Obi-Wan is the main character of the Prequels.
So who is the main character of...
- Thread starter Espy
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
fade
Staff member
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.
A
Aisaku
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]
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.
O
Olorin
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.
fade
Staff member
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).
D
DougTheHead
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.
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.
L
Lally
That was awesome!Aisaku said:
I can't believe I had never seen that before!
A
Andromache
i think a better question might be
which franchise, expanded universes and all, is the better (more entertaining, or quality) one?
which franchise, expanded universes and all, is the better (more entertaining, or quality) one?
ElJuski
Staff member
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.
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.
J
JCM
Espy said:
This and this.fade said:
J
JCM
Arwen Organa Solo.
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.Calleja said:
J
JCM
@Li3n said:
Merry SoloCalleja said:
Pipbacca
J
JCM
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".@Li3n said:JCM said:
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...
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...
Tom Chewbobidil
I
Iaculus
Obi-Wan Greyhame? Boromir Calrissian?
- Status