Qui-Gon can't be the main character because he has no arc

>Qui-Gon can't be the main character because he has no arc
So the Indiana Jones movies have no main character?

I don't think Mike thought his 5 hour video shitpost all the way through.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qzVBqBosf5w
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>implying you need a "main" character

what is an ensemble cast?

bump

...

...

.

What an absolutely pitful and limiting way to look at filmmaking

>STAR WARZ IZ FOR BIG BOIZE LIKE ME
>DUHNT MAKE FUN UHV PREKWELZ

>Mike Stoklasa has good taste in film

Indiana does have an arc though. He learns to learns to love his father, he meets God, and he becomes more worldly wise.

That's one out of 3 (4, whatever) movies though.
Name his arc in Raiders and Temple of Doom.

bumb

RLM didn't do that

Plinkett just said a main character is a good idea for this genre. Also ensemble is way over george's ability as a writer

i wish Qui-Gon got more of a mention in later films, this whole film is weirdly out of place in the canon. Episode 3 was the only film Lucas wanted to make, he could have at least kept it safe with 1 and 2 instead of going all out, noble, maybe, but not a great result.

>Plinkett just said a main character is a good idea for this genre.
And Qui-Gon is the main character.

I do like that TCW brings back Neeson, but I somewhat agree.

I wish he lived and joined dooku in an attempt to back door palpatine

He would have been way too old at that point, he was fine for the first film, his legacy or lack of is symptomatic to the structure of the prequels.

>And Qui-Gon is the main character.
which is stupid because dieds, has no arch, and is an old boring jedi. it should have been anakin, and it isn't. hence it sucks.

>has no arch
wtf I hate Raiders of The Lost arc now!

Qui-Gon has an arc, he fulfills his role as the teacher of obi-wan, obi-wan is a master next time we see him. The cycle continues with Obi-Wan and Anakin.
Qui-Gon has finished his duty and dies, Ob-Wan avenges him as a final tribute to his master.

lmao what is this autism

seriously why would you make an old man the main character of a childrens scifi fantasy movie? there's no good reason. that's what plinkett was getting at.

Qui-gon fulfills his role in the film, his arc is to pass on and become one with the force.

But I thought the "children's movie" thing was a cop out excuse by Lucas?

>childrens scifi fantasy movie?
how can you reduce sw to this shit?

yeah he put in a bunch of juvenile comedy and licensed action figures and stuffed animals for the mature adults that like star wars

No really, people always act like Lucas is bullshitting when he calls SW a kid's movie series.
Can't have it both ways.

idk I'm a jerk and I didn't like the prequels ok? reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

That's fine. I just don't like dishonest argumentation.

Not sure about Raiders but in Temple he learns compassion for the local tribe after being apathetic at first, also notions of self-sacrifice for the greater good

>Not sure about Raiders
It's because he's mostly static in Raiders, a movie everyone loves.
He has more of an arc in Crystal Skull than he does in Radiers. (not that he really has an arc in Skull either).

Quigon is the main character though. He's in the most scenes and the story follows him and his actions.

people act baffled because jorge decided to put slapstick comedy right along side decapitations and child murdering

Keyword being "act" baffled. There is no slapstick anywhere near the child murder scene.
And bloodless decapitations aren't really that hardcore.

the killing younglings scene was pretty funny though

I never thought there needed to be a main character for the phantom menace. Just that it was the story of two jedi on a mission. If anyone has to be labeled the protag I'd say it was padme since the story was arguably her character arc.

Implying that's not what it is. Star wars was always meant to be a fun adventurous space opera movie for kids. George Lucas said so, Mark Hamill said so, the only people who think otherwise are people like you who have the mindset that stuff for children is automatically bad

No I'm just defending myself from people who think it's bad, I don't care what the marketed audience is for a product.

Of all of the prequel's issues, I never thought the lack of a main character was one of them. The entire purpose of the PT is to explain the setting and the origins of the OT's plot anyway. Giving Qui Gon an arc would have been pointless since he's doomed to die anyway. He's the jedi who's already been through the ringer, and it's Obi Wan who has the arc of going from a padawan to immediately jumping in to train Anakin, a move that has major implications for the whole series.

Yeah, Obi Wan didn't feel like the protagonist of Phantom Menace, but it wasn't something that I thought was a huge problem.

>So the Indiana Jones movies have no main character?

Watch the Crystal Skull review, goes into depth about what he thinks of Indiana Jones.

>Watch more e-celeb bullshit
How about no?

I disagree. Post-sincerity has rotted your brain.

Does he somehow alter reality so that Indiana Jones has an arc in Raiders of The Lost Ark?

>movie A cant be shit because movie B does the same thing

the absolute state of PT apologists

More like "if you act like something is a guideline of moviemaking but a good movie doesn't follow it, maybe rethink your guidelines".

What kid likes and identifies with kids in movies? They want to be Han Solo and the cool guys, not the fuckin' kids. I barely remember the kids in Beyond Thunderdome, for example, and I fapped to some of them

>indiana jones
>good movies

the absolute state of hollywood forcefed ameribabbies

damn...

what? he has an arc in all the movies even shitty crystal skull, fuck back to the 10th grade faggot.

What is his arc in Raider of The Lost Ark?

humbly accepting that there are some things science and logic cant explain, he goes from a skeptic that doesnt believe in the supernatural and believes the ark is just an artifact to someone who lets go of his science and curiosity and closes his eyes to the mystery. ya mook.

Anakin is the main character of all the prequels that's sort of the point

not in tpm.

That's hardly an arc. I'd say Indy is a static character in Raiders.

qui gonns not cool tho

Qui-gon not only had no arc, he had no reason to exist, died in the movie, barely had a character and just did things with little to no motivation explained. He's subsumed the role of the wise mentor into the part of the protagonist which just doesnt fucking work in a movie like this.

yeah i never said it was a strong arc, hes an archetype for what men want to be, hes not much of a character but more than any character in tpm, OP is an idiot.

No, he basically agrees with you.

>slapstick comedy right along side decapitaitons and child murdering
People don't realize how genius that is. Lucas is way ahead of our time.

In Raiders he learns that some mysteries are better left unsolved and his obsession with uncovering artifacts might be doing more harm than good. Some things are best left undisturbed.

>but more than any character in tpm
Jar Jar has more of an arc than Indy in Raiders.

Does he? Haven't seen Last Crusade in a 15 plus years, but I remember him wanting to uncover the Holy Grail.

...

see

its his arc in all the movies, its recycled but the point is he has one you dumb underage faggot.

>its his arc in all the movies
>its recycled
wow what a great arc

>It's because he's mostly static in Raiders
No he isn't. At the start of the movie, he's a jaded, cynical person who's a terrible archaeologist that mostly cares about taking high paid treasure hunting jobs from Marcus Brody. He doesn't really believe in what he does, think the Ark of the Covenant is bullshit, and sees Marion is a meaningless fling he doesn't really want anything to do with. Over the course of the movie, he realizes that there's still magic in the world, reignites his interest for actual archaeology (not just paid treasure hunting), and sees his feelings for Marion.

Indy has a pretty big arc in that movie, most people just miss it because it's kind of subtle for an action movie, and his character development was mostly retconned by the follow-up, which was a prequel.

Op has no idea how to watch movies.

better than not having one at all.

Yeah but the chronological sequel also regresses him.

>subtle
*underwritten
ftfy

prequel fags will lash out at any film to justify their childhood love for crap and its flaws.

Well sure, that's kind of the point. That flaws in the prequels are dis proportionally criticized compared to other films with the same flaws.

Take pic related, the movie that inspired SW. The Qui-Gon character (Mifune) fails the Plinkett character test as hard as Qui-Gon does.

It's not underwritten, though. By the end of the movie, he's decided that he's clearly not the same as Belloq (another cynical treasure hunter), believes in the Ark enough to protect (and think it would kill him), and he's ready to settle down with Marion. Those things are all clearly present, they're just much smaller than what you see in similar movies. He doesn't learn about the force and blow up a Death Star, save the universe, stop a dark lord, or anything like that. It's all small, person things that fly under the radar of people expecting bigger; the fact that the sequels retcon and regress his character really don't help, because it means people see his character as static, when it really wasn't.

But people like the sequels and prequels too, so my point stands. You'll notice the OP does not single out any one Indy film.

Watched them for the first time grown up, just straight up marathoned all 6 movies, without any nostalgia for the OT or any preconceived notions about the PT (since i never had an interest in SW until lately), still liked them. Most of the haters just repeat ad nauseam an autist's reviews cause "it's funneh" and "muh memes". I'm not saying the prequels don't have faults, but damn are people exaggerating after a point. I swear it's like trying to argue that maybe Linking Park weren't THAT bad but people just won't listen desu.

>Qui-Gon is the main character.

What is that pepe supposed to convey?

>Jedi warn Qui-Gon about his recklessnes
>Qui-Gon disregards everything they say and goes back to Naboo
>gets killed

Kind of an arc I guess?

>Prequels = Final Fantasy 6
>OT = Final Fantasy 7
>Sequels = Final Fantasy 8
It's that simple.

yes they arent that bad, none of them are terrible
the problem is that those other films have other things going on, people are more likely to let things go so long as they are entertained consistently or at least the majority of the time.
.

Out of curiosity would you guys watch a Qui Gon spinoff?

>You'll notice the OP does not single out any one Indy film.
And people have pointed out how all of them show a character arc. Lucas and Spielberg got lazy and decided to repeat the same arc in every movie, but that doesn't mean the character doesn't show development in those movies.

If the argument is that criticism of Qui-gon not developing over the course of one movie isn't valid because Indiana Jones also doesn't progress over the course of any of his movies, then that's obvious flawed. Indy does have development in his movies. Him being reset in each one is a flaw of the series, but has no bearing on his effectiveness as a character in Raiders, Temple, Last Crusade, or even Crystal Skull.

A Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan on Mandalore with Satine spinoff, sure.

fuck off prequel apologist

But people like all 3 Indy movies even though he effectively remains static.

>those other films have other things going on
Qui-Gon is not the only character in TPM.

exactly, everyone else is shit too.

'no'

>But people like all 3 Indy movies even though he effectively remains static.
So? That has nothing to do with what OP is talking about. What he's implying is that Qui-gon can be the main character of TPM with no arc, because Indy similarly has no arc, and that's blatantly false. You can't compare Indiana Jones as a series to the one movie that Qui-gon appear in, because that's not what's being discussed. If you compare the one movie Qui-gon is in to any Indiana Jones movie, you'll see a clear difference in how much of an arc each character has.

No, YOU'RE not getting it. People obviously don't care about arcs because they don't care that Indy's resets every time.

>ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC
can you guys stop this please? character arcs are ONE tool in the arsenal of storytelling, and brainlets have come to see them as essential. it's the only way anyone seems to be able to tell stories anymore. e.g. the totally unnecessary addition of angst to almost every character in the LOTR movies (not saying they're bad, just a failed adaptation in that regard.) a character can be more or less unchanged at the beginning and the end of a story without that gimping its dramatic potential or effectiveness. what matters is having a good story populated by good characters. whether the core of a story is the personal/philosophical evolution of a main character (Blade Runner, Star Wars OT, Casablanca) or well-drawn characters dealing with sensational events (Chinatown, Die Hard, Indiana Jones, all Hitchcock movies, book-LOTR.) And people seem to have forgotten you can tell "good" stories the other way lately. Arcs and twists and angst have their place but I want them to fuck off back to TV for a bit or at least allow other narrative styles some room to breathe

Qui-Gon's problem isn't his lack of an arc, it's that he's a total nonentity as a character, so the ending is supposed to play as bittersweet but doesn't. Seriously, the character with the most depth in that movie is fucking Jar Jar

>but doesn't.
If it did for me, am I like the antimatter to your matter? Your universe must be unlike mine.

I guess. Even as a kid I remember being unmoved

Don't believe you desu.
I don't believe that the end of TPM does not work on a kid.

I hope you're just pretending to be retarded. You're comparing a character with clear development in four films being reset in sequels, to a person who appears in one film and doesn't show any measurable development in that one film.

A main character is supposed to develop over the course of the story that the audience is seeing. People don't usually watch a franchise all in one sitting, so if all somebody is watching is one movie, Indy has plenty of character development. Outside of that, yeah, it's kind of a flaw in the franchise, but, as far as a person just sitting down for one movie is concerned, Indiana Jones has an arc. Qui-gon doesn't. Not even in the single movie he appears in. There's a huge difference between both characters, and the fact that you can't see that is kind of hilarious.

see
>People obviously don't care about arcs because they don't care that Indy's resets every time.

You're massively overstating the importance of arcs.

The fight was the coolest thing ever and Darth Maul was scary. Vividly remember the part when Obi-Wan was trapped in the laser corridor--visually, it really was a great movie. One of the reasons the NuSW trash has been so disappointing, Lucas was not a good writer (at least not when he left it to the last minute) but had a great sense for visuals. But yeah, was sad for Obi-Wan but didn't really care about Qui-Gon. He was just a big dude who was likable but basically opaque as a character.

>but but but but but
ever read over your just-submitted post and feel a strong urge to wring your own neck?

>Vividly remember the part when Obi-Wan was trapped in the laser corridor--visually, it really was a great movie.
Him sitting down like a Samurai with his eyes closed, while Maul did those deranged grimaces, pure kino. Not to mention youtube.com/watch?v=qzVBqBosf5w

Still don't believe that you didn't feel bittersweet. I didn't give a shit about characters compared to plot and "cool" things as a kid, and I still remember that the cut from Obi cradling Qui-Gon to the ship landing in Theed felt bittersweet, as did the funeral scene.
>what will happen to me now?

Qui-Gon wasn't SUPPOSED to be someone we feel deeply for, because he's not someone who needed to learn a lesson or someone we saw grow, he was just the last remaining Jedi who hadn't strayed from the light.

Lucas's movies are ALL emotionally distant, remember how little you felt for Leia when her planet and family died?

This thread...
The lack of narrative comprehension and critical thought displayed by burgers is hilarious.
No wonder you faggots are getting brainwashed left and right by all sides simultaneously.

>Lucas's movies are ALL emotionally distant
The story in A New Hope is one of the most emotionally satisfying mainstream movies ever made, which is why it's my favorite of the series despite ESB being objectively superior in countless ways. How absolutely grim it gets during the trench run, ALL of the good guys dying until it's just the naive, whiny Tatooine hick kid we've been with from the start, hanging in there, having just lost his best friend, with the fate of the galaxy at stake, all the odds against him and the scariest guy in the galaxy on his tail, but not giving up hope. Just compare that to the ending of TFA, the attempted remake. The difference is stark. Then Han comes to the rescue, Luke makes the shot and it's just euphoria all the way to the credits. As much as I railed against the prevalence of arcs in that other post they're pretty great when done right and A New Hope does that. You can credit Marcia and others involved for a lot of that yeah but I don't think it's fair to discount George's contribution. He's capable of a lot better than what he did in the prequels. At least he was at one point.