Looks like the prequels are not aging well. — Page 5

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Octorox said:

Blackjack said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheDoctor1987 said:

I for one love the Prequel Trilogy for what it is and have no complaints with it well besides that dreaded character Jar Jar Binks lol. Its not the Original Trilogy nor was it intended to be the Original Trilogy but what it was suppost to be was the back story the story that every Star Wars fan wanted to see for years and it 1999 we got it with The Phantom Menace with the story of Anakin Skywalker. I think people should let this topic rest because the Prequels are great movies and people just need to let it have its legacy in the Star Wars Saga. 

 

The prequels are NOT the backstory that everybody waited to see. Before that original backstory became the prequels it went through significant changes and got a whole lot of stuff added that was invented probably in the 90s. For example, Anakin was supposed to be in his thirties or forties when he turned to the dark side, which would have made him a very different sort of character. He was probably originally an adult when he met Kenobi, so no little kid running around. There was no Jar Jar and no Qui Gon. Probably no Jango either I'd guess. Dooku wasn't invented, or Grievous or probably Maul. It would have been a different sort of story. A lot of things would have been done differently if the prequels had been made faithful to the backstory Lucas had when he made the OT. The prequels are not the old backstory, they are a revisionist take on that story, which changes the nature of it and makes it something very much at odds with the OT.

The "legacy" of the prequels is Star Wars being rubbed in shit and losing respect. That's their legacy. We don't need to accept that. The prequel trilogy is not a rightful part of the saga and deserves to be rejected. Great movies my ass.

exactly. I can only imagine how much better the original backstory would have been. the big one is that "Mrs. Skywalker" (since she probably was not named Padme at that point) survives anakin's turn, and Anakin didn't even know she was pregnent before he "left". Imagine the drama that could have come out of that.

and since Padme and Anakin would then be closer in age, their relationship would have been much easier to swallow because then Anakin more or less wouldn't be falling in love with his babysitter. (the romance would be handled better, too if anyone other than lucas were to do the writing)

 

 

I'm sorry but how do you guys know that this was the original OT backstory? Did you just assume it? I heard none of this in the OT. 

 

No I didn't just assume it. I picked up the info from various sources. See the Annotated Screnplays for Anakin's age, for example.

 

The screenplay is not the movie. Stuff gets written or even shot and not included all the time. There was likely a reason for not putting it in the movie.

That's hardly relevant. We're not talking about whether it's in the movie we're talking about whether it's in the original backstory. And the information I'm talking about certainly does demonstrate that it was part of how Lucas saw the Star Wars backstory back then.

It's pointless to demand that something be in the movies to be counted as part of the original backstory, seeing as the original backstory was mainly not made into movies back then. If we got Lucas's original notebooks that outlined the original backstory, would you count it as not part of the original backstory just because it wasn't in the movies?

If we want to find out what was in the original story we look for pieces of info that indicate what Lucas's vision of it was back at the time of the OT.  Of course that requires us to look at info that's not stuff in the movies. But just not being in the movies doesn't make it not real or not relevant or not indicative of what Lucas had in mind back in 1983.

Now, the fact is that Anakin was intended to be in his 60s at the end of ROTJ, which puts him at about his 40s when turned. This age was Lucas's intention in the film. And they fulfilled this by getting an actor who could pass for 60s but was in fact 77. He certainly wasn't meant to be 46, which is what the prequels story makes Anakin in ROTJ. Are you going to require that Luke say in ROTJ "Oh dad, you look 60s, I thought you were 46" before you believe it or consider it relevant? 

Much of the other stuff I said about the backstory is drawn from accounts that say various particular elements in the prequels were invented later, in the 90s or later. That information is not less relevant just because it wasn't spelled out in the movies. We don't need to have "I was invented for AOTC" written on the back of Dooku's cape in the movie for us to know that he was -all we need is accounts of the making of AOTC.

As regards Anakin's age, it may not have been SAID in the film, but it certainly did get into the film, because we have this old actor playing Anakin. Any attempt to claim that well Anakin was 46 but prematurely aged is just obvious retcon. If they wanted a 46 year old Anakin they would have gotten an actor of compatible age. Nobody can reasonably look at the 77 year old on the screen and think there isn't something a bit funny with the idea of him being just 23 all of 23 years before like the present offical story says he was. Anakin was intended to be an old man in ROTJ and they put that in the film by making him an old man on the screen. Which puts him in his 30s or 40s at the time of his turn to the dark side.

And re the last bit, Luke and Leia's "kind" (see ROTJ) mother wouldn't likely have been hanging around with Anakin long after he turned dark, so the conception of the children would have been before Anakin turned or not long after he turned. We're also told (in ROTJ) that the children were hidden from Anakin when they were born, indicating Anakin had turned dark by the time they were born. This all places Anakin's turn sometime around the time of Luke's birth. All of that is consistent with the prequels version of the story. Luke is meant to be about 18-20 in the first film and ROTJ is a few years later (and the present version of the story has him 19 in ANH and 23 in ROTJ). That puts Anakin's turn at about 23 or so years before ROTJ. Which makes him 30s or 40s when he turned.

Vaderisnothayden said:

As regards Anakin's age, it may not have been SAID in the film, but it certainly did get into the film, because we have this old actor playing Anakin. Any attempt to claim that well Anakin was 46 but prematurely aged is just obvious retcon. If they wanted a 46 year old Anakin they would have gotten an actor of compatible age. Nobody can reasonably look at the 77 year old on the screen and think there isn't something a bit funny with the idea of him being just 23 all of 23 years before like the present offical story says he was. Anakin was intended to be an old man in ROTJ and they put that in the film by making him an old man on the screen. Which puts him in his 30s or 40s at the time of his turn to the dark side.

And re the last bit, Luke and Leia's "kind" (see ROTJ) mother wouldn't likely have been hanging around with Anakin long after he turned dark, so the conception of the children would have been before Anakin turned or not long after he turned. We're also told (in ROTJ) that the children were hidden from Anakin when they were born, indicating Anakin had turned dark by the time they were born. This all places Anakin's turn sometime around the time of Luke's birth. All of that is consistent with the prequels version of the story. Luke is meant to be about 18-20 in the first film and ROTJ is a few years later (and the present version of the story has him 19 in ANH and 23 in ROTJ). That puts Anakin's turn at about 23 or so years before ROTJ. Which makes him 30s or 40s when he turned.

 All the points you make about Anakin's age I agree with whole heartedly. The plot to TPM could have been identical, and perhaps slightly less annoying, with an older Anakin. He might have been in his late 20s in AOTC and clearly into his 30s by ROTS.

I also REALLY REALLY hate that Padme died, because it kills the sympathy for Luke that Leia was raised by her momma as a princess, and he was raised in a crummy desert by his crusty 'Uncle.' It also totally ruins one of Leia's key emotional moments, when she remembers her mom. It seems to me she could have faked her death, and lived in hiding for the remainder of her short life.

But arguing that Greivous, Maul, or Dooku did or didn't exist seems less important. Lucas clearly doesn't concern himself too much with the secondary villains in his stories (he calls them 'sidekicks'). Whether they existed or not in some form ("Apprentice Sith Lord" or "Droid General" or whatever) might be interesting, but not, in my opinon, terribly relevant to whether something is 'The original vision.'

Obi Wan was supposed to be in his 70s in the OT.

Not without silly retcon. And it ony changed as part the invalid prequel revisionism.

Don't forget Palpatine.  Somewhere he went from being an old senator who just got incredibly old as the Emperor to an old senator who got fried by his own force lightning and then stopped aging in the time between episodes 3 and 6. 

I am not so much frustrated at all the weird crap that has been made up to fill in the errors as I am bugged that the fans are put in a position where it has to be done in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, a logical, convincing argument is fine for explaining a continuity error; I'd rather just not have the error at all.

Doesn't Palpatine look even older in AOTC than he does in ROTS? strange... like George didn't know where he was going with that. i'll have to check that again.

You can seriously imagine someone going from looking like Ewan McGregor to Sir Alec Guinness in the course of 19 years just because of some stress? It is great if you can, but to me that is a pretty massive stretch. Again, nothing personal.

Well, some people really age fast once past 60.

20 years are not nothing on a human body.

Let's say "EP3 Obi" is 40, but looks a bit younger, and "EP4 Obi" is 60, but looks older.

Of course I'm in a full Lucas apologist mode here.

There should be no need for Lucas apologism. If the pequels were done right there would be no need.

I think they still expect us to buy that Leia's memory of her mother was from when she was born and that when she said her mother died when she was young she meant at her birth. Wouldn't it have been simpler if Lucas had written the prequels with some respect for the story of the old films?

i always thought of a remarried padme, but was depressed because of anakin and died when leia was like two or three.