[quote="DOOM"]But in sci-fi with aliens, robots and all sorts of fantastic things buzzing about, the audience is best served to have an everyman they can relate to in order to guide the narrative.
[/quote]

Having someone to relate to and a person to guide the narrative is 2 completely different things. Look at Shawshank Redemption, the protagonist is clearly Tim Robbins while the narrative is literally driven by Morgan Freeman, we are made to relate to Robbins. While having someone to relate to may be based on the age or characteristics of a person. So if we want to look at a sci-fi movie like Wall-E you have to relate to a robot that exbits minimal human traits, yet the movie still works. But in a movie like Phantom Menace where there are several human characters the mention of it being a sci-fi is an afterthought because you can easily identify yourself with one of these characters. Pulp Fiction has no one protagonist but with plenty of people you can find someone to relate to, and look at that a cult classic. Once again is seems as though Episode one works, and for those that can relate to Neeson, that is when he becomes the protagonist.

I always saw obi-wan as the protagonist in the episodes 1 - 3. And, some credit, while the movie has some really rough parts, the Jedi action pieces at the beginning and end of the movie were amazing. And Nesson and mcgregor where both fairly good in the movie. It's just the rest of it that was a let down.

I think Luke serves pretty neatly as a protagonist throughout the original trilogy.
And, no, not every story needs a protagonist. But in sci-fi with aliens, robots and all sorts of fantastic things buzzing about, the audience is best served to have an everyman they can relate to in order to guide the narrative.
Also, "the voice of the people"? Sir, I believe your English teacher failed you.

[quote="DOOM"]
I just a few days ago happened upon a critique of the movie which dared to ask:
Who is the main charachter (protagonist, if you will) of The Phantom Menace?[/quote]


Couldnt the same be said for The Empire Strikes Back? Is there a point to trying to identify a protagonist? If only to support you opinion i would say that Neeson def. filled a supporting role. Supporting who? Well the protagonist of course. Which then leads us into the need for ID, isn't safe to say that the voice of the people (the failing republic or Jedi Council) was the protagonist?

I don't really think Liam Neeson was remarkable in the slightest in Episode I. He was a good actor doing a passable job in a shite cash grab flick.

And because off-topic is on-topic here at CMRO:
I just a few days ago happened upon a critique of the movie which dared to ask:
Who is the main charachter (protagonist, if you will) of The Phantom Menace?

To bring things full circle, Phantom Menace as a whole was a successful film (so was Spider-Man 3 and Batman and Robin), but lets break down the acting of Liam Neeson, because that;s why we are all here. Now clearly the film had its faults and issues, what ever they may be. But lets take a look at some of the things that Neeson had a direct part in:
The acting: Quite excellent, Neeson was a veteran actor at this point while several others were just getting their start.
The action: Scenes with Neeson and lightsaber were stellar, as always it left me wanting more but he was competent and handled himself with ease
The dialogue: I will say that that was a bit off, but lets be honest the original 3 weren't known for there superb talking points.

Neeson in the film did quite well and that is the topic at hand. The Prequel Trilogy was a success, and while there are many that don't like it, i know once my daughter is old enough, i will start her with this three so she can see Star Wars differently, and appreciate the Skywalker family more than i did.

[quote="DOOM"]A billion at the box office says a bunch of people got duped.[/quote]

A bunch of people being duped is a huge opening weekend, then a massive drop off. Didn't happen with phantom menace. Time will show that it's really not a bad film, it's just that so many people have convinced themselves that the first trilogy was perfect that anything else can't compare.

None of the films that have grossed over a billion are bad films, they may not be cinematic masterpieces, but frankly, most films that are are incredibly dull films (how many films that won best picture did you actually enjoy? I think for me it's 3 films in 20 years+). Conversely transformers or pirates of the Caribbean are FUN and EXCITING and stuff blows up, the worlds saved etc.

A billion at the box office says a bunch of people got duped.

[quote="DOOM"][quote="Maidel"]Going back a bit, can I just say that I quite like the phantom menace..[/quote]

This might hurt your credibility on good vs. bad[/quote]

A billion $ at the box office says that I'm not alone with that view point :)

Fragsel, good point.

I slightly based it off of the trailer and synopsis. But lets me honest Taken owned, the next one will too. Plus i might be able to see into the future...