Vaderisnothayden

see you auntie said:

Didn't Lucas originally imagine lightsabers or more importantly the weapon that a Jedi wields as requiring an immense amount of focus to use as they were supposedly made of a dense energy.  Hence Jedi were the only ones who could weild them and why they often used a two handed grip, because they were heavy, and they'd use short precise strikes as not to waste energy fighting.

I don't even know if that make any sense (a dense energy?) but my memory of this is fuzzy. If anyone knows what the hell I'm talking about please add some input.

 

IN TPM there's a hint that the only-Jedis-can-use-them rule has gone. Because Qui Gon tells Anakin maybe his possession of a lightsaber doesn't mean he's a Jedi, maybe he just killed a Jedi and took it from them. Presumably a guy wouldn't be carrying around a weapon if he couldn't use it, so this sounds like a non-Jedi could use a lightsaber.

Johnboy3434 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Art is subjective, but only up to a point.

 

Wrong. Art is subjective all the way through. Somewhere out there, someone may think Manos: The Hands of Fate is the greatest movie ever made. While just about every other individual on the planet may disagree with him, we can never actually prove him wrong.

That is a comfortable view that allows people to pretend everybody is equally right about works of art, but it just isn't true. Not everything about art is subjective. We shouldn't cling to handy untruths just because they're handy.

Johnboy3434 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

It's thoroughly reasonable for fans to get pissed off when a beloved classic is senselessly messed with in ways that totally don't fit.

 

 

In your humble opinion, of course. Other people think the added elements aren't intrusive at all. Are you saying they're wrong because they don't agree with you? Isn't that just a tad egocentric?

No. They're not wrong because they don't agree with me. They're wrong because they don't agree with the original films. They're at odds with the original films and don't fit in and they foul up the functioning of various elements in the original films. And if that view is egocentric then a hell of a lot of other posters on this site must be egocentric.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Johnboy3434 said:

In your humble opinion, of course. Other people think the added elements aren't intrusive at all. Are you saying they're wrong because they don't agree with you? Isn't that just a tad egocentric?

I would be against changes to classic films even if I liked the changes.  That is, if the originals were not also being made available.  You just don't do that to great works of art.

Exactly.

Gaffer Tape said:

I see that, briefly, the rationalization of the old man vs. the machine was used in this conversation.  I have to say that's one of my least favorites.  Thankfully, this thread moved on to users' preferences, because that's really the only way to gauge the fights.  I pretty much agree with a lot of what's been said here.  Empire's duel is my favorite.  It always has been since the first time I saw it.  It always felt the most real and the most grueling.  Jedi's was good too but in a different sense.  It has an emotional resonance, but since Luke refuses to fight for most of it, it doesn't have the same sense of action that Empire's had.  I also enjoy watching the prequels' fights because some of them do look cool, like in TPM.  I even enjoyed Vader vs. Obi-Wan, although the balancing on various bits of metal at the end broke my suspension of disbelief completely!

But the fights of the two trilogies were created under two totally different mindsets, choreographed by different people, and they just don't mesh together.  It's up to the viewer's preference if they prefer the more down-to-earth, grueling battles of the OT or the flashy acrobatics of the PT.  But to try to rationalize why the fights in the OT didn't look like the fights in the PT because of the old "Ben's an old man, and Vader's a robot" is just silly, especially because, even though George coined it, he largely ignored it.  Let's explore:

Ben's an old man--Yes, but there are old men characters in the prequels:  Dooku, Yoda, and Palpatine.

Vader's a robot--Somewhat, but there is a mechanical construct in the prequels:  General Grievous.

And, guess what?  All of those characters are constantly seen jumping around like they have briars up their asses, so... how exactly does this argument hold water?

In one of the Phantom Menace dvd featurettes Lucas says that we haven't seen a real Jedi fighting before the prequels and all we saw we're half-men half-droids and young boys trained by these old people. So the prequels fights were faster and more energetic because it's real Jedi in their prime in the prime of the Jedi. Or something like that. And I just don't buy it. I find it really hard to believe that during the filming of the OT Lucas was going "Let's make these guys slower, because they're not real Jedi and not up to Jedi standard." And that's not how the characters were portrayed. ESB Luke wasn't up to Jedi standard, but ROTJ Luke is portrayed as if he is. There's no indication whatsoever that Vader is supposed to be a useless fighter by Jedi standards, or that Kenobi isn't up to Jedi  standard either. In one of the drafts of the first film's screenplay Kenobi was supposed to be weaker in the force because he was older, but that was conspicuously lacking in what reached the screen. I think it's all just a stupid excuse invented in prequel times to account for how the prequels' fights are more energetic because modern screen fights are more energetic than old ones. And it's insulting to the old films, because it belittles the OT characters. Trust Lucas to do down the OT. God, does he REALLY want us to go through the OT thinking, "God, that Darth Vader is such a lame fighter, he couldn't hold his own against Salacious Crumb"?

Mielr said:

I'm totally willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept that the back of his head was more injured than his face. I mean, the skin on his face didn't really look like a burn victim's either & he has lips, right?! Don't most people with severe facial burns loose their lips? Maybe in the next EXTRA-extra-special-edition they should digitally remove his lips!

;-)

Oh god, what if Lucas sees that post, he'll do it. ;) Or replace Sebastian Shaw with Jar Jar.

skyjedi2005 said:

The prequels failed mostly in execution of ideas and not the ideas themselves.

I think some of the ideas are pretty wonky too. But when I speak of the mentality being wrong, I'm talking about a lot more than ideas. Like sticking in cartoon characters like Boss Nass and Jar Jar into Star Wars -that's a very different mentality than the original films, it's a different way of looking at his imagined reality. There were silly things in the OT but nothing that looked like it was out of a disney movie. Sticking that stuff in the films is seeing his imagined reality as being less real and believing in it less. As soon as you see these Disney rejects in the Phantom Menace you know you're in a different universe from the old films.

Lucas said going in when he started work in 1994 on the phantom menace that they would be tonally different than the original trilogy.  Darker than the middle act, at the time he was still considering making 7-9.   The middle act of course being IV-VI.  IV-VI followed heroes and a basic heroes journey as outlined by Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a thousand faces.

See, tonally different I have no problem with. You can have something tonally different and still be in the same general mentality. But Lucas shifted us to an alternate reality in the prequels, a reality in which Disney refugees ran riot, the Jedi were jerks, Yoda was a pompous ass and Darth Vader was never a personality of substance. A universe in which important battles happen without feeling and everything is imagined in a pale washed-out spirit to match the pale washed-out light it's filmed in. It's a whole different version of the Star Wars universe and when examined in full, all elements and areas studied, it demonstrates itself to have a drastically different mentality from the old films. And a pompous self-congratulatory mentality in which we're constantly SHOVED towards seeing particular moments and things as SIGNIFICANT and Cool in way that just didn't happen in the old films. Most significantly, there's a shallowness and insincerity to the emotions in the films, and often just a plain lack of feeling. This is an alternate Star Wars universe that often is just plain not alive. You know, we're told how the Sith embrace passion, so feeling is associated with bad, well, to me it looks like the films have a mentality of seeing feeling as bad and thus embracing numbness. Let's avoid feeling in these films, because feeling might turn the audience to the dark side. Let's have good clean Jedi-ishly bland films. There was such a sympathetic human spirit to the old films. Yes the prequels were supposed to be darker, but that doesn't mean they should abandon the humanity that was an essential part of Star Wars.

And getting Anakin portrayed that way by Hayden Christensen, seriously -that's a revisionist view of Anakin. Hayden played Anakin as shallow and lacking depth of humanity or substance of personality. Contrast with Sebastian Shaw's dignified sympathetic performance. In the old films you got the feeling Anakin was once a worthwhile guy and had substance of personality. Hayden played him as being without that. And Darth Vader was certainly no wimp, but Hayden played Anakin as a wimp.

Lucas fans and critics are almost impossible to please and are more willing than ever to tear him to shreds.

All too many fans and critics are all too easy to please. You get all these fans who accept everything Lucas does no matter what awful stuff he does to Star Wars, like a dog that likes being kicked. And the critics, a good dose of them, thought ROTS was ok despite it being, realistically speaking, one of the worst films of all time.

Lucas not doing his little films but producing More star wars tales with Clone wars and the live action tv show. 

Yeah, does the torture never end? It's like not only has he trampled Star Wars into the earth, now he has to crap all over it too.

Was there a possibility of bringing in some professionals who were fans of the oot to direct and write episodes II and III and make them better films, yes.  But there is also the possibility they would be worse than what Lucas delivered.

I don't know if it's humanly possible to do worse than ROTS.

Lucas failed at connecting Anakin to his audience.

Once he got Hayden to do THOSE performances, the character was screwed. How could you connect with a character like THAT?

We know what happened with the original trilogy when Lucas wanted to rush things, was a drop in quality between the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

See this is where I disagree. I love ROTJ. Overall it may be a more faulted film than ESB, but it has stuff in it that's brilliant. I don't think there's a big drop in quality.

The making of the films more kiddie and mainstream was a sellout. 

I think it was more than just sellout. I think it was a whole shift in mindset.

Johnboy3434 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Better off to just leave out all the newer stuff. They're not real parts of Star Wars, they're just the spinoff crap tacked on later on. The only stuff worth showing one's kids is the OOT. If they want to discover the other stuff when they're older that's their business. Certainly they should see the OOT before anything else, because that's what was made first. Coming at Star Wars in any other order is unnatural.

 

 

And who are you to say they're not "real" (whatever that means)? GL says they're part of the story, so they're part of the story. Really, you can hate them all you want, but to say they're not "real" Star Wars because you don't like them is incredibly ignorant. You don't get to dictate what is and is not Star Wars. 

Who am I to say they're not real? Somebody who's put a lot of thought into the matter and thus has as much right to say so as anybody else. So what if GL says they're part of the story. Since he screwed up Star Wars so badly what he says no longer counts. He's demonstrated that he no longer understands Star Wars, so I'm certainly not going to rely on his judgement on what's real Star Wars.

No it's not "incredibly ignorant" to say they're not real Star Wars. It's perfectly reasonable. The OOT is what defines Star Wars and by that standard the prequels just aren't the real thing. My view is based on an understanding of the original films and of how the prequels are at odds with them, not ignorance.  Nor do I just casually declare them not real Star Wars, I've put a lot of thought into what's real Star Wars and whether the prequels can be counted in that category.

Maybe you take offense at my challenging the word of the great Lucas, but Lucas is not God, he can be wrong, and with Star Wars he generally is these days. Plenty fans nowadays understand Star Wars better than Lucas. And no I don't get to dictate what is and is Star Wars, the OOT standard dictates that, I just follow it. Nor is this a matter of me just disliking the prequels. I like The Phantom Menace well enough, but I recognize how it doesn't fit with the old films.

People are entitled to judge a franchise or fiction by its own pre-established standards and when something is made that doesn't adhere to the unspoken rules of the franchise they are entitled to count it out, because it follows different rules and thus does not belong with the original material.

The prequels place themselves outside the core body of Star Wars. They are not real Star Wars because they do not have the mentality of Star Wars as established by the old films. They are not of the same material. They are something different, and inferior. Very definitely they are inferior spinoff material rather than the real thing.

It's a pity Lucas didn't make them in the years immediately following the release of the OT, because if he had maybe they would have been made in the mentality of Star Wars and would have been carried along on that same creative wave that led to the first films, making them quality. But by the time Lucas got around to making the prequels he'd moved beyond the mentality of Star Wars (as demonstrated drastically by the ill-fitting changes he made in the Special(ly Lame) Editions). 

RRS-1980 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

The Jedi were made such annoying idiots in the prequels that I liked seeing those guys go down.

:D I guess I'm not alone, then.

:) I suspect there's more of us out there too.

negative1 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

adywan said:

rcb said:

the whole hayden thing, i'm sure adywan, when he gets to it of course, could redo the Sebastian Shaw anikan head in when luke takes off the helment and replace it with haydens.

i think this already may have been attempted.

Oh god, no. Hayden will never appear in my OT edits

 

I'm still trying to fathom how he appeared in George's. Sticking in Hayden was far worse than sticking in Jar Jar.

 

 

why is it any worse?

anybody that saw the prequels first will 'get it'..

and people that saw the originals will ignore it..

doesn't bother me..

later

-1

Why is it worse? Because Hayden's performances were the worst thing about the prequels, and that's really saying something. Plus it's destroying a great crucial Sebastian Shaw moment. Plus it's an insult to Shaw.

People who saw the originals will want to see Sebastian Shaw in that moment and if they can't they won't just ignore it.

And people shouldn't have to see the prequels first to get it. The prequels are irrelevant to the great Star Wars saga. They don't belong. You shouldn't have to see them to understand anything in the old films. The old films worked fine without the prequels before Lucas got to messing with them.

And showing old Anakin shows that old Anakin was redeemed. Showing young Anakin implies that it wasn't the old guy who was redeemed. Not to mention how essential it is for people who haven't seen the prequels and don't now Hayden Skywalker (nobody should have to see the prequels).

Johnboy3434 said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

He caused the rift in SW fandom, didn't he?

 

This is the non-SW fan in me talking here, so don't get too upset: If the fans weren't so insane, there wouldn't have been a rift to begin with. Numerous other films have had major changes made to them years after the fact without their fanbases going ballistic. Most of the people who don't like it simply say "Well, that was unnecessary" and leave it at that. They'd even buy the new versions and deal with the additions (i.e. not start some [honestly] insignificant boycott).

It's thoroughly reasonable for fans to get pissed off when a beloved classic is senselessly messed with in ways that totally don't fit.

C3PX said:

even though you had crazy low expectations for this film after seeing AOTC, the movie still managed to suck a lot harder that you though it would

That was precisely my experience. I was seriously disappointed by AOTC and I expected something on that level for ROTS and what I got was way worse. I couldn't believe how bad ROTS was. The first time I saw ROTS I had trouble staying awake because it was so uninvolving.

And the Yoda saberfight in AOTC was amazingly lame, reminded me of Kermit the frog dueling in Muppet's Treasure Island, not sure why. I felt embarressed to be watching the movie when Yoda started jumping around like a loon.

Yeah, Yoda flying around with his lightsabre buzzing was the lamest thing ever. He was like some overgrown bee or fly. So painful. And I bet Lucas thought it was so cool. And then there was the Yoda/Emperor battle in ROTS, which made them both look so lame. You keep getting these really lame scenes that you're supposed to think are really cool -a defining trait of the prequels is trying to pass off extreme lameness as extreme coolness.

And I nearly started laughing when Obi-Wan and Anakin where hovering over the lava riding on the backs of droids.

All the jumping and balancing  and swinging and climbing around, it was really implausible they didn't fall in or get cooked (and I wanted them to). When Anakin finally did get burnt up it was seriously anticlimactic. And Anakin ranting at Kenobi was so lame. And Kenobi "You were the Chosen One!" Good lord Obi, you bought that hype? The lava scene was almost comically overdone and totally uninvolving and it was supposed to be so SIGNIFICANT. The music in particular really layed it on thick.

Oh, but Palpatine's big fight with the three stooges, two of them going down in the first two seconds, gets the award for the worst saber duel of all time, and the acting in that scene managed to make it even more unbearable that it already was.

The Jedi were made such annoying idiots in the prequels that I liked seeing those guys go down. And did they have to make the alien appearance of some of the Jedi look so dumb? Kit Fisto being so silly-looking made me enjoy his death more. Of the ones on the council, wtf is that on Ki Adi Mundi's head? The council are idiots anyway. Great, Lucas, bring us back to the great age of the Jedi to see what posers they were. I know the Republic was supposed to be declining, but seriously. Order 66 was a distinct relief. And considering it was supposed to be tragic, that's a distinct failure of filmmaking.

rcb said:

i disagree. i thought it was the best fight out of all the movies. obi-wan and anikan was my second favorite. empire third. anyways, the fight was that intense though because the jedi were abundent and at full bloom and well trained. the battle thought really showed what a lightsaber battle was like.

The big lava fight with Obi Wan and Anakin was one of the lamest most awful scenes ever called Star Wars. Totally artificial, total bullshit and totally uninvolving. Totally overdone too.

adywan said:

rcb said:

the whole hayden thing, i'm sure adywan, when he gets to it of course, could redo the Sebastian Shaw anikan head in when luke takes off the helment and replace it with haydens.

i think this already may have been attempted.

Oh god, no. Hayden will never appear in my OT edits

 

I'm still trying to fathom how he appeared in George's. Sticking in Hayden was far worse than sticking in Jar Jar.

TheBoost said:

I'm expecting my first kid soon, and have given this a lot of thought.

We can start with Star Wars and the Clone Wars CGI cartoon (maybe Phatom Menace). They're the most kid friencly, and shows a heroic Anankin, which exactly matches what's said in Star Wars.

When she's a bit older we can watch Empire and Jedi. Once she (shockingly) learns the truth about Vader, we can go back and watch Clones and Sith.

Better off to just leave out all the newer stuff. They're not real parts of Star Wars, they're just the spinoff crap tacked on later on. The only stuff worth showing one's kids is the OOT. If they want to discover the other stuff when they're older that's their business. Certainly they should see the OOT before anything else, because that's what was made first. Coming at Star Wars in any other order is unnatural.

LordVader said:

Mielr said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Lame fights?!  Oooooooooooooooooooh.

Yeah, them's fightin' words......

 

 Don't get me wrong, when I saw my first lightsaber duel between old Ben and Vader I was in awe, now lets compare that to the choreographed masterpiece between Ray Park, Ewan McGregor, and Liam Neeson, truth be told fightwise there is no comparison, but its understandable Obi Wan is old and Darth Vader is well past his prime, that's not to say I don't enjoy the old fights, especially Adywan's remix of it.

The Phantom Menace fight was overdone and pompous. The OOT fights weren't lame in the slightest.

Gaffer Tape said:

 Later on, as a bit of self-referential humor, George compiled all of his notes in a binder that he jokingly called The Journal of the Whills.

How much later on? And what was in those notes?

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

As for the Sith, logically if there's only 2 Sith and many Jedi and the Jedi are sitting pretty as the guardians of the republic and the Sith have to work in secret, then the imbalance is that the Jedi are too powerful. But I don't think that's what George meant by imbalance. 

The Dark Side itself is the imbalance. Jedi and Sith aren't two equally valid viewpoints. The Dark Side is intrinsically bad. The imbalance was that the Sith existed and had been growing in power and influence for 1000 years.

If that's Lucas's intention that's dumb. The traditional view of balance (re good and evil) in fiction is that good and evil are both part of the natural order and both have a place. To talk about balance in the films while favoring a view of only-the-good-side-is-allowed is idiotic. If he wants to knock out the dark side entirely he shouldn't put in talk about balance. Balance is when you balance between opposing things, not when you have only one thing and eradicate the other. George, if you're not interested in balance don't talk about balance.

And there's identifying passion with the dark side. Passion is what makes us human. It's an essential part of life and human nature. To identify passion with the dark side while portraying the Jedi ideal as basically not feeling is pretty awful. That's a message that feeling is evil and that we shouldn't feel. Horrible message.

So balance is when the side that's associated with feeling is gotten rid of? That's a bent message.

TheBoost said:

Tiptup said:

TheBoost said:

Do you turn on "Cops" and see some wife-beater and say "Love leads to wifebeating, what a screwed up message."

Cops doesn't have a clear authority figure like Yoda telling kids that loving attachment is bad. If George had Yoda teach that because he wanted to show that the Jedi were corrupt, then that's okay, but it confuses his moral message to have the top good guy saying something like that.

Yoda never said that Anakin needed to stop loving anyone. He said he needed to be willing to let go. Attachment, possesion, these things are forbidden.

You don't have love without being attached to people. Saying Anakin shouldn't have attachment is saying he shouldn't love. And Yoda basically tells him not to care if Padme dies, which he couldn't do if he loved her. So Yoda is telling him not to love.

Anakin doesn't go bad for love. He doesn't even go bad to save Padme's life in any clear way (it's not like a special medicine is being kept from him in the Jedi Temple). He goes bad in order to achieve power to alter the natural order of things because he's unwilling to let go of his attachments. His hubris is what leads to his evil actions.

Anakin turns to the dark side because he thinks the dark side has the secret to saving Padme. So yeah he does go bad for love.

Yoda was right. Anakin needed to be willing to let go. Yoda is so right that Anakin is even the one who caused her to die. Yoda was right when he told Luke not to go to Cloud City, but Luke did it because he was afraid to lose the people he loved.

Yoda wanted Anakin to not give a damn whether Padme died or not. I hardly think that's right. As much as Yoda is shown to be right by the story that's because the story is trying to push the same message Yoda is. The story is set up to agree with Yoda.

On the Death Star in ROTJ, Luke also wanted to protect the people he loved, but he was unwilling to give into hate and anger in order to achieve the power to do it. It was Luke's compassion and surrender of power that lead to Vader's redemption.

In ROTJ Luke refused to kill his father, out of love, and that led to Vader's redmption and the emperor's death. That's a pro-love message and as such is at odds with ROTS which has an anti-love message. This is just one of many examples of how the two trilogies are at odds with each other.

Love wasn't the problem. Luke loved and he was okay. It was Anakin's fear and obsessive attachment that lead to a need for power and control.

Luke was in a different trilogy that had a different attitude. And I don't see anything unreasonable in wanting to prevent the death of somebody you love and it's that that led Anakin to the dark side.

Anakin's fear of Padme dying was reasonable and natural and a product of love. His wish to have a way to stop that death was likewise. Yoda basically wanted him to stop caring, which was damn cold.

rcb said:

after lucas is dead, they better not do anything to knock the SW universe out of wack!

 The SW universe is already totally out of whack.

Gaffer Tape said:

You really need to pick up The Secret History of Star Wars.  None of that seems to mesh with the actual history of the drafts that he wrote as far as I know.  One of his scripts had a few action sequences that ended up being scrapped and the ported over to the sequels (like asteroid chase and wookiee/ewok planet) but the stories themselves weren't there.

I'll be getting that book too. That bit about the scripts not having much extra stuff is mentioned on wikipedia. But with a 400-hundred page script how did he manage to have only the story of the first film, the asteroid thing and the wookie thing? In four hundred pages you'd think he'd have more material than that.

That notebook question is a big question, though, because it's a claim to have had the basic story of the prequels and the OT on paper back in the 70s.

Gaffer Tape said:

Well, Timothy Zahn first came up with the name Coruscant for Heir to the Empire.  Lucas just liked it enough to use it in the prequels.  In earlier drafts for Jedi, the Imperial capital was referred to as Had Abaddon.

As for The Journal of the Whills, it was a literary device used in early drafts to make it sound like Star Wars was a small story told from a huge history of the galaxy.  It was eventually superceded by the "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away..." opening.  However, fans picked up on the name (most likely from its mention in the novelization of Star Wars where the forward is said to come from The Journal of the Whills) and imagined it to be an actual chronicle of Star Wars stories that George Lucas had written.  Later on, as a bit of self-referential humor, George compiled all of his notes in a binder that he jokingly called The Journal of the Whills.

In the 1997 book The Annotated Screenplays (page 120), Lucas is quoted as saying that when he was writing the first movie, around the time of the third or fourth draft, he wrote a treatment or book of notes which had the basic story of the scripts for all the films, including the prequels. I'd like to know how much truth there is to that claim and what really was in that notebook. 

jukeboxjoey said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Hold on, Luke becoming a Jedi meant he couldn't "get the girl"? So Lucas had the celibacy thing as a definite back then?

 No. That's why caligulathegod correctly said "eventual storyline". There were plot elements that we find in the prequels that were there from the beginning.

And the celibacy thing wasn't one of those elements he had way back? Because if being a Jedi went with not having the romance you might think that meant he had the celibacy thing back then. And if I remember rightly, in the 3 years of Marvel comics after ROTJ they never got Luke together with anybody, which makes me wonder if after ROTJ they were told not to get Luke involved.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Also, can anybody tell me the gist of what the book reveals about the contents of the Journal of the Whills? Basically how do Lucas's claims of having the prequels story in the journal hold up against what the book says?

jukeboxjoey said:

Lucas's claim holds up fairly well. You can see how in flux the story was, right up to the premier of the movie. Story lines were changed for both literary and budgetary reasons. It's really neat to see the development and how so many things could have gone a different way. As for telling you the gist of the Journal of the Whills, it was a living document! "Always on the move"!

By saying Lucas's claim holds up well are you saying that it looks like Lucas had the prequel story worked out back then? Because that's what I meant. How much of the prequels story does it look like he had back then?

Vaderisnothayden said:

(Just to make sure I'm getting things right here, the journal Lucas was suposed to have had the story of everything including the prequels in since way back, written during the writing of the first film = The Journal of the Whills?)

jukeboxjoey said:

 No, he did not have the story of everything. He had elements of the story that came in and out during the development of those stories. But yes, some things did exist in his mind that didn't come out until the prequels. Midichlorians, Coruscant, a bunch of names used in the prequels... don't want to give too much away. Buy the book. It's great for someone who has questions like yours. :-)

I am buying the book. Not sure where I'm going to fit it though. I hate it when books are made bulky.

ricarleite said:Well, uh... Luke COULD have made a bet with Jabba and piloted a pod racer to get Han back!

 Thank god there were no podraces in the OT! lol

C3PX said:

The only Anakin Luke ever met was the Sebastian Shaw Anakin, how would Luke even recongnize Hayden as his father's ghost? It just doesn't make any sense to make this change. It is just a lousy attempt to tie the two trilogies together, and to make it stand that the series is really the Tradgedy of Anakin Skywalker.

It's sort of an attempt to make it impossible to see the OT without seeing the PT, because if you've only seen the OT you wouldn't have a clue who Hayden was. It does shove the whole Tragedy of Anakin bull down our throats.

LordVader said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

I actually have the prequels on dvd. Even though I think Clones and Revenge are two of the crappiest films ever made. I periodically feel the need to study them to dissect their awfulness, to figure out how they manage to be quite so bad. They're just so awful they have to be studied.

I don't care I liked ROTS, Attack of the Clones is not that bad, 6 out of 10 just on the account of seeing the jedi in battle. I most certainly think that you need to just stop watching them because your negativity is just bumming me out. I'm just a glass half full kinda guy, especially when it comes to star wars. Now Alien vs. Predator is a whole nother story.....

 

The Jedi in battle in Clones is one of the worst things about the film. It was done so lamely and it was so uninvolving. Really bad filmmaking. I'm sorry my "negativity" is bumming you out, but if a person can't be against the prequels on this site of all sites where can it be done? There really is no call to be "glass half full" about Star wars, not with all the damage that has been done. There are serious problems that need to be addressed.

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Vader and Fett and the Mandalores were supposed to hunt down and kill all the jedi.  Lucas ruined the mandalorian backstory.  He also removed the cloned jedi subplot.

 

Fett and the Mandalorians helping to hunt down and kill the Jedi: Where did that bit of story appear?

Cloned Jedi subplot? Where was that? Do you mean the Cbaoth guy? 

skyjedi2005 said:

It all simply happened because the force wanted balance because there were too many jedi in the galaxy and only 2 sith.

I'm not sure that's exactly the imbalance the force wanted to right, meaning I don't know if the force was concerned there were too few Sith to Jedi. Because Anakin's task is repeatedly referred to as balancing the force and destroying the Sith. Despite the EU continuing the Sith post-ROTJ, he's supposed to wipe out the Sith for good, as far as I can tell. So somehow leaving us with one Jedi and more to come and no Sith equals balancing the force. Which I don't get. But basically it sounds like the force figured lots of Jedi and two Sith was too many Sith for balance's sake. Lucas Logic, TM.

first of all fett wasn't hired to killed jedi. he was hired because he was paid to clone himself as well as an unaltered clone, bobba, so his blood line would continue. he was never determined to lead an army to kill jedi, unless he was paid for it.

 

and the sith deal, its supposed to be only two, thats how it was in the ancient times. one to harness the power and one to consume it. besides, if the remaining sith can last for a millenia then and work a plot to kill all the jedi, the force should be out of balance.

 

With Fett we're not talking about in the films.

As for the Sith, logically if there's only 2 Sith and many Jedi and the Jedi are sitting pretty as the guardians of the republic and the Sith have to work in secret, then the imbalance is that the Jedi are too powerful. But I don't think that's what George meant by imbalance.