What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion. — Page 28

RangerofAquilae said:

Sure, Vader was a bad guy in the OT. I mean, obviously! But there are important moral differences at play. Not every bad act is morally equivalent. For example, being part of, and supporting, a genocidal regime is not necessarily the same as committing genocide oneself. (Just as aiding and abetting a violent crime can be distinguished from the violent crime itself.) Sure it’s bad, but not as bad. When it comes to the destruction of Alderaan, Tarkin was the far worse actor.

I agree with twoyennan though and I wish we got a more earnestly heroic Anakin in the PT. We only kind of get a facade of that in Episode 3. If Anakin and Luke’s stories are meant to complement one another, having Anakin become a mass murderer in Episode 2 feels like a total misstep.

SparkySywer said:

I agree with twoyennan though and I wish we got a more earnestly heroic Anakin in the PT. We only kind of get a facade of that in Episode 3. If Anakin and Luke’s stories are meant to complement one another, having Anakin become a mass murderer in Episode 2 feels like a total misstep.

Cool pic!

And also: I agree with you and twoyennan.

RangerofAquilae said:

For example, being part of, and supporting, a genocidal regime is not necessarily the same as committing genocide oneself. (Just as aiding and abetting a violent crime can be distinguished from the violent crime itself.) Sure it’s bad, but not as bad. When it comes to the destruction of Alderaan, Tarkin was the far worse actor.

In the Original Trilogy, Obi-Wan tells us that Vader helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. In other words, he didn’t just support the Jedi purge, he actively participated in it and killed an unspecified number of Jedi. So the fact that he participated in a genocide is something that was already established by the Original Trilogy, from the very first movie no less.

Spartacus01 said:

RangerofAquilae said:

For example, being part of, and supporting, a genocidal regime is not necessarily the same as committing genocide oneself. (Just as aiding and abetting a violent crime can be distinguished from the violent crime itself.) Sure it’s bad, but not as bad. When it comes to the destruction of Alderaan, Tarkin was the far worse actor.

In the Original Trilogy, Obi-Wan tells us that Vader helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. In other words, he didn’t just support the Jedi purge, he actively participated in it and killed an unspecified number of Jedi. So the fact that he participated in a genocide is something that was already established by the Original Trilogy, from the very first movie no less.

I conceded this point, after a fashion, in an exchange with Dagenspear above:

RangerofAquilae said:

Dagenspear said:
It was specifically said he’d helped the empire to hunt down and destroy the Jedi. Did you think he had no hand in the genocide at all?

My mention of genocide was in reference to the destruction of Alderaan, which you mentioned in your post. I didn’t have the extermination of the Jedi in mind, but I can see how one could think of it in that way.

But even so: hunting down and killing extremely dangerous combatants who are well trained, armed, and capable of fighting back is much less despicable than destroying an entire civilian population (as in the case of the destruction of Alderaan) or murdering defenseless young children.

At least to my moral sensibilities (as someone who’s read Anscombe). YMMV!

RangerofAquilae said:

Spartacus01 said:

RangerofAquilae said:

For example, being part of, and supporting, a genocidal regime is not necessarily the same as committing genocide oneself. (Just as aiding and abetting a violent crime can be distinguished from the violent crime itself.) Sure it’s bad, but not as bad. When it comes to the destruction of Alderaan, Tarkin was the far worse actor.

In the Original Trilogy, Obi-Wan tells us that Vader helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. In other words, he didn’t just support the Jedi purge, he actively participated in it and killed an unspecified number of Jedi. So the fact that he participated in a genocide is something that was already established by the Original Trilogy, from the very first movie no less.

I conceded this point, after a fashion, in an exchange with Dagenspear above:

RangerofAquilae said:

Dagenspear said:
It was specifically said he’d helped the empire to hunt down and destroy the Jedi. Did you think he had no hand in the genocide at all?

My mention of genocide was in reference to the destruction of Alderaan, which you mentioned in your post. I didn’t have the extermination of the Jedi in mind, but I can see how one could think of it in that way.

But even so: hunting down and killing extremely dangerous combatants who are well trained, armed, and capable of fighting back is much less despicable than destroying an entire civilian population (as in the case of the destruction of Alderaan) or murdering defenseless young children.

At least to my moral sensibilities (as someone who’s read Anscombe). YMMV!

Sorry, I missed that part.

In any case, I don’t agree with your take. Personally, I think the Anakin we got in the Prequels works pretty well. I would only tone down some of his reactions in Attack of the Clones, so they don’t come across as quite so over the top. But aside from that, I’m fine with the Anakin we have now.

That being said, I respect your opinion, and I’m glad you managed to write a rewrite of the Prequels you’re happy with. That way, if you don’t like the Prequels as they are, you can always treat your rewrite as your own headcanon.

Yes, the original idea was Anakin was a secret Sith assassin loyal to Palpatine killing Jedi. The OT hints at a slow seduction to evil. And a quick and easy path.

Was Anakin on the knifes edge, a risktaker and rulebreaker. A Man of zeal. Who wanted to fight in the wars. A great Starpilot and cunning warrior. We get none of that in the prequel.

Somehow or another he agrees with The Emperor politically we don’t get that either, or the slow poisoning of his mind and desire for power. No, it’s choose the dark side to save Padme.

Some of the politics is there in material deleted from the film like Anakin telling Padme to not be involved in those opposing the Chancellor. Padme still being involved in the beginnings of the rebellion. The petition of the 2000?

Why does he early become a confidante and strong right arm for Palpatine. Even before he is Vader. He stops Windu from ending Sidious. He takes a seat on the council and is not granted the rank of Master.

I think better writing would make the pieces fit together.

I honestly think ROTS has the ingredients to be good. Just not in the more silly over the top cgi ways. There is room for good drama and dialogue if someone capable was doing it.

Being a Jedi Master but not a Master on the Council is a Clone Wars problem, which I won’t revisit.

Spartacus01 said:

RangerofAquilae said:

Spartacus01 said:

RangerofAquilae said:

For example, being part of, and supporting, a genocidal regime is not necessarily the same as committing genocide oneself. (Just as aiding and abetting a violent crime can be distinguished from the violent crime itself.) Sure it’s bad, but not as bad. When it comes to the destruction of Alderaan, Tarkin was the far worse actor.

In the Original Trilogy, Obi-Wan tells us that Vader helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. In other words, he didn’t just support the Jedi purge, he actively participated in it and killed an unspecified number of Jedi. So the fact that he participated in a genocide is something that was already established by the Original Trilogy, from the very first movie no less.

I conceded this point, after a fashion, in an exchange with Dagenspear above:

RangerofAquilae said:

Dagenspear said:
It was specifically said he’d helped the empire to hunt down and destroy the Jedi. Did you think he had no hand in the genocide at all?

My mention of genocide was in reference to the destruction of Alderaan, which you mentioned in your post. I didn’t have the extermination of the Jedi in mind, but I can see how one could think of it in that way.

But even so: hunting down and killing extremely dangerous combatants who are well trained, armed, and capable of fighting back is much less despicable than destroying an entire civilian population (as in the case of the destruction of Alderaan) or murdering defenseless young children.

At least to my moral sensibilities (as someone who’s read Anscombe). YMMV!

Sorry, I missed that part.

In any case, I don’t agree with your take. Personally, I think the Anakin we got in the Prequels works pretty well. I would only tone down some of his reactions in Attack of the Clones, so they don’t come across as quite so over the top. But aside from that, I’m fine with the Anakin we have now.

That being said, I respect your opinion, and I’m glad you managed to write a rewrite of the Prequels you’re happy with. That way, if you don’t like the Prequels as they are, you can always treat your rewrite as your own headcanon.

And I can respect that, Spartacus01! Different strokes for different folks, but at the end of the day, we are all brothers and sisters in the Force.

Just one last clarification: I do have my own headcanon, but I think the re-write you’re referring to belongs to twoyennan. I don’t want to take credit for his hard work!

I’ve been following everyone’s discussion with great interest.

Of course, the Jedi hunt that Obi-Wan describes in the OT, with Vader hunting down and destroying the Jedi, must have happened. But in ROTJ, Obi-Wan also explicitly says that Anakin was a “good man.”

To me, that is where the real question lies: how did a fundamentally good man, someone who had once been Obi-Wan’s close friend, become a person capable of doing something so completely opposed to what he once stood for, the extermination of the Jedi? That tragic process is what I wanted the Prequels to focus on. His fall should have been something that could conceivably have happened to Luke as well, or even something that, in a less extreme form, could happen in our own lives.

And the Vader we see in ROTJ does not seem content with what he has become. Deep down, he knows that he took the wrong path. But he believes it is already too late. In his mind, he crossed the point of no return long ago.

That was the impression I had of Vader back when the Prequels did not yet exist. So I decided to try putting that interpretation into an actual story and see if I could make it work.

But, as Obi-Wan himself would say, this is only “a certain point of view.” I’m sure we all understand that, and I certainly don’t mean it as a rejection of other interpretations.

I also feel like there was an idea than Ben tried to turn him back to the light, and they fought a furious battle over a pit of lava. We get the pit of Lava. Obi-Wan doesn’t really try to convince Anakin. Other than my allegiance is to the republic to democracy. At that point of ROTS it’s obvious Anakin has turned into Darth Vader and is lost. He believes the JEDI are evil.

His wife might have been able to reach him if his heart wasn’t closed to her. He was so convinced in his mind she was going to die he made his choice.

Somehow Luke is able to reach him, to reach the Anakin within Vader. By being a mirror and example to him of what a Jedi is.

Ben in the ROTJ novel acts as if his pride and hubris was in his mind responsible for Anakin’s fall.

That was written when Yoda was Obi-Wan’s Jedi master in the backstories and Qui-Gon didn’t exist.

I honestly think Episode III shows Anakin is beyond redemption showing what he does to Jedi Younglings. He didn’t lose his cool like with the Sandpeople/Tusken Raiders, or angry like with Dooku. it was premeditated. And Anakin is a serial killer by the point of the mustafar duel. He had murdered Tusken women and children, slaughtered like they were animals. He had murdered Dooku. He had murdered the separatists who pleaded for mercy, and the trade federation leaders. He was going to murder Padme until Obi-Wan made him let her go. And then on the death star he watches as millions are snuffed out, in the original film. Who knows how many die offscreen. Billions? He belongs in Jedi hell, not heaven. Except Lukes gift of forgiveness and mercy to him. That somehow regenerates Anakin Skywalker. in his final act out of love, he sacrifices himself to save Luke. the son who he tried to corrupt to evil, and cut off his hand.

Luke followed Obi-Wan on a damn fool idealistic crusade, to save Leia and later confront Vader in TESB. Because he thought his father was a hero, and a Jedi. Not Vader the person he wanted to kill for slaying his master. He had revenge in mind when he went to cloud city. he thought he was saving his friends. He wasn’t equipped with the essential knowledge Vader was his father. Vader revealed it and gloated. Kenobi was a liar. A certain point of view.

Lukes friend’s and a newcomer save him. Artoo fixes the Falcon.

I said this a while back but I think the saga simply does not deliver when it comes addressing the disparity between the noble father/friend described in Star Wars '77 and Vader’s claim/revelation in Empire. The ‘certain point of view’ is lame, and the prequels fail to build a narrative that makes genuine sense of it all.

I maintain that Anakin should have been a true slave (not a suburban ‘yippee, hanging out and racing go-carts’ ordinary kid) with an underlying desire for some kind of revenge for his plight. This would account for him being a great guy and a ‘good friend’ etc but he would still have had a chip on his shoulder that would logically manifest as something the Jedi could never condone. I also think the Jedi (and by extension Obi Wan) should have cheated him of his vengeance in some way, which would account for his resenting the Jedi and making an ideological shift, especially with the presence of Palpatine urging him on.

I also think Obi Wan’s ‘certain point of view’ in RoTJ should have instead been “I made a promise to your mother that I would never reveal the truth”. This would be fleshed out in the prequels as something of a sacred vow, which would make Obi Wan less of a liar and also account for why Obi Wan and Yoda didn’t tell Luke the truth before he left for Bespin.

Shopping Maul said:

I said this a while back but I think the saga simply does not deliver when it comes addressing the disparity between the noble father/friend described in Star Wars '77 and Vader’s claim/revelation in Empire. The ‘certain point of view’ is lame, and the prequels fail to build a narrative that makes genuine sense of it all.

I maintain that Anakin should have been a true slave (not a suburban ‘yippee, hanging out and racing go-carts’ ordinary kid) with an underlying desire for some kind of revenge for his plight. This would account for him being a great guy and a ‘good friend’ etc but he would still have had a chip on his shoulder that would logically manifest as something the Jedi could never condone. I also think the Jedi (and by extension Obi Wan) should have cheated him of his vengeance in some way, which would account for his resenting the Jedi and making an ideological shift, especially with the presence of Palpatine urging him on.

I also think Obi Wan’s ‘certain point of view’ in RoTJ should have instead been “I made a promise to your mother that I would never reveal the truth”. This would be fleshed out in the prequels as something of a sacred vow, which would make Obi Wan less of a liar and also account for why Obi Wan and Yoda didn’t tell Luke the truth before he left for Bespin.

I think that makes him too sad boi-ish to me, too “oh it’s not his fault he had such a hard life, look how much he suffered”. Nah, to me. I prefer that while Anakin had a tragic circumstances in aspects, he wasn’t an endless tragedy character and his frustration with the Jedi was more self involved and not grand scale. Nor do I think that really says that much about how Vader turned away from the dark side. Luke doesn’t change Vader’s mind by convincing him that fascism is an unsustainable structure of government, there’s no ideological debate there really in the merits of imperial rule.

I also think giving Obi’s reason to never reveal it as a promise is trying too hard to shade away the ambiguity of his choice. “No, look, he had to lie, he made a promise, he’s still a completely great guy with no specific flaws!” Stuff like this is one of the reasons I’m not into what they did in the Kenobi show with that where Anakin just goes, “You didn’t kill Anakin, I did,” and Obi just kinda shrugs and goes along with it with a “whatever you say”. I seems to me to make it look like somehow Yoda’s line in ROTS, “The boy you trained gone he is, consumed by Darth Vader,” wasn’t overt enough in seeding an idea for Obi’s view on Anakin.

JadedSkywalker said:

I also feel like there was an idea than Ben tried to turn him back to the light, and they fought a furious battle over a pit of lava. We get the pit of Lava. Obi-Wan doesn’t really try to convince Anakin. Other than my allegiance is to the republic to democracy. At that point of ROTS it’s obvious Anakin has turned into Darth Vader and is lost. He believes the JEDI are evil.

In that conversation where Anakin says that the Jedi are evil, Obi is still trying to convince him. He’s still trying to hold back. But when Anakin jumps and Obi cuts his arm and legs off, I think by that point Obi has basically stopped trying.

twoyennan said:

I’ve been following everyone’s discussion with great interest.

Of course, the Jedi hunt that Obi-Wan describes in the OT, with Vader hunting down and destroying the Jedi, must have happened. But in ROTJ, Obi-Wan also explicitly says that Anakin was a “good man.”

To me, that is where the real question lies: how did a fundamentally good man, someone who had once been Obi-Wan’s close friend, become a person capable of doing something so completely opposed to what he once stood for, the extermination of the Jedi? That tragic process is what I wanted the Prequels to focus on. His fall should have been something that could conceivably have happened to Luke as well, or even something that, in a less extreme form, could happen in our own lives.

Which isn’t contradicted by the prequels. Anakin, as Obi knew him was a man who rescued him, risked his life for him, wanted to assist their own soldiers and put his life on the line for the republic.

And the Vader we see in ROTJ does not seem content with what he has become. Deep down, he knows that he took the wrong path. But he believes it is already too late. In his mind, he crossed the point of no return long ago.

That was the impression I had of Vader back when the Prequels did not yet exist. So I decided to try putting that interpretation into an actual story and see if I could make it work.

But doesn’t Vader have total self loathing and regret by the end of the PT? I think he does when he’s yelling out no about having killed his wife he thinks.

JadedSkywalker said:

Was Anakin on the knifes edge, a risktaker and rulebreaker. A Man of zeal. Who wanted to fight in the wars. A great Starpilot and cunning warrior. We get none of that in the prequel.

How is that not in the movies?

Somehow or another he agrees with The Emperor politically we don’t get that either, or the slow poisoning of his mind and desire for power. No, it’s choose the dark side to save Padme.

Somehow? I think he explains his view of things to Padme in the people should be made to agree and in ROTS in the less deliberating and more action.

Why does he early become a confidante and strong right arm for Palpatine. Even before he is Vader. He stops Windu from ending Sidious. He takes a seat on the council and is not granted the rank of Master.

Why? I think he has an attachment to Palpatine and what he promises.

Why though. What makes him trust Sidious. Just that the Jedi won’t let him into the vaults of the archives and secrets about the Sith?

Sidious could be lying about the secret to immortality and to preserve life.

Sith do lie for their own ends.

The Jedi also lie if you follow the life of Obi-Wan Ben Kenobi. His case is different, had he told Luke the truth. Would Luke have helped him on a mission to rescue the princess? Joined the rebellion?

The part that makes no sense is not telling him Leia was his sister, that’s on Lucas for making it up in the Throne room duel to solve an issue. Why lure Luke off Tatooine with Leia’s message because Luke is infatuated with her. Clearly a case of a boyhood crush. One that makes him accept the call to adventure, only after Owen and Beru are slain.

I also think giving Obi’s reason to never reveal it as a promise is trying too hard to shade away the ambiguity of his choice. “No, look, he had to lie, he made a promise, he’s still a completely great guy with no specific flaws!” Stuff like this is one of the reasons I’m not into what they did in the Kenobi show with that where Anakin just goes, “You didn’t kill Anakin, I did,” and Obi just kinda shrugs and goes along with it with a “whatever you say”. I seems to me to make it look like somehow Yoda’s line in ROTS, “The boy you trained gone he is, consumed by Darth Vader,” wasn’t overt enough in seeding an idea for Obi’s view on Anakin.

Yes, but Yoda’s “consumed by Vader” line is just an attempt to square the round hole established by the OT. It still doesn’t justify “he betrayed and murdered your father”. Obi Wan simply wouldn’t say that. He would say something like “the Jedi were all destroyed by the Empire - your father along with them” or something similar, leaving room for the full truth somewhere down the line. And it still doesn’t account for Obi Wan and Yoda allowing Luke to fly off to Bespin where, obviously, Vader is going to reveal the truth.

With the ‘promise to Padme’ scenario, you could still have the ‘certain point of view’ intact, but it would also account for the extent of Obi Wan’s lie in 1977, as well as accounting for the Bespin situation.

Shopping Maul said:

Yes, but Yoda’s “consumed by Vader” line is just an attempt to square the round hole established by the OT. It still doesn’t justify “he betrayed and murdered your father”. Obi Wan simply wouldn’t say that. He would say something like “the Jedi were all destroyed by the Empire - your father along with them” or something similar, leaving room for the full truth somewhere down the line. And it still doesn’t account for Obi Wan and Yoda allowing Luke to fly off to Bespin where, obviously, Vader is going to reveal the truth.

As opposed to “he promised Padme”?

Your issue here may be with ROTJ I think, the movie that threw around the perceived handwavey line. ROTS is more taking what was given in that movie I think and just laying out the view of it. I think you seem, to me, maybe, to want ROTS to fix ROTJ’s handwave. How does your pitch fix that idea of how Obi would never say that Vader killed Anakin? How does him promising Padme fix that?

With the ‘promise to Padme’ scenario, you could still have the ‘certain point of view’ intact, but it would also account for the extent of Obi Wan’s lie in 1977, as well as accounting for the Bespin situation.

How does it do that? “Oh I know I told you that Vader killed your dad, but I promised your mom that I wouldn’t tell you your dad is evil so I told you instead that Vader killed your dad”. Where does that thought process come from? Why would he do that? Again, I think your complaint may more be with another movie that, to me, you seem to want the PT to fix, TESB where Obi and Yoda would naturally know who Vader is I think yet they both never tell Luke, even as he’s going off to face him, and when confronted with this in ROTJ, Yoda says it was unexpected, if I remember correctly, that Vader told him. ROTS is going with what the OT said in this case I think. Obi never mentions Luke’s mom or that he made a promise. He goes entirely with the certain point of view thing. ROTS goes with that I think.

JadedSkywalker said:

Why though. What makes him trust Sidious. Just that the Jedi won’t let him into the vaults of the archives and secrets about the Sith?

Palpatine has been constantly assuaging his ego and placed himself in a mentor and friendly figure for Anakin since childhood, I think.

Sidious could be lying about the secret to immortality and to preserve life.

Sith do lie for their own ends.

“Could”, as if that changes anything for Anakin. I think, either he does nothing and he’s faced with the loss happening, or he does something to stop it, in his mind.

The part that makes no sense is not telling him Leia was his sister, that’s on Lucas for making it up in the Throne room duel to solve an issue. Why lure Luke off Tatooine with Leia’s message because Luke is infatuated with her. Clearly a case of a boyhood crush. One that makes him accept the call to adventure, only after Owen and Beru are slain.

I suppose that’s an issue.

Dagenspear said:

Shopping Maul said:

Yes, but Yoda’s “consumed by Vader” line is just an attempt to square the round hole established by the OT. It still doesn’t justify “he betrayed and murdered your father”. Obi Wan simply wouldn’t say that. He would say something like “the Jedi were all destroyed by the Empire - your father along with them” or something similar, leaving room for the full truth somewhere down the line. And it still doesn’t account for Obi Wan and Yoda allowing Luke to fly off to Bespin where, obviously, Vader is going to reveal the truth.

As opposed to “he promised Padme”?

Your issue here may be with ROTJ I think, the movie that threw around the perceived handwavey line. ROTS is more taking what was given in that movie I think and just laying out the view of it. I think you seem, to me, maybe, to want ROTS to fix ROTJ’s handwave. How does your pitch fix that idea of how Obi would never say that Vader killed Anakin? How does him promising Padme fix that?

With the ‘promise to Padme’ scenario, you could still have the ‘certain point of view’ intact, but it would also account for the extent of Obi Wan’s lie in 1977, as well as accounting for the Bespin situation.

How does it do that? “Oh I know I told you that Vader killed your dad, but I promised your mom that I wouldn’t tell you your dad is evil so I told you instead that Vader killed your dad”. Where does that thought process come from? Why would he do that? Again, I think your complaint may more be with another movie that, to me, you seem to want the PT to fix, TESB where Obi and Yoda would naturally know who Vader is I think yet they both never tell Luke, even as he’s going off to face him, and when confronted with this in ROTJ, Yoda says it was unexpected, if I remember correctly, that Vader told him. ROTS is going with what the OT said in this case I think. Obi never mentions Luke’s mom or that he made a promise. He goes entirely with the certain point of view thing. ROTS goes with that I think.

You’re absolutely right - after making my point about prequel Anakin being ‘Conan’, I was referencing the ‘certain point of view’ in RoTJ. So yeah, I am technically off-topic in that regard.

That said, I still think the ‘promise to Padme’ thing would be an improvement with RoTJ as is.

In RoTJ Obi Wan says “I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi”. We now know that Qui Gon made him promise to do so, but Obi Wan keeps that detail to himself and doesn’t whine about this additional fact - taking the responsibility himself. Which is noble. Similarly, had he vowed to Padme that he would not tell the truth to the kids, his vague explanation in RoTJ would come across the same way. He’d be taking all the responsibility in the context of that conversation, but we would all know that it was much more complicated. There would be a dramatic scene in RoTS where Padme expresses that Anakin is dead, Vader is a separate entity as far as she’s concerned, and that she wants Obi Wan to never tell her kids the awful truth. Obi Wan would express that he agrees with her perspective, Anakin is indeed ‘dead’, and vows to honour her wishes regarding the children.

Again, this makes his lie in '77 much more plausible. He’s expressing his ‘certain point of view’ but with the added weight of his vow to Padme. And again, this also justifies his being tight-lipped about the truth when Luke jets off for Bespin. By that stage he would arguably be inclined to spill the beans right? But his vow remains.

I just think this would make all the ‘point of view’ stuff - which very few folks find convincing - much more plausible and indeed rather poignant.

Shopping Maul said:

You’re absolutely right - after making my point about prequel Anakin being ‘Conan’, I was referencing the ‘certain point of view’ in RoTJ. So yeah, I am technically off-topic in that regard.

That said, I still think the ‘promise to Padme’ thing would be an improvement with RoTJ as is.

In RoTJ Obi Wan says “I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi”. We now know that Qui Gon made him promise to do so, but Obi Wan keeps that detail to himself and doesn’t whine about this additional fact - taking the responsibility himself. Which is noble. Similarly, had he vowed to Padme that he would not tell the truth to the kids, his vague explanation in RoTJ would come across the same way. He’d be taking all the responsibility in the context of that conversation, but we would all know that it was much more complicated. There would be a dramatic scene in RoTS where Padme expresses that Anakin is dead, Vader is a separate entity as far as she’s concerned, and that she wants Obi Wan to never tell her kids the awful truth. Obi Wan would express that he agrees with her perspective, Anakin is indeed ‘dead’, and vows to honour her wishes regarding the children.

Again, this makes his lie in '77 much more plausible. He’s expressing his ‘certain point of view’ but with the added weight of his vow to Padme. And again, this also justifies his being tight-lipped about the truth when Luke jets off for Bespin. By that stage he would arguably be inclined to spill the beans right? But his vow remains.

I just think this would make all the ‘point of view’ stuff - which very few folks find convincing - much more plausible and indeed rather poignant.

But again, I think that’s closer to expecting ROTS to fix what the OT established.

Again, I don’t see too much of a difference here. Not only do I think that doesn’t connect to Luke, as Padme’s pursuit of the idea that Anakin is still capable of changing back I think is reflected in Luke more personally (Padme and Luke to me have an engaging, yet tragic, comparison in ways), to me, in ROTJ, but also I’m not sure I buy that someone like her may view it in those terms of someone being dead because they turned evil, and I don’t think it makes it more honoring of her or sensible that Obi chooses instead to tell Luke that Vader killed his dad. If anything, I think that kinda makes it look, to me, like he’s kinda twisting Padme’s dying wish to get what he wants. I don’t think that makes him look better and kinda leaves his twisting of Padme’s wish just untouched.

Dagenspear said:

Shopping Maul said:

You’re absolutely right - after making my point about prequel Anakin being ‘Conan’, I was referencing the ‘certain point of view’ in RoTJ. So yeah, I am technically off-topic in that regard.

That said, I still think the ‘promise to Padme’ thing would be an improvement with RoTJ as is.

In RoTJ Obi Wan says “I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi”. We now know that Qui Gon made him promise to do so, but Obi Wan keeps that detail to himself and doesn’t whine about this additional fact - taking the responsibility himself. Which is noble. Similarly, had he vowed to Padme that he would not tell the truth to the kids, his vague explanation in RoTJ would come across the same way. He’d be taking all the responsibility in the context of that conversation, but we would all know that it was much more complicated. There would be a dramatic scene in RoTS where Padme expresses that Anakin is dead, Vader is a separate entity as far as she’s concerned, and that she wants Obi Wan to never tell her kids the awful truth. Obi Wan would express that he agrees with her perspective, Anakin is indeed ‘dead’, and vows to honour her wishes regarding the children.

Again, this makes his lie in '77 much more plausible. He’s expressing his ‘certain point of view’ but with the added weight of his vow to Padme. And again, this also justifies his being tight-lipped about the truth when Luke jets off for Bespin. By that stage he would arguably be inclined to spill the beans right? But his vow remains.

I just think this would make all the ‘point of view’ stuff - which very few folks find convincing - much more plausible and indeed rather poignant.

But again, I think that’s closer to expecting ROTS to fix what the OT established.

Again, I don’t see too much of a difference here. Not only do I think that doesn’t connect to Luke, as Padme’s pursuit of the idea that Anakin is still capable of changing back I think is reflected in Luke more personally (Padme and Luke to me have an engaging, yet tragic, comparison in ways), to me, in ROTJ, but also I’m not sure I buy that someone like her may view it in those terms of someone being dead because they turned evil, and I don’t think it makes it more honoring of her or sensible that Obi chooses instead to tell Luke that Vader killed his dad. If anything, I think that kinda makes it look, to me, like he’s kinda twisting Padme’s dying wish to get what he wants. I don’t think that makes him look better and kinda leaves his twisting of Padme’s wish just untouched.

You’re right in the sense that I think the prequels should have ‘fixed’ the flaws in RoTJ. For those who feel that RoTJ is great, then I guess the prequels are fine just reiterating the points made by RoTJ in more detail.

For me RoTJ makes some pretty outrageous claims and, even worse, betrays the obvious fact that Lucas was making this thing up on the fly. Granted, this is because George thought it would be epic to have Vader claim to be Luke’s father, as well as float the notion that Luke had a rival in the hero-stakes. All well and good but he had absolutely no follow-up in mind when he dropped these bombs. So what we got was “uh, well, from a certain point of view” and “surprise! Leia’s your sister” - both claims being entirely incongruent with the previous films and even blatantly contradicting them (not to mention the claim that the twins were ‘hidden’ in the most ridiculous way).

So yes, to return to crux of the thread, I did want the prequels to explain why Obi Wan felt compelled to lie so blatantly to Luke. The actual truth would have been less traumatic - “your Uncle, to his credit, did not want you to know this but your father became an Imperial agent. I’m sorry Luke”. Done! Luke says “no, I can’t believe that!” and Obi says “come with me to Alderaan, the royal family will explain it all to you”. How is “he was betrayed and murdered” - a blatant lie - more helpful than what I just outlined? Of course this is all because Vader was just a bad dude who killed the Jedi and was never Luke’s dad in the first place.

I wanted the prequels to explain why Luke still had his father’s surname while he was ‘hidden’ on the family farm. Or why Yoda thought Leia was next in line for the hero-job when he’d just whined about Luke being too old for training. All of this could have been resolved easily. Owen Lars could have been stubborn in his refusal to hide from Vader and insisted on Luke keeping the family name out of reverence for his former brother (hence a vigilant Obi Wan residing nearby). The Jedi could have been depicted as a boys’ club that refused to train women, with Yoda being the lone progressive voice of dissent - hence Leia coming up as a late option in TESB. And yes, Obi Wan could have been bound by a shared vow with Luke’s mother to push the ‘murdered by Vader’ narrative for the benefit of the kids.

I’m not saying these are the greatest ideas on earth by any stretch. I just personally wish the writing had striven for consistency rather than floating all these vague notions that we, as the audience, have to then twist and turn in our minds to make them cohere.

Well Lucas sequel was supposed to show why Leia was so important. She is the Chancellor who restored the Republic and its Democratic government. But we didn’t get that in Disney, she is just a general of the new rebellion called the resistance for some stupid reason, while the Empire is called the First order because Disney wanted to do requels. With the Jedi VS Sith dichotomy/schism and rebels vs Empire again, instead of progressing the story and doing actual world building.

Han Solo backslides and becomes a failed smuggler, Luke becomes a fallen Jedi who has lost his faith. Leia tries to hold the rebellion together all on her own practically. Its just really bad.

Would Lucas sequels have had further retcons? We know of the insipid Darth Maul as the new emperor and big bad. The dumb idea of Darth Talon in the wrong timeline. And the Lucas lip service to Leia being the real chosen one.

Lukes story wasn’t at all sketched out for my liking. The idea he is colonel Kurtz character, why?

I do like the idea that Luke wasn’t 100% a failure at restoring the Jedi to the galaxy.

The prequels have all the elements of a tragedy, but fumble on some key details and dovetailing with the originals in a sincere way. Far too much headcanon is necessary, or a lot has to be explained by Kenobi being a liar or a bad narrator.

One needs outside the films lore or commentary from Lucas for it to make sense.

The way the Jedi are portrayed in the prequel is one of the worst aspects. And the way people have interpreted it as the Jedi stealing children, weird and political. Leads to things like the Acolyte. When it’s probably just people misinterpreting Buddhism. I don’t like the idea of Jedi as celibate ascetic monks because it doesn’t fit the originals or EU. But the Jedi were portrayed as being right. Anakin breaks his oath and bond and is never in the right. The Jedi are goodness and light, the Sith are evil. It’s not up to interpretation. They aren’t the good guys.

Though a part of the prequels problem, is trying to make Anakin an antihero. Making the Jedi seem like corrupt bureaucrats, shades of grey. When it should be black and white good and evil, like the OT. It’s all in the eye of the viewer, they are filling in the blanks, because Lucas did a hackneyed job of things. People start say was Anakin right, were the Jedi evil. They asked him to do bad things. to break the code. And we never get Anakin as the hero of virtue, who succumbs to the slow seduction of greed, desire for power. Someone you’d admire. Would think heck yeah that’s Luke’s father. At best we get the I’ll stop people from dying speech to Anakin’s moms grave. His greed at wanting to hold onto Padme which leads to her death. Lucas handles this pretty black and white. Anakin is a fault for not letting go. Yoda says to let her pass into the force, the shadow of greed, wanting to hold onto and miss someone.

And if you reiterate Yoda’s speech in phantom menace. fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. The fear of losing his mom, Anakin did fear. which he dreamed about, then happened. He also dreams of losing Padme. That is his greed. That furnace of his heart creates Darth Vader. So determined to prevent her death he makes it happen, he sets in motion.

You could have had a moment where he leads troops to victory in battle, is an amazing starpilot. Show him of a man of great deeds. The zeal he shows in leading the war effort in the Clone Wars is why Vader is fearsome and terrible. He is methodical. Maybe even have Kenobi and him have different philosophies on how to win the war. Anakin comes up close to the knifes edge of the dark side. Kenobi is a by the book, scriptural Jedi. Anakin’s loyalty is to Palpatine and The New Empire. An Empire forged to keep a confederacy of worlds in a galactic republic under control, because several start to secede. The Empire is the Republic rotted and corrupted. The politicians self dealing. The great war hero and general Skywalker, becomes the right Hand of the Emperor. The Dark Lord of the Sith.

JadedSkywalker said:

The prequels have all the elements of a tragedy, but fumble on some key details and dovetailing with the originals in a sincere way. Far too much headcanon is necessary, or a lot has to be explained by Kenobi being a liar or a bad narrator.

Which was established by the OT, in regards to Obi being an unreliable narrator at best I think. This isn’t a defense of that writing choice in totality. If you’ve read the The Phantom Menace rewrite I posted on here, you’d see that that outline shows Owen’s connection to Anakin to build out a dynamic.

One needs outside the films lore or commentary from Lucas for it to make sense.

The only thing I think is required for much like that is Leia remembering Padme and the Owen thing. What else is there that need outside film lore or commentary from Lucas?

The way the Jedi are portrayed in the prequel is one of the worst aspects. And the way people have interpreted it as the Jedi stealing children, weird and political. Leads to things like the Acolyte. When it’s probably just people misinterpreting Buddhism. I don’t like the idea of Jedi as celibate ascetic monks because it doesn’t fit the originals or EU. But the Jedi were portrayed as being right. Anakin breaks his oath and bond and is never in the right.

I think nothing in the PT ever said the Jedi are celibate and nothing in the OT ever depicted the Jedi as not being celibate.

Though a part of the prequels problem, is trying to make Anakin an antihero. Making the Jedi seem like corrupt bureaucrats, shades of grey. When it should be black and white good and evil, like the OT. It’s all in the eye of the viewer, they are filling in the blanks, because Lucas did a hackneyed job of things. People start say was Anakin right, were the Jedi evil. They asked him to do bad things. to break the code. And we never get Anakin as the hero of virtue, who succumbs to the slow seduction of greed, desire for power. Someone you’d admire. Would think heck yeah that’s Luke’s father. At best we get the I’ll stop people from dying speech to Anakin’s moms grave. His greed at wanting to hold onto Padme which leads to her death. Lucas handles this pretty black and white. Anakin is a fault for not letting go. Yoda says to let her pass into the force, the shadow of greed, wanting to hold onto and miss someone.

I don’t see how the PT ever treats Anakin as an anti-hero in anyway. And I don’t think the Jedi are ever depicted as dabbling in corruption personally. We only see Mace try to murder Palpatine. Are you seriously referring to the Jedi getting Anakin to spy on Palpatine? Is that the corruption you’re speaking on? Please.

How does anyone taking this as the Jedi being evil make this the fault of the movies, when none of these things happen like this I think?

I think none of the OT ever said Anakin was seduced by greed or that Anakin was a hero of virtue, so I don’t know why you may have expected that really. But desire for power is shown at a very young age, in his want to become a Jedi and free the slaves, I think. It’s not power for power’s sake though, yes. But also, if it was, that has nothing to do with how Luke is lured into the dark side, nor does it have anything to do with why Vader turns away from the dark side, so why would just power for it’s sake be the whole of why Vader turned? And to say it’s only in AOTC I think is being fairly untethered to the narrative of the movies. It’s quite literally what he’s seeking throughout ROTS, the power over death, control over it I think. Anakin engagement with control and the idea of power is also depicted in his political notions, of people being made to agree and the idea of gaining more power leading to less deliberating and more action. Anakin’s investment in power is in several parts of his character I think. Do you think Anakin should talk about wanting power at these points?

Yoda says that attachment leads to jealousy, Yoda saying it’s the shadow of greed. Not that missing someone is.

You could have had a moment where he leads troops to victory in battle, is an amazing starpilot. Show him of a man of great deeds. The zeal he shows in leading the war effort in the Clone Wars is why Vader is fearsome and terrible. He is methodical. Maybe even have Kenobi and him have different philosophies on how to win the war. Anakin comes up close to the knifes edge of the dark side. Kenobi is a by the book, scriptural Jedi. Anakin’s loyalty is to Palpatine and The New Empire. An Empire forged to keep a confederacy of worlds in a galactic republic under control, because several start to secede. The Empire is the Republic rotted and corrupted. The politicians self dealing. The great war hero and general Skywalker, becomes the right Hand of the Emperor. The Dark Lord of the Sith.

I think all of this is in TPM and AOTC and ROTS.

Shopping Maul said:

You’re right in the sense that I think the prequels should have ‘fixed’ the flaws in RoTJ. For those who feel that RoTJ is great, then I guess the prequels are fine just reiterating the points made by RoTJ in more detail.

For me RoTJ makes some pretty outrageous claims and, even worse, betrays the obvious fact that Lucas was making this thing up on the fly. Granted, this is because George thought it would be epic to have Vader claim to be Luke’s father, as well as float the notion that Luke had a rival in the hero-stakes. All well and good but he had absolutely no follow-up in mind when he dropped these bombs. So what we got was “uh, well, from a certain point of view” and “surprise! Leia’s your sister” - both claims being entirely incongruent with the previous films and even blatantly contradicting them (not to mention the claim that the twins were ‘hidden’ in the most ridiculous way).

So yes, to return to crux of the thread, I did want the prequels to explain why Obi Wan felt compelled to lie so blatantly to Luke. The actual truth would have been less traumatic - “your Uncle, to his credit, did not want you to know this but your father became an Imperial agent. I’m sorry Luke”. Done! Luke says “no, I can’t believe that!” and Obi says “come with me to Alderaan, the royal family will explain it all to you”. How is “he was betrayed and murdered” - a blatant lie - more helpful than what I just outlined? Of course this is all because Vader was just a bad dude who killed the Jedi and was never Luke’s dad in the first place.

But why is this the fault of the PT that I think it kept in alignment with what the OT had said on these things?

I wanted the prequels to explain why Luke still had his father’s surname while he was ‘hidden’ on the family farm. Or why Yoda thought Leia was next in line for the hero-job when he’d just whined about Luke being too old for training. All of this could have been resolved easily. Owen Lars could have been stubborn in his refusal to hide from Vader and insisted on Luke keeping the family name out of reverence for his former brother (hence a vigilant Obi Wan residing nearby). The Jedi could have been depicted as a boys’ club that refused to train women, with Yoda being the lone progressive voice of dissent - hence Leia coming up as a late option in TESB. And yes, Obi Wan could have been bound by a shared vow with Luke’s mother to push the ‘murdered by Vader’ narrative for the benefit of the kids.

Luke never uses the name Skywalker on tatooine in A New Hope as far as I think we see, that I remember, only ever referring to himself as Luke Skywalker when he’s on the death star rescuing Leia, after he’s met and connected with Obi, whose told him things about his dad.

In regards to things the PT actually explains: First of all, the idea that Owen would be too stubborn to hide from Vader I think runs entirely counter to his main character trait in the ANH, which is not wanting Luke involved in Obi-Wan’s situation. But also, Owen’s moisture farm is developed in the PT as having very nearly no connection to Anakin at all, so it’s no family farm of his.

As for Leia, I think the movie already has Yoda as willing to train Luke, so if he’s willing to for him, why not Leia? Leia isn’t a first option, I think by the mechanics of the story. Obi died before getting to her, he never had a chance to train her in any way. Where is the real contradiction in Yoda’s suggestion if they think Luke may be on the path of destruction? Why does making them a boys club make them better written here?

I’m not saying these are the greatest ideas on earth by any stretch. I just personally wish the writing had striven for consistency rather than floating all these vague notions that we, as the audience, have to then twist and turn in our minds to make them cohere.

Why is this a criticism of the PT?

‘When I first encountered your father,’ Ben con-
tinued, ‘he was already a great pilot. But what amazed
me was how strongly the Force was with him. I took it
upon myself to train Anakin in the ways of the Jedi. My
mistake was thinking I could be as good a teacher as
Yoda. I was not. Such was my foolish pride. The
Emperor sensed Anakin’s power, and he lured him to
the dark side.’ He paused sadly and looked directly into
Luke’s eyes, as if he were asking for the boy’s forgive-
ness. ‘My pride had terrible consequences for the gal-
axy.’

ROTJ Novelization.

Then they also talk about the quick and easy path in TESB movie. Vader took the quick and easy path and became an agent of evil. Described as easier, quicker more seductive. Luke says how will I know the good side from the bad. Yoda suggests calm reflection, and be at peace, passive. The force must be used only for knowledge and defense, never for attack. Once you start down the dark path consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

He was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force, Ben’s words in ROTJ. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true from a certain point of view.

In Episode IV Obi Wan says:

“Yes. I was once a Jedi knight, the same as your father. I understand that you’ve become quite a good pilot yourself. He was the best star pilot in the galaxy, and a cunning warrior. I understand that you’ve become quite a good pilot yourself. And he was a good friend.

Luke asks how did my father die.

And Obi Wan says. A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father. Now the Jedi are all but extinct. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force.

All 3 OT films talk about Vader’s seduction. where is it in the prequel? other than in the midichlorian scene in the opera house about plagueis. Is it possible to learn this power. Not from a Jedi. His impatience is more than implied in Episode II Obi Wan’s, jealous he is holding me back. I promise you I’ll learn to stop people from dying, someday i’ll be the most powerful Jedi ever. Well, he was arguably the most lethal and powerful Sith Lord, I’ll give him that, JEDI hardly. He lost on Mustafar, he never won a single duel against Ben Kenobi. Not even on the Death Star. Kenobi let him cut him down. He beat Luke in TESB, because Luke was a neophyte, and not even a Padawan. He loses to him in ROTJ, because he was seduced by the light, according to the Disney trilogy and Kylo Ren.

I thought he’d be like a superhero who turns evil. Someone just, someone moral. The prequel doesn’t show that.

I had this great mythology in my head for years based on what Ben said. The JEDI were the guardians of peace and justice in the old republic for a thousand generations. and the Clone Wars was going to be this galaxy defining moment. its not even onscreen. or only the start and the end. I never wanted or ever pictured Yoda with a lightsaber. Like at all.

The opening prologue of the Alan Dean Foster novel told me an amazing tale we didn’t receive.

ANOTHER GALAXY, ANOTHER TIME.

The Old Republic was the Republic of legend, greater than distance or time. No need to note where it was or whence it came, only to know that … it was the Republic.

Once, under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the Jedi Knights, the Republic throve and grew. But as often happens when wealth and power pass beyond the admirable and attain the awesome, then appear those evil ones who have greed to match.

So it was with the Republic at its height. Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand any external attack, the Republic rotted from within though the danger was not visible from outside.

Aided and abetted by restless, power-hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic.

Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace. Soon he was controlled by the very assistants and boot-lickers he had appointed to high office, and the cries of the people for justice did not reach his ears.

Having exterminated through treachery and deception the Jedi Knights, guardians of justice in the galaxy, the Imperial governors and bureaucrats prepared to institute a reign of terror among the disheartened worlds of the galaxy. Many used the Imperial forces and the name of the increasingly isolated Emperor to further their own personal ambitions.

But a small number of systems rebelled at these new outrages. Declaring themselves opposed to the New Order they began the great battle to restore the Old Republic.

From the beginning they were vastly outnumbered by the systems held in thrall by the Emperor. In those first dark days it seemed certain the bright flame of resistance would be extinguished before it could cast the light of new truth across a galaxy of oppressed and beaten peoples …

From the First Saga

Journal of the Whills

JadedSkywalker said:

‘When I first encountered your father,’ Ben con-
tinued, ‘he was already a great pilot. But what amazed
me was how strongly the Force was with him. I took it
upon myself to train Anakin in the ways of the Jedi. My
mistake was thinking I could be as good a teacher as
Yoda. I was not. Such was my foolish pride. The
Emperor sensed Anakin’s power, and he lured him to
the dark side.’ He paused sadly and looked directly into
Luke’s eyes, as if he were asking for the boy’s forgive-
ness. ‘My pride had terrible consequences for the gal-
axy.’

ROTJ Novelization.

Then they also talk about the quick and easy path in TESB movie. Vader took the quick and easy path and became an agent of evil. Described as easier, quicker more seductive. Luke says how will I know the good side from the bad. Yoda suggests calm reflection, and be at peace, passive. The force must be used only for knowledge and defense, never for attack. Once you start down the dark path consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

He was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force, Ben’s words in ROTJ. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true from a certain point of view.

In Episode IV Obi Wan says:

“Yes. I was once a Jedi knight, the same as your father. I understand that you’ve become quite a good pilot yourself. He was the best star pilot in the galaxy, and a cunning warrior. I understand that you’ve become quite a good pilot yourself. And he was a good friend.

Luke asks how did my father die.

And Obi Wan says. A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father. Now the Jedi are all but extinct. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force.

All 3 OT films talk about Vader’s seduction. where is it in the prequel? other than in the midichlorian scene in the opera house about plagueis. Is it possible to learn this power. Not from a Jedi. His impatience is more than implied in Episode II Obi Wan’s, jealous he is holding me back. I promise you I’ll learn to stop people from dying, someday i’ll be the most powerful Jedi ever. Well, he was arguably the most lethal and powerful Sith Lord, I’ll give him that, JEDI hardly. He lost on Mustafar, he never won a single duel against Ben Kenobi. Not even on the Death Star. Kenobi let him cut him down. He beat Luke in TESB, because Luke was a neophyte, and not even a Padawan. He loses to him in ROTJ, because he was seduced by the light, according to the Disney trilogy and Kylo Ren.

You in that post said he was seduced by greed, not power. You said “desire for power”, not seduction.

I think Anakin has an idea of pursuing power in more than one scene, for different reasons. His perception of becoming a Jedi and freeing the slaves I think is about using power to assist others. His perception of dictatorship I think is of someone having power over others to seek to the interest of the people. He rants about having the power to prevent loss of those he loves after his mom dies. At his mother’s funeral he speaks on not being strong enough to save her, which I think is connecting to the power angle. In ROTS, he’s seeking the power to prevent Padme’s death. He also finds Palpatine gaining more “emergency powers” to not be bad, but mean more action.

I don’t think this contradicts what I said.

I thought he’d be like a superhero who turns evil. Someone just, someone moral. The prequel doesn’t show that.

Why would he turn evil if he was like that entirely? To the point of being accepting of blowing up planets of non combatants and assisting in extinction of every member of the jedi? But also, in TPM he pursues assisting Qui-Gon, he wants to free slaves, in AOTC he thinks those in charge should do what’s in the best interest of the people, in ROTS he refuses to leave Obi behind, he wants to turn back and assist the clones. How is that not showing those things?

I had this great mythology in my head for years based on what Ben said. The JEDI were the guardians of peace and justice in the old republic for a thousand generations. and the Clone Wars was going to be this galaxy defining moment. its not even onscreen. or only the start and the end. I never wanted or ever pictured Yoda with a lightsaber. Like at all.

The clone wars is how Palpatine gains his emergency powers over AOTC and ROTS. How could it be more defining than that, especially considering it’s something that’s only ever talked about by three people in the OT, to my memory?

The opening prologue of the Alan Dean Foster novel told me an amazing tale we didn’t receive.

ANOTHER GALAXY, ANOTHER TIME.

The Old Republic was the Republic of legend, greater than distance or time. No need to note where it was or whence it came, only to know that … it was the Republic.

Once, under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the Jedi Knights, the Republic throve and grew. But as often happens when wealth and power pass beyond the admirable and attain the awesome, then appear those evil ones who have greed to match.

So it was with the Republic at its height. Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand any external attack, the Republic rotted from within though the danger was not visible from outside.

Aided and abetted by restless, power-hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic.

Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace. Soon he was controlled by the very assistants and boot-lickers he had appointed to high office, and the cries of the people for justice did not reach his ears.

Having exterminated through treachery and deception the Jedi Knights, guardians of justice in the galaxy, the Imperial governors and bureaucrats prepared to institute a reign of terror among the disheartened worlds of the galaxy. Many used the Imperial forces and the name of the increasingly isolated Emperor to further their own personal ambitions.

But a small number of systems rebelled at these new outrages. Declaring themselves opposed to the New Order they began the great battle to restore the Old Republic.

From the beginning they were vastly outnumbered by the systems held in thrall by the Emperor. In those first dark days it seemed certain the bright flame of resistance would be extinguished before it could cast the light of new truth across a galaxy of oppressed and beaten peoples …

From the First Saga

Journal of the Whills

How does this fit with the OT, as I think the Emperor is quite directly shown to not be controlled by any of his imperial governors?

How does the PT contradict the rest of that outline, that doesn’t refer to the parts that I think clearly even the OT contradicts about Palpatine and his role in the empire?

Dagenspear said:

Shopping Maul said:

You’re right in the sense that I think the prequels should have ‘fixed’ the flaws in RoTJ. For those who feel that RoTJ is great, then I guess the prequels are fine just reiterating the points made by RoTJ in more detail.

For me RoTJ makes some pretty outrageous claims and, even worse, betrays the obvious fact that Lucas was making this thing up on the fly. Granted, this is because George thought it would be epic to have Vader claim to be Luke’s father, as well as float the notion that Luke had a rival in the hero-stakes. All well and good but he had absolutely no follow-up in mind when he dropped these bombs. So what we got was “uh, well, from a certain point of view” and “surprise! Leia’s your sister” - both claims being entirely incongruent with the previous films and even blatantly contradicting them (not to mention the claim that the twins were ‘hidden’ in the most ridiculous way).

So yes, to return to crux of the thread, I did want the prequels to explain why Obi Wan felt compelled to lie so blatantly to Luke. The actual truth would have been less traumatic - “your Uncle, to his credit, did not want you to know this but your father became an Imperial agent. I’m sorry Luke”. Done! Luke says “no, I can’t believe that!” and Obi says “come with me to Alderaan, the royal family will explain it all to you”. How is “he was betrayed and murdered” - a blatant lie - more helpful than what I just outlined? Of course this is all because Vader was just a bad dude who killed the Jedi and was never Luke’s dad in the first place.

But why is this the fault of the PT that I think it kept in alignment with what the OT had said on these things?

Because, to my mind, the PT was (or should have been) an opportunity to make the clunky story decisions in the OT actually have dramatic weight and an added sense of logic. When Obi Wan says “what I told you was true, from a certain point of view”, it still feels as ridiculous as it did in 1983.

I wanted the prequels to explain why Luke still had his father’s surname while he was ‘hidden’ on the family farm. Or why Yoda thought Leia was next in line for the hero-job when he’d just whined about Luke being too old for training. All of this could have been resolved easily. Owen Lars could have been stubborn in his refusal to hide from Vader and insisted on Luke keeping the family name out of reverence for his former brother (hence a vigilant Obi Wan residing nearby). The Jedi could have been depicted as a boys’ club that refused to train women, with Yoda being the lone progressive voice of dissent - hence Leia coming up as a late option in TESB. And yes, Obi Wan could have been bound by a shared vow with Luke’s mother to push the ‘murdered by Vader’ narrative for the benefit of the kids.

Luke never uses the name Skywalker on tatooine in A New Hope as far as I think we see, that I remember, only ever referring to himself as Luke Skywalker when he’s on the death star rescuing Leia, after he’s met and connected with Obi, whose told him things about his dad.

In regards to things the PT actually explains: First of all, the idea that Owen would be too stubborn to hide from Vader I think runs entirely counter to his main character trait in the ANH, which is not wanting Luke involved in Obi-Wan’s situation. But also, Owen’s moisture farm is developed in the PT as having very nearly no connection to Anakin at all, so it’s no family farm of his.

At the end of the day, the way the twins were supposedly ‘hidden’ does not make a lick of sense. You don’t hide the future ‘only hope for the galaxy’ at his uncle’s house (30 ft away from Grandma’s grave no less)! You don’t hide the other ‘only hope for the galaxy’ in the office next-door to The Emperor! It’s absurd. I can’t help with the Leia nonsense, but at least with Luke we have the potential for a complex emotional situation regarding Owen that could logically justify this less than ideal hiding place.

As for Leia, I think the movie already has Yoda as willing to train Luke, so if he’s willing to for him, why not Leia? Leia isn’t a first option, I think by the mechanics of the story. Obi died before getting to her, he never had a chance to train her in any way. Where is the real contradiction in Yoda’s suggestion if they think Luke may be on the path of destruction? Why does making them a boys club make them better written here?

You’re right, it doesn’t work. I’d forgotten that Obi Wan said both twins would automatically be a threat to the Emperor.

I’m not saying these are the greatest ideas on earth by any stretch. I just personally wish the writing had striven for consistency rather than floating all these vague notions that we, as the audience, have to then twist and turn in our minds to make them cohere.

Why is this a criticism of the PT?

Again, I believe the PT could (and should) have cleaned up the mess made by the OT and created a better, logical, dramatic story.

Shopping Maul said:

Because, to my mind, the PT was (or should have been) an opportunity to make the clunky story decisions in the OT actually have dramatic weight and an added sense of logic. When Obi Wan says “what I told you was true, from a certain point of view”, it still feels as ridiculous as it did in 1983.

But why should it be those movies job to do this? Instead of what you want it to do?

At the end of the day, the way the twins were supposedly ‘hidden’ does not make a lick of sense. You don’t hide the future ‘only hope for the galaxy’ at his uncle’s house (30 ft away from Grandma’s grave no less)! You don’t hide the other ‘only hope for the galaxy’ in the office next-door to The Emperor! It’s absurd. I can’t help with the Leia nonsense, but at least with Luke we have the potential for a complex emotional situation regarding Owen that could logically justify this less than ideal hiding place.

That was the OT as well that made that choice (without the grandma thing though).

How does it make sense for the character of Owen, what you said before? And how does your pitch explain why the Jedi would leave Luke with Owen? Or Obi telling Luke that Vader killed his dad?

But also… I don’t get this. The PT the most straightforward reasoning I think they could given the situation:

The Jedi are being hunted, and so keeping the kids with them wouldn’t assist them.

And keeping them apart I think ensures that even if one is found the other could be out there.

And I think putting them with people they think they can trust to look after the kid makes sense, so one goes to his family, the other to the only other trustworthy, to them, person they know who knows about who the kids are, and he chooses the girl because he’d wanted to adopt a girl.

And Obi left Anakin for dead, so the only person who would go there for any reason Obi I think has reason to think is dead by that point.

You’re right, it doesn’t work. I’d forgotten that Obi Wan said both twins would automatically be a threat to the Emperor.

Again, I believe the PT could (and should) have cleaned up the mess made by the OT and created a better, logical, dramatic story.

Why is this the PT’s job to fix the mess of the OT movies? Why criticize the PT movies for doing that? Especially considering people I think have also ragged on the PT for diverting too far from the OT? Do you criticize the OT movies for these things to this point?