jtn90
Ambassador
Posts: 66
|
Post by jtn90 on Nov 3, 2021 19:24:00 GMT
If something I like in these forums are the character analysis that speaks the truth on the most undeservedly maligned characters and prove they are more than the popular opinion thinks, Anakin being a great expample, even Jar Jar is just more than the surface level.
People not surpasing the surface level is very common in these characters, but I think that doesn't reduce of "not liked" characters. If you think about it, two characters that are "liked by all people" fans and haters alike, seems to only like them for surface reasons without going deeper with the characters, I'm talking about Obi Wan and Han Solo.
THese two have a lot in common, they are co protagonist of thier respective trilogy with funny and memorable moments with the portrayal of their actor praised everyone regardess if they liked or hated the movies, who also happen to receive an (IMO unecessary) spin off.
But I noticed that's all about them that the people can tell about them, like they are the flat characters that just got praised for surace reasons while the deep ones like Anakin get all the hate.
This causes some character misundestanding like Han veing ruthless( the famous reason why Han should shot first) or Obi Wan being the perfect jedi who did nothing wrong (gary stu?), I dot agree with these takes.
Heck Han have a clear character arc, while Obi Wan being more flawed than peple realize, even if he haven't a clear arc,
Obi Wan in particular, is a character that maybe some of you grow to hate because the continuos praise at the expense of other characters in the prequels. the few haters of the character says this: Obi Wan is a weak and flat character only saved by Ewan performance.
DO you think these character are flat or have more substance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Nov 3, 2021 19:35:34 GMT
Of course they have substance. The fact that the movies show them growing as characters is evidence of that. They change not only within the movie their are introduced in but throughout their respective trilogy.
|
|
jtn90
Ambassador
Posts: 66
|
Post by jtn90 on Nov 3, 2021 20:31:45 GMT
Of course they have substance. The fact that the movies show them growing as characters is evidence of that. They change not only within the movie their are introduced in but throughout their respective trilogy. Yes, and they are better characters for that, just I wish people coulds talk about that when disscussing the characters just like I wish could see more on "Hated characters". Loving them and only talking about the same surpecicial stuff is reducing the characters to the bare minimum, and that could give misleading ideas of the haracters just as much as giving all the crap you can give to characters you hate to reduce it to the worst thing ever. Don't know if I'm expressing well what Im trying to tell. I think Anakin in the Clone Wars is the prefect example of this, you have Anakin doing that charsimatic jokes, so that makes him "a better character than he was in the prequels". |
|
|
|
Post by emperorferus on Nov 4, 2021 16:03:40 GMT
This causes some character misunderstanding like Han being ruthless (the famous reason why Han should shot first) or Obi Wan being the perfect Jedi who did nothing wrong (gary stu?), I don't agree with these takes. My take on Han shooting first is that even if Greedo hadn't fired at all, that doesn't make Han ruthless. Greedo was obviously in it to kill Han, and Han wants to stay alive. He doesn't have the most respectable career, but he is totally lucky that Greedo misses from 2 feet away. If he waited any longer to shoot Greedo, he would have been dead. Also, even if Han's shooting a man who was totally about to kill him does make him ruthless, Greedo firing first wouldn't affect that. The time difference between the two shots is too short for Han's shot to be a reaction to Greedo's. He was going to shoot Greedo anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Nov 4, 2021 20:15:21 GMT
Yes, it's not uncommon for supporting characters to become more popular than the main characters, and often exactly because their characters aren't as complex as the lead. It's the supporting characters' roles to add leaven and flavor to the story. Han's bravado and Obi-Wan's wit are readily enjoyable, memorable to easy to latch onto, like a catchy pop melody. And yes, even though supporting characters do often have arcs of their own, it's exactly due to these more superficial traits that fans enjoy them so much.
So yes, the average fan is going to be endeared to these characters, and for mostly superficial reasons, by and large. Obi-Wan is multi-dimensional of course, but not quite as Byzantine as Anakin. The main characters get their own movies, the supporting characters get the spin-offs.
It's how humans are.
It's how showbiz works.
And true, it's unfortunate that not only are characters often looked at superficially, but that then those views are caricatured and taken to extremes. But I suppose the nice thing about how the internet works is, other fans can also put out content extolling the virtues of the overlooked and misunderstood characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 5, 2021 1:18:44 GMT
Yes, it's not uncommon for supporting characters to become more popular than the main characters, and often exactly because their characters aren't as complex as the lead. It's the supporting characters' roles to add leaven and flavor to the story. Han's bravado and Obi-Wan's wit are readily enjoyable, memorable to easy to latch onto, like a catchy pop melody. And yes, even though supporting characters do often have arcs of their own, it's exactly due to these more superficial traits that fans enjoy them so much. So yes, the average fan is going to be endeared to these characters, and for mostly superficial reasons, by and large. Obi-Wan is multi-dimensional of course, but not quite as Byzantine as Anakin. The main characters get their own movies, the supporting characters get the spin-offs. It's how humans are. It's how showbiz works. Yep. All the characters in Star Wars have some depth to them, but some characters have more than others -- and some have depth only in relation to others. Obi-Wan: What is he? Or to turn his own question back around on itself: "What's this?" You know, Obi-Wan, you're the odd one out in Episode I, the weakest of the mains/supporting. Jar Jar has more depth than Obi-Wan. Sorry, Obi lovers. 'Tis true. Subjectively speaking, of course. Obi-Wan is a flim-flam Jedi man and a bit obnoxious in places. The "everyman" Jedi. Like an accordion that can only play one or two notes. Luckily, he's played in the PT by Ewan-fucking-McGregor. Han Solo: Okay, so as above: A good screen actor with natural charisma rescues the part and makes it better than it otherwise would have been. As Harrison Ford said about his character in 2014: "He's dumb as a stump." Ouch. Like Obi-Wan, Han has a palpable humanity about him, but often only feels like half a character next to Luke or, wait for it, C-3PO. Those characters, to me, are the stars of the OT, along with Vader. We do naturally as humans hanker for complexity, and a certain X-factor in a person/character, yes -- while often reaching for the opposite (mixing up the bread and the wine). Why is that? Perhaps because there is too much mundanity to sift through in everyday life. We need the real thing in our allegories and fantasies: thick and full and mighty and... this isn't a porn allusion, I swear. But on some more primal psychological level, it may be because we want the complexity of the universe and the strangeness of existence bottled up in something we can at least make strides to understand (and yet still be perplexed or surprised by): the macrocosm in the microcosm. Anakin is that in ways that, say, Watto or Obi-Wan are not. But yes, those "secondary" characters are an easy handhold or release valve. They all have a function and fulfil needs. The Internet works in some nice ways some of the time. |
|
