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?