaders?", because people sometime overlook that a protagonist may just serve to tell (or in the case of SW end) another character´s story.

Click to expand...

Vader doesn't get enough screen time in the original for that.

@Li3n said:

JCM said:

To his - "The first SW trilogy has Luke as the main character but is it his story or Vaders?", because people sometime overlook that a protagonist may just serve to tell (or in the case of SW end) another character´s story.

Click to expand...

Vader doesn't get enough screen time in the original for that.

Click to expand...

Calleja said:

Sam2-D2?

Han Gamgee?


This is way more fun than it should be.

Click to expand...

Merry Solo

Pipbacca

JCM said:

@Li3n said:

JCM said:

To his - "The first SW trilogy has Luke as the main character but is it his story or Vaders?", because people sometime overlook that a protagonist may just serve to tell (or in the case of SW end) another character´s story.

Click to expand...

Vader doesn't get enough screen time in the original for that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

While the original trilogy does provide closure for Vader he's hardly prevalent enough for anyone to say that Luke was there to serve as a device for the continuation of Vader's story.

@Li3n said:

JCM said:

[quote="@Li3n":1mvq9fqw]

JCM said:

To his - "The first SW trilogy has Luke as the main character but is it his story or Vaders?", because people sometime overlook that a protagonist may just serve to tell (or in the case of SW end) another character´s story.

Click to expand...

Vader doesn't get enough screen time in the original for that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

While the original trilogy does provide closure for Vader he's hardly prevalent enough for anyone to say that Luke was there to serve as a device for the continuation of Vader's story.[/quote:1mvq9fqw]Didnt you just argue over screen time? If we take screen time, Star Wars could pretty much be just about "the adventures of R2D2 and his pal Threepio".

The original script (easily avaliable at most script sites) are about Vader´s saga (Anakin Skykiller, back then). It started out in movies as episode 4, in the middle of the saga, the only part that could be sold as a complete movie should it fail and no more be made, even then only with the 3rd draft was the decision made to use Luke to tell the story, but even then it started with Vader running after rebels, and ended with Vader´s redemption and restoration to the force. Good decision, because Lucas sucks at writing the inner turmoil that Vader was going through.

Its nothing new, Greek and Roman plays used mortals to introduce stories of the Gods and their conflicts, and even in today´s media in books like the Vampire chronicles use a protagonist to introduce a saga of the main character, but hey, I´ll be glad to agree that the droids are the protagonists, if screen time is what matters, and not the script, overall story and intention of the writer.

Dude, nice straw man... i never said that most screen time = protagonist... but that Vader was not developed enough in the OT for it to count as his story... everything that makes him important is in relation to Luke...


And ur actually buying that he wrote it all back then? The early drafts alone should be proof that's not true. Anikin Starkiller (not sure on the spelling) was simply another name for a recognizable Luke stand-in.

Not to mention all the times Lucas said SW was based on the monomyth thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth , which makes it being Vader's story a stretch...

What? The original script was about Luke Skykiller and some dopey-ass crystals. The main character is Luke; it's his story, alongside the story of his family, which includes the conflict of son redeeming the father and bringing balance to the force.

I'll dissent with Gandalf and the Midichlorians as a species.

Also, JCM your new avatar is totally distracting. I keep thinking Jonathan Coulton joined the boards.

@ Juski

As i recall there are many early draft, one of which did have Anakin as the hero and Luke Skywalker as a great general he must help or something...

@Fun Size

The force is the main character... and it's also trying to control everyone, and must be destoryed... Kreia said so.

Tom Chewbobidil

Obi-Wan Greyhame? Boromir Calrissian?

Tombi Wan Bombobi

@Li3n said:

Dude, nice straw man... i never said that most screen time = protagonist...

Click to expand...

Good for you to notice your own strawman, not always screentime = main character, which seemed to be your main arguement.

@Li3n said:

but that Vader was not developed enough in the OT for it to count as his story... everything that makes him important is in relation to Luke...

Click to expand...

Really? Luke was a cardboard cutout only kids liked, Vader´s development and story was only second to Han Solo in terms of "developed". Luke was just the guy who kept the whole story together, and it took the last episode, and later, the Thrawn Trilogy to actually develop him further.

ElJuski said:

What? The original script was about Luke Skykiller and some dopey-ass crystals. The main character is Luke; it's his story, alongside the story of his family, which includes the conflict of son redeeming the father and bringing balance to the force.

Click to expand...

Third draft. The name and character of Luke didnt appear in the first two, the first which was about Anakin, the second about a warrior whose father was Anakin, and the third, Luke, with no Anakin.

JCM said:

Good for you to notice your own strawman, not always screentime = main character, which seemed to be your main argument.

Click to expand...

That's not even a straw man dude... plus, that doesn't have much to do with your assertion anyhow, because u said that the protagonist could be used to tell someone elses story... thus even if screentime = main character it wouldn't have mattered.

I was simply pointing out that Vader isn't prevalent enough in the story for you to claim that it is his story. It's someone else's story, during which his own story gets resolved...

Really? Luke was a cardboard cutout only kids liked, Vader´s development and story was only second to Han Solo in terms of \"developed\". Luke was just the guy who kept the whole story together, and it took the last episode, and later, the Thrawn Trilogy to actually develop him further.

Click to expand...

Dude, how well Luke's transition from farm boy to Jedi badass was handled doesn't really matter. Truth is that Vader had only 2 moments of actual development, one of which (the whole [spoiler:3qxasg7h]"i'm your father"[/spoiler:3qxasg7h] thing) was also development for Luke (no matter what your opinion on his development). And the other was a Redemption Equals Death, which is par for course when the villain is a relative of the hero...

ElJuski said:

What? The original script was about Luke Skykiller and some dopey-ass crystals. The main character is Luke; it's his story, alongside the story of his family, which includes the conflict of son redeeming the father and bringing balance to the force.

Click to expand...

Third draft. The name and character of Luke didnt appear in the first two, the first which was about Anakin, the second about a warrior whose father was Anakin, and the third, Luke, with no Anakin.

Click to expand...

[/quote]

Sure, because names are what matter, not how the actual story went. Not to mention that Vader was already an antagonist way before the final draft...

Heh, even wookiepedia agrees that the original Annikin was just Luke with a different name: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Annikin_ ... the_scenes

North_Ranger said:

What are these prequels you speak of? I have never heard of such things. Surely George Lucas is not so greedy a bastard that he would take a crap on the trilogy for which he shall forever be remembered?

Click to expand...

And on a non-George-Lucas-raped-my-childhood note, obviously, it was Luke and Aragorn.

Oh, and look, one of the drafts was even called Episode I : http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Adventur ... _Star_Wars (and had Vader, he just wasn't anyone's dad)

-- Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:05 am --

@Cuyval Dar

Dude, the question is obviously between Frodo, the intended protagonist, and Sam, the one that Tolkien identified with most with obvious results.

@Li3n said:

Oh, and look, one of the drafts was even called Episode I : http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Adventur ... _Star_Wars (and had Vader, he just wasn't anyone's dad)

-- Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:05 am --

@Cuyval Dar

Dude, the question is obviously between Frodo, the intended protagonist, and Sam, the one that Tolkien identified with most with obvious results.

Click to expand...

Nah, Aragorn went thru a journey of transformation changing from a non-descript Ranger of the North to the King of Numenor/Gondor/Arnor.

On the other hand, Frodo experienced the "fall into darkness/corruption and subsequent redemption" scenario.

I must agree that Sam was Tolkien's intended PC, but the lack of real character development prevented that. I fail to see how Sam changed much over the course of the story. He remained the sidekick/servant archetype.