I alwaya saw the end of the second act being when everything falls apart for the protag. You know, the Ghostbusters fire house explodes and they get arrested, etc.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
Mitch Gross
Veteran
The "story" is Luke's growing into manhood, the plot is a series of events.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
That's where I think you are wrong. The protagonist of a story is the one who goes on a journey of some kind. By journey I mean in the most abstract sense, the person starts one way and ends another. It does not have to be a physical trip from place to place B (although it could be). The protagonist is the one who grows in the story. The protagonist goes through a transformation.
Leia is essentially the same person she was at the start.
It can certainly be argued that Han grows and changes, but it is not particularly his journey we follow.
Even Obiwan goes through a change of sorts, but that's not really the point, is it?
Luke grows. Luke "becomes a man". Luke is the protagonist.
One of the more interesting aspects of the the trilogy structure is that when you step back, the original trilogy certainly follows the arc of Luke's growth, and he is most certainly the protagonist in that it is ultimately his journey. The prequel trilogy (as flawed as they are) are clearly about the journey of Anakin. This is why they truly are two separate trilogies, ignoring the fact of the space in time between when they were made and the qualities of one set over the other. The prequels are the father's journey and the original three are his son's journey. The fact that the son's journey is culminated by the reversal and therefore redemption of the father's journey is what binds them so clearly, and it is why the literary structure of having the son's journey come before the father's is so interesting. It really makes little sense to tell the stories as 1-6, but total sense to tell them 4-6 then 1-3. They were made that way because those two character arcs were so important but we needed to see the son first in order to appreciate what it meant for him to rescue his father. I would have loved to see an outline of what Lucas had intended for the third trilogy.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Nick Carroway is not the protagonist of The Great Gatsby. He is the narrator. In this case he is also an active character and the person through whom we view the plot unfold, but that's just plot. And as I said before, there is a difference between plot and story.
Interestingly, I've talked to those who consider Solo to be the protagonist because of this. He goes through the BIGGEST change.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Solo goes through a change, sure, but the biggest change? Luke goes from useless whiny farmboy snot into Jedi hero savior of the galaxy...
Arguably. Solo goes from being a rogue smuggler out for only himself to joining a noble cause. That's a total 180. Plus, his grammar improved.
Luke always wanted to go on a big adventure.
Luke always wanted to go on a big adventure.
But what's the difference in Episode IV?
Oh, sorry; didn't see this above:
I'm not sure that's actually true. Especially not going by the opening crawl.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Of course that's what it is. The opening crawl just sets up the plot. It doesn't indicate the story.
Often the protagonist sneaks up on you, and the story is revealed when you realize who it is you are really following. The Godfather is not about Marlon Brando's character, it's about Al Pacino's. He transforms during the course of the film. All this plotting, it's just stuff. Story is character arc. If you follow the opening crawl you'd think Ep. IV is about the Rebels destroying the Death Star. As Hannibal Lecter would say "That's incidental."
Often the protagonist sneaks up on you, and the story is revealed when you realize who it is you are really following. The Godfather is not about Marlon Brando's character, it's about Al Pacino's. He transforms during the course of the film. All this plotting, it's just stuff. Story is character arc. If you follow the opening crawl you'd think Ep. IV is about the Rebels destroying the Death Star. As Hannibal Lecter would say "That's incidental."
combatentropy
Veteran
According to video, that is in the second half of Act II but not the end.
combatentropy
Veteran
Is there some reason you don't want Luke Skywalker to be the protagonist of Episode IV and are using every reason you can come up with to argue against it?
No, I am merely exploring plausible alternate interpretations. You know, discussing film, here in Film Discussion.
There's a strong literary case that Leia is the protagonist of Episode IV, just as there's a strong case that Glinda is the (successful!) villain of The Wizard of Oz.
What a boring world if we couldn't explore such things.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
There may be a case, but I wouldn't call it all that strong. There are also alternate and revisionist versions of stories, such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and in the case of The Wizard of Oz, the musical Wicked. But those are different stories with different protagonists. I'm happy to discuss such things academically, but I don't think the argument holds a lot of water.
As an academic exercise, I once wrote an essay stating that Madam Bovary was in fact the story of her husband, and how his actions set her and therefore the story upon its course. Even back in the less politically correct times of the mid-1980s, I made sure to attach an addendum to the paper stating that it was written as an intellectual exercise and that the premise was inherently sexist. It's been 30 years, but I would say that the arguments within it held about as much weight as your theorizing. There are ways one could choose to interpret the content to arrive at these conclusions, but one must willfully ignore or disavow other important precepts of literary tradition.
Still, it can be fun. Not like anyone is denying the Holocaust here or discussing the Flat Earth Society. We're just talking' Star Wars. ;-)
combatentropy
Veteran
The feel of The Force Awakens is closer to A New Hope than The Phantom Menace, but A New Hope feels like it was made by this guy:
and The Force Awakens feels more like it was made by someone like this:
and The Force Awakens feels more like it was made by someone like this:
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
Chortle.
What stood out to me the most upon a second viewing was how contemporary it felt. It was a film that lacked seriousness with all the Marvel style comedy almost winking staight at the audience. The originals had comedy, but nothing like Finn's exasperated confusion meant to humor. Finn consistently appears on screen doing some hyperactive head and facial expression movement trying to figure out what is going on. It was like Shia LeBeouf's "exasperated teenager" typecast. Or Poe and Finn gleefully exchanging bro' air fives while they literally fly for their lives. Or Stormtroopers reversing course like a SNL skit.
Yes, you want to laugh, but at C3PO hamming it up as a droid seemingly would. (seen those Watson IBM ads?) Or Nerfherder scruffy exchanges. Or Han telling Luke, "You're gonna die here. Convenient."
I think the originals just had a touch more seriousness to them while being lighthearted as well. This one is over weighted towards the lighthearted and then tries to show serious s#!* and it just feels out of too juxtaposed for me. You can't have a character say, "Droid please!" and then speak about the reality of the myth of the Jedi and convey the same gravitas that Yoda or Obiwan did.
I dunno. Tons of things but the comedy really stood out to me on a 2nd viewing. Not my style. Obviously it worked and Disney raked in a boatload of money. Hard to argue with success, but I was hoping for something more, and I fear the rest of the franchise will slip into this new Avengers/Michael Bay style of sleeker than sleek VFX, great contemporary one liners and then shove the substance in somewhere between.
KurtF
Well-known member
True enough. But then you don't spend 4 Billion dollars buying all the assets of Lucasfilm without expecting a return on your investment.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
BTW, I have no issue discussing a topic such as who is the protagonist of a given story. It can lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the work as a whole. For instance I would strongly argue that the protagonist in E.T. is definitely Elliot, not E.T.
Scott F
Pug Life
I agree. Hell, I don't care what people think....I highly enjoyed reboots like Prometheus and Terminator Salvation (Yeah, I said it....the one with Christian Bale!) I LOVED Fury Road. All stuff grounded in my youth during the wonderful, amazing 80s.
I've been on these boards since 2005. I've seen countless starter threads, "OMG, the trailer looks amazing...this could be good." And then those usual suspects are the first to be like "Meh" when the actual movie comes out. It's like, "What were you expecting?"
The thing with the notion of "capturing that magic", is that the slate was pretty clean back in our youth. If you're in your 30s, 40s, etc.....how many films & TV shows have you been exposed to? It's overkill/oversaturation. Nothing new you see is going to have a lasting impression compared to say, seeing Raider of the Lost Ark for the first time in the early 80s when you're 10 or 12. Or whatever example you want to use from your particular youth.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Well... I'm sure someone is going to post some such announcement... but have there been any rumors about an immanent remake of Sergio Leone's "Man With No Name" trilogy...
Or... "Lawrence of Arabia"(1962)... as in 'epic' rather than a re-adaption of the life of T.E. Lawrence in the desert...
I'm sure that many of the current films will become someone's touchstone for the future...