Rate "Star Wars Episode III - Revenge of the Sith"

[Delorean90 42]

Again, it is a very weak link, and I agree that the scene doesn't make complete sense. It would make more sense for Obi-Wan, being both a close friend of Anakin and a man who seems to prefer reasoning over violence, to try to reason with Anakin, try to turn him back. But I don't think the scene we got is entirely unbelievable.

No, it's not; your reasonings theoretically could work. The big problem is that no only does the scene/sequence not make much sense, it contradicts Obi-Wan's character AND an important line from a previous film. Vader's line showed us that Obi-Wan was supposed to have been acting like Luke was, trying to reason with Anakin, pleading for him to come back. That is 100% NOWHERE in ROTS. And that's lame.

[Datameister 2,042]

I mean gee whiz, Christopher Nolan did it in one with Harvey Dent.

Hardly! That was an even more ridiculously abrupt transition - the acting was just better.

[Red 75]

I mean gee whiz, Christopher Nolan did it in one with Harvey Dent.

Hardly! That was an even more ridiculously abrupt transition - the acting was just better.

Nah, it's what Anakin's arc should have been.

[indy4 155]

Again, it is a very weak link, and I agree that the scene doesn't make complete sense. It would make more sense for Obi-Wan, being both a close friend of Anakin and a man who seems to prefer reasoning over violence, to try to reason with Anakin, try to turn him back. But I don't think the scene we got is entirely unbelievable.

No, it's not; your reasonings theoretically could work. The big problem is that no only does the scene/sequence not make much sense, it contradicts Obi-Wan's character AND an important line from a previous film. Vader's line showed us that Obi-Wan was supposed to have been acting like Luke was, trying to reason with Anakin, pleading for him to come back. That is 100% NOWHERE in ROTS. And that's lame.

Ah, that's true. Point taken.

[Datameister 2,042]

Nah, it's what Anakin's arc should have been.

In other words, General Grievous kills Padme shortly after she gives birth, and Anakin becomes so angry that he's willing to turn to the dark side and slaughter every battle droid in the Trade Federation, and then all the Jedi for good measure? That doesn't sound very convincing to me, nor does it make sense with what we were told in the OT days.

Anyway, aside from the specifics and the aforementioned better acting, I did find Harvey Dent's transformation to very similar to Anakin's. You get an essentially good character who experiences one tragedy (or prospect of a tragedy), and that's enough to convince them to give up all the ideals they held before.

[Diego 21]

Harvey is a much interesting character, Anakin is just a whining bitch. Also I can see Harvey wanting revenge after what happened to him. I don't understand how Anakin goes from "Master Windu, Palpatine is a Sith!" to "What the hell, I never liked Windu anyway, I'll help Palpatine kill him, he used to look at me funny in Episode I" to "What have I done? Windu really is dead!" to "Nevermind, I'll do whatever you want, you said you need some children to be killed?".

He never seems to be sure what to do yet ultimately he decides to kill baby Jedi, a feat that I'm unsure how's it going to help him save Padme.

[Ollie 1,059]

I wasn't too happy with Nolan cramming Dent's fate into TDK, I thought it should have been saved for a third film. But as mentioned TDK is miles above ROTS when it comes to overall production values, acting, directing, story, that it works.

[Diego 21]

I think it was a mistake to kill Dent in TDK, the character had a lot of potential.

[King Mark 3,631]

another thread for me to point out you need the expanded score to fully appreciate it. The OST is useless

[Diego 21]

That I can agree with. The CD is crap.

I understand the missing cues, it happens in every OST, it has to do with reissue fees, space whatever. I understand missing portions of cues, it also happens frequently. But cutting some notes of a fanfare? that I can't understand, if you're putting the fanfare on the CD give it to us complete.

Also including an inferior recording of the Throne Room just for the heck of it is dumb and it doesn't fit.

[Datameister 2,042]

Agreed. Well, it's preposterous hyperbole to call the OST useless, but it certainly doesn't do the score as a whole justice. There are some awesome moments missing.

[Red 75]

Nah, it's what Anakin's arc should have been.

In other words, General Grievous kills Padme shortly after she gives birth, and Anakin becomes so angry that he's willing to turn to the dark side and slaughter every battle droid in the Trade Federation, and then all the Jedi for good measure? That doesn't sound very convincing to me, nor does it make sense with what we were told in the OT days.

I don't mean having the literal story arc be implemented with Anakin, I mean have that same level of writing, acting, directing and so on so that it would be believable and tragic like Dent was (in my opinion of course).

Anyway, aside from the specifics and the aforementioned better acting, I did find Harvey Dent's transformation to very similar to Anakin's. You get an essentially good character who experiences one tragedy (or prospect of a tragedy), and that's enough to convince them to give up all the ideals they held before.

That's exactly why I brought it up.

[Datameister 2,042]

I mean have that same level of writing, acting, directing and so on so that it would be believable and tragic like Dent was (in my opinion of course).

And that'd be great, but it'd just be lipstick on a pig, IMO. Both transitions are unconvincing because they are such 180-degree reversals in such short periods of time. Didn't stop me from enjoying both films, though.

[Red 75]

Well, in both cases they're kind of meant to be startling reversals, based on the history (mythology) of the characters. It's how you sell that reversal that really counts, and in my mind Nolan succeeded and George didn't.

[Datameister 2,042]

And I think if the two actors switched movies, you might feel differently - issues of age and appearance aside, that is.

[Henry B 50]

I mean have that same level of writing, acting, directing and so on so that it would be believable and tragic like Dent was (in my opinion of course).

And that'd be great, but it'd just be lipstick on a pig, IMO. Both transitions are unconvincing because they are such 180-degree reversals in such short periods of time. Didn't stop me from enjoying both films, though.

Being horribly mutilated and losing the love of one's life isn't enough to corrupt somebody? Anakin turned to the dark side just because of the possibility of losing the love of his life and was only mutilated after he was evil.

[indy4 155]

Harvey is a much interesting character, Anakin is just a whining bitch. Also I can see Harvey wanting revenge after what happened to him. I don't understand how Anakin goes from "Master Windu, Palpatine is a Sith!" to "What the hell, I never liked Windu anyway, I'll help Palpatine kill him, he used to look at me funny in Episode I" to "What have I done? Windu really is dead!" to "Nevermind, I'll do whatever you want, you said you need some children to be killed?".

Anakin's first instinct after discovering Palpatine's identity is to turn him in, because that's the reaction he's been taught to have since he began training as a Jedi. But throughout that entire sequence he can't help but think about the fruits he would earn by saving Palpatine. The entire "Padme's Ruminations" sequence was shot so that there isn't such an abrupt change from helping Windu to hurting him. I'm sure it also helps that there was a growing tension between Anakin and the Council (which wasn't exactly lessened when Windu didn't allow Anakin to join him on his quest to capture Palpatine). And on top of this all, his judgement is clouded by the tradgedy of his mother's death, the fear he feels because of his dreams, and the anger he feels towards the Jedi.

He never seems to be sure what to do yet ultimately he decides to kill baby Jedi, a feat that I'm unsure how's it going to help him save Padme.

At that point, he realizes that all the Jedi will be against him for helping to kill Windu, and the only way he can avoid punishment by the Council, let alone freedom to bring people back to life, is if he doesn't have the entire Jedi Council trying to kill him.

[Datameister 2,042]

Being horribly mutilated and losing the love of one's life isn't enough to corrupt somebody?

Events don't corrupt people - people corrupt themselves. Dent needed to either have more of a dark side before the tragedy or have less of one afterward. Either that or he needed to experience something that would more directly influence his psychological makeup...a nerve agent or something. You don't just go from an outstanding, charismatic DA with plenty of integrity to a vengeful murderer like that.

Anakin turned to the dark side just because of the possibility of losing the love of his life and was only mutilated after he was evil.

Yeah - because he saw the possibility of doing something to prevent it. Again, I find the transition there to be equally abrupt and tenuous; I'm not trying to defend that aspect of ROTS. I was originally just protesting against the notion that TDK got it right.

[Henry B 50]

Being horribly mutilated and losing the love of one's life isn't enough to corrupt somebody?

Events don't corrupt people - people corrupt themselves.

Um, sure.

[Datameister 2,042]

Um, sure.

There's always a choice.

[Henry B 50]

Um, sure.

There's always a choice.

So why make the wrong choice? Any sane person would know better.

[Datameister 2,042]

So why make the wrong choice? Any sane person would know better.

In this case, because these two characters decided that getting vengeance for or preventing a loved one's death was more important than anything else. Harvey didn't have to go on a killing rampage. He didn't have to threaten Commissioner Gordon's family. Those were choices. Granted, the water gets significantly muddier in cases of actual insanity, but that's my point - Harvey Dent survived a heartbreaking tragedy with horrible injuries, but that's not enough to make a person unable to make better choices. It just makes the better choices less attractive.

[Henry B 50]

So why make the wrong choice? Any sane person would know better.

In this case, because these two characters decided that getting vengeance for or preventing a loved one's death was more important than anything else. Harvey didn't have to go on a killing rampage. He didn't have to threaten Commissioner Gordon's family. Those were choices. Granted, the water gets significantly muddier in cases of actual insanity, but that's my point - Harvey Dent survived a heartbreaking tragedy with horrible injuries, but that's not enough to make a person unable to make better choices. It just makes the better choices less attractive.

So if everything's a choice, why does anybody fall?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I think it was a mistake to kill Dent in TDK, the character had a lot of potential.

I think the entire last 45-60 mins. of TDK was a mistake. I saw a different future for Harvey as opposed to a boring crazy guy that flips a coin before he kills people. He was cool before he turned into a half CGI catastrophe.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

So you wanted Two-Face to, um... not be Two-Face?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Not the way he was portrayed in TDK. The progression was terrible and the character just degenerates. Plus, the guy who played him wasn't very villainous and the CGI made it silly. Two Face was better in the animated series where he has multiple personalities (Big Bad Harv) and basically gets screwed into performing crimes. But he also helps Batman even though he's a "bad guy", which makes him more interesting. Two Face in TDK is just a bad guy, and a pretty lousy one at that.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I agree to an extent. He was just a pissed-off Harvey Dent. I wanted the multiple personalities as well.

And the fact that he died from small slip makes matters worse. Hell Batman survived the same fall, and an even bigger one earlier. Also in that first fall, he didn't even cushion Rachel. She fell next to him, not on top of him. That car must have been a lot softer than soil.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Not the way he was portrayed in TDK. The progression was terrible and the character just degenerates. Plus, the guy who played him wasn't very villainous and the CGI made it silly. Two Face was better in the animated series where he has multiple personalities (Big Bad Harv) and basically gets screwed into performing crimes. But he also helps Batman even though he's a "bad guy", which makes him more interesting. Two Face in TDK is just a bad guy, and a pretty lousy one at that.

But he's not really a bad guy, persay. First of all, comparing it to TAS is unfair because the film didn't have the time to develop the character the way that show did, especially when he's not the sole antagonist (although the russian roulette scene with "Rachel" hints at his other side) but also it wouldn't have fit with what Nolan was trying to do. Where or not TDK's Dent is a bad villain (I don't think he is) is irrelevant, it's about the way the Joker makes him become that. Dent is essentially a plot device, albeit one very well-disguised.

I'm not really sure what your idea of "villainous" is, considering he threatened to kill Gordon's son. What did you want, a twirling moustache?

I agree to an extent. He was just a pissed-off Harvey Dent. I wanted the multiple personalities as well.

And the fact that he died from small slip makes matters worse. Hell Batman survived the same fall, and an even bigger one earlier. Also in that first fall, he didn't even cushion Rachel. She fell next to him, not on top of him. That car must have been a lot softer than soil.

Batcape = parachute.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

There's a difference between a cape and a parachute. A parachute actually slows you down, a cape flaps in the wind.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

There's a difference between a cape and a parachute. A parachute actually slows you down, a cape flaps in the wind.

Considering the usual properties of his cape, I don't think there's probably much of a difference.

[indy4 155]

I don't think Dent needed to be exaggerated more as a villain. The Joker gave me everything I've ever wanted and more in a classic comic book villain, it didn't need another.

[Datameister 2,042]

So if everything's a choice, why does anybody fall?

Because people screw up their priorities and make bad choices - because they're not perfect. That doesn't mean they had no choice.

[Hlao-roo 389]

So if everything's a choice, why does anybody fall?

Because people screw up their priorities and make bad choices - because they're not perfect. That doesn't mean they had no choice.

If people are by definition imperfect, doesn't that imply that they have no choice but to make mistakes?

[Henry B 50]

Yeah, I don't get it. In this way, every fall from grace in the history of art and literature could be discredited as an illogical bad choice.

[Josh500 1,615]

But he's not really a bad guy, persay.

You write so well, so it hurts me to see this.

It's per se.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

But he's not really a bad guy, persay.

You write so well, so it hurts me to see this.

It's per se.

I knew that, I just refuse to acknowledge latin.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Therefore you refuse to acknowledge modern language!

[Josh500 1,615]

I knew that, I just refuse to acknowledge latin.

Ahhhh, a rebel.

[Datameister 2,042]

If people are by definition imperfect, doesn't that imply that they have no choice but to make mistakes?

I knew someone was gonna say that! People are imperfect, yes - but that's just a realistic observation of the way human life happens, not a requirement that each human being is somehow incapable of avoiding certain follies. Barring some cases of actual mental illness or very young age, each individual wrong choice is just that...a choice! I know it's extremely likely that I will do numerous things wrong over the next week, even just the next 24 hours. But each one of those things is a choice that I could and should do differently. I'm going to try to avoid screwing those things up, but realistically speaking, there will be times when I won't try hard enough because I'll wrongly allow something else to be too important to me.

Yeah, I don't get it. In this way, every fall from grace in the history of art and literature could be discredited as an illogical bad choice.

...right! I don't see what the problem is.

Let me ask you this. When was the last time you did something you shouldn't have done simply because you were incapable of making any other decision?

[Hlao-roo 389]

If people are by definition imperfect, doesn't that imply that they have no choice but to make mistakes?

I knew someone was gonna say that! People are imperfect, yes - but that's just a realistic observation of the way human life happens, not a requirement that each human being is somehow incapable of avoiding certain follies.

Couldn't one say the same of gravity, though? That it's just a "realistic observation" -- not a requirement?

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Let me ask you this. When was the last time you did something you shouldn't have done simply because you were incapable of making any other decision?

When I tried to cut my wrists open after my mother died.

An extreme example, to be sure, but at that point there was no other conclusion I could see.

[Henry B 50]

If people are by definition imperfect, doesn't that imply that they have no choice but to make mistakes?

I knew someone was gonna say that! laugh.gif People are imperfect, yes - but that's just a realistic observation of the way human life happens, not a requirement that each human being is somehow incapable of avoiding certain follies. Barring some cases of actual mental illness or very young age, each individual wrong choice is just that...a choice! I know it's extremely likely that I will do numerous things wrong over the next week, even just the next 24 hours. But each one of those things is a choice that I could and should do differently. I'm going to try to avoid screwing those things up, but realistically speaking, there will be times when I won't try hard enough because I'll wrongly allow something else to be too important to me.

Yeah, I don't get it. In this way, every fall from grace in the history of art and literature could be discredited as an illogical bad choice.

...right! I don't see what the problem is.

Let me ask you this. When was the last time you did something you shouldn't have done simply because you were incapable of making any other decision?

I can see where this discussion is going. It just isn't worth debating the nature of free will. But going by your statement that humans are inherently imperfect and prone to making bad choices, why is Harvey Dent's bad choice disingenuous or hard to believe?

[Datameister 2,042]

Couldn't one say the same of gravity, though? That it's just a "realistic observation" -- not a requirement?

You're funny. When the universe develops a mechanism for making organized, calculated, conscious decisions about its own physical properties, we'll talk.

Let me ask you this. When was the last time you did something you shouldn't have done simply because you were incapable of making any other decision?

When I tried to cut my wrists open after my mother died.

An extreme example, to be sure, but at that point there was no other conclusion I could see.

Firstly, I'm very sorry about your mother, and about the state you must have been in at the time. I really, truly, deeply mean that. Furthermore, I'm very glad that you're still with us today, and I hope you're a lot happier now! But...without having attempted suicide myself, I'm going to be the bad guy here and say that you still had a choice. An extraordinarily difficult choice in which you deemed suicide the best option - but it was your choice nonetheless.

But going by your statement that humans are inherently imperfect and prone to making bad choices, why is Harvey Dent's bad choice disingenuous or hard to believe?

Because he was making such different decisions before the explosion. Of course Rachel's death would change things; of course he'd act differently. But my original point was that there's too little continuity between his actions before and after. He acts too differently. He abruptly seems like an entirely different person. The simple vengeance part...I can buy that. But the scene with Gordon's family? No. It's just too over the top. The Harvey Dent we see in the beginning of the film would not kill an innocent little boy just because he was angry that his father didn't manage to save his girlfriend.

[Hlao-roo 389]

The Harvey Dent we see in the beginning of the film would not kill an innocent little boy just because he was angry that his father didn't manage to save his girlfriend.

But don't you hear this sort of talk a lot from neighbors and friends of serial killers? "He couldn't have! He just wasn't like that." You don't think it's possible you're underestimating any given human's capacity for evil?

[Henry B 50]

But going by your statement that humans are inherently imperfect and prone to making bad choices, why is Harvey Dent's bad choice disingenuous or hard to believe?

Because he was making such different decisions before the explosion. Of course Rachel's death would change things; of course he'd act differently. But my original point was that there's too little continuity between his actions before and after. He acts too differently. He abruptly seems like an entirely different person. The simple vengeance part...I can buy that. But the scene with Gordon's family? No. It's just too over the top. The Harvey Dent we see in the beginning of the film would not kill an innocent little boy just because he was angry that his father didn't manage to save his girlfriend.

Okay but... the Harvey Dent in the beginning of the film hadn't lost his fiance and been horribly disfigured. I mean, I think the relationship between Harvey and Rachel was underdeveloped, but the intent was that they cared for each other deeply. The loss to him was incredible. Not only that, but the Joker showed up and further eroded Harvey's faith in humanity.

[Datameister 2,042]

But...a kid?! And his innocent mom?! There had to already be some damage there for him to switch to that so quickly, and we would have seen that before the explosion.

And Hlao-roo, you make an interesting point, as usual, but if that was the filmmakers' intent, they didn't pull that off very well, either, IMO. I don't think we're supposed to leave the theater realizing that Dent had psychopathic tendencies all along, and that Rachel's death merely brought them to light. It's supposed to be a transformation, and in my humble opinion, it was not the most skillfully executed transformation. Just like Anakin's transformation...which brings us right back to where we started with ROTS!

[Hlao-roo 389]

Human beings are enormously complex -- you can't always draw bright lines of "continuity" among beliefs, attitudes, experiences, and actions. I think we have to accept that different characters in fiction will ring true to different people.

[Datameister 2,042]

Certainly. And I must confess that one of my greatest weaknesses in dealing with people is that I always expect that they'll behave at least somewhat...logically. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. (Just to be clear, that wasn't a jab at you guys!)

[Henry B 50]

But...a kid?! And his innocent mom?! There had to already be some damage there for him to switch to that so quickly, and we would have seen that before the explosion.

We certainly saw how ruthless he could be with those he felt had crossed him. And how is it that a day's events just couldn't possibly change a person dramatically? Dent lost the love of his life, and his physical disfigurement assured that he would have terrible difficulties for the rest of his life. He started hunting people down because he had nothing left to lose. Any punishment the legal system could throw at him would be no worse than what he had already gone through.

Certainly. smile.gif And I must confess that one of my greatest weaknesses in dealing with people is that I always expect that they'll behave at least somewhat...logically. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. (Just to be clear, that wasn't a jab at you guys!)

I'm not with the Vulcans. Life is too complex for any sort of empirical standard of logic to prevail.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

But...a kid?! And his innocent mom?! There had to already be some damage there for him to switch to that so quickly, and we would have seen that before the explosion.

And Hlao-roo, you make an interesting point, as usual, but if that was the filmmakers' intent, they didn't pull that off very well, either, IMO. I don't think we're supposed to leave the theater realizing that Dent had psychopathic tendencies all along, and that Rachel's death merely brought them to light. It's supposed to be a transformation, and in my humble opinion, it was not the most skillfully executed transformation. Just like Anakin's transformation...which brings us right back to where we started with ROTS!

He certainly had a little bit of psychopath in him, judging by the scene where he interrogates the guy wearing the Rachel Dawes nameplate. The fact that he was not only ready to kill someone else but himself certainly shows someone not exactly on the stable side of things.