The Prequel Radical Redux Ideas Thread — Page 159

Bingowings said:

Further to the idea that Dooku is a rogue Jedi fighting a Sith run Republic, it might be a good idea to redub Grievous so he become almost an antiVader.

He worships Dooku as being the last true Jedi (defending the weak).

The Seperatists fight mostly with droids (keeping the organic civilians away from the battle).

He sees the use of clone armies as state sanctioned slavery and the Jedi council as corrupt puppets of a Sith regime they don't acknowledge existing.

He doesn't collect sabers just as trophies but also keeping them for a future time after the war when Dooku can train a new council of Jedi who will stamp out slavery and corruption.

When Dooku is killed, rather than mocking the Jedi he is outraged at them and is driven to avenge his death.

Turning Grievous into less of a pantomime villain and more of a reflection of the creature Anakin is soon to become.

You could almost turn him into a mouthpiece for every detractor's criticism for how the Jedi are portrayed in the PT.

The scenes where he receives messages from Sidious could then change to him trying to keep the Seperatist council together only to get a mocking message from the Sith Lord.

Blurring the line between hero and villain more.

so...like watchmen? It's an interesting idea.

This is a good idea. While I agree that it might be difficult to reconcile with a more aggressive trade federation, it might actually be worth it.

Timstuff said:

...having no music really makes the scene an audio showpiece which I really dig, because your attention is on the thunderous roar of the Pod engines, and it's not unprecidented to have a SW action scene with no music (the duels in A New Hope, and more successfully in Empire Strikes Back).

This.

Rogue Leader said:

I think this uber 70-minute Review details it's problems nicely:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/17/watch-this-70-minute-video-review-of-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/RedLetterMedias-70-minute-Phantom-Menace-Review/topic/11060/

Note that the thread eventually devolves into a big bag of silly (of which I am only partially responsible for).

Timstuff said:

That's actually a pretty cool idea, and would probably compliment the changes in Dooku's character well. I'm not sure how well it'd work with my own cut though, since I intend to portray the Niemodians as pro-slavery so as to make Episode I's plot more compelling. Still, a cool idea.

BTW, what do you guys think about adding music to the pod race in Episode I? I myself have mixed opinions about it. On the one hand, having no music really makes the scene an audio showpiece which I really dig, because your attention is on the thunderous roar of the Pod engines, and it's not unprecidented to have a SW action scene with no music (the duels in A New Hope, and more successfully in Empire Strikes Back). However, I really love Joel McNeely's Beggar's Canyon Chase theme, and I think the song compliments the pod race well (although like I said, it takes a bit of a focus off of the sound effects).

You could portray the Trade Federation as a necessary evil in the Separatist camp.

Nute Gunray could have gone to Dooku with the information that the Sith backed him in his attempt to invade Naboo and offer funding and materiel to their cause (partly to get revenge and offset his loses after being caught out).

Dooku may not like them or their policies but finds them a means to an end (getting rid of the Sith influence in the now corrupt Republic) proving himself just as much a hypocrite as he argues the Jedi council have become.

In AOTC he seems to treat Gunray with a degree of distaste (or is it just me reading too much into Christopher Lee's performance?).

That's interesting. Sounds like a much stronger plot in my opinion.

What's the end result though... Does the Federation obtain what they are looking for? How does the whole thing play out, and how can we make it all happen with the existing footage.

Oh, and I've been scarce lately, but welcome to the boards Ming! Look forward to getting to know you! =)

One thing I'm a bit worried about is that with all these re-imagining of the Republic and Confederation, is that the prequels could turn into a giant de-construction of the Star Wars concept. The original trilogy was a good versus evil story, where good wins. The prequels are a good versus evil story, where evil wins through deception. In some ways it was a deconstruction of the original, but ultimately the Jedi were still fighting for right, and the seperatists were bad guys.

In the re-imagined prequels that are coming out of these discussions, it's a story entirely of grays. The good guys aren't really good, and the badguys aren't really bad. They're just a bunch of thugs trying to manipulate and subvert each other, and at the end of the day no-one wins. It might be a more mature, consistent story, but is it too far removed from the original trilogy, where it was the righteous rebels fighting against oppression and tyranny? Thematically, does it make sense to go from such a complex story with such a muddled sense of morality, to the simpler, black-and-white themes of the original trilogy? Granted, it's already that way to a degree, but are these proposed changes an improvement, or are they only further distancing the PT from the OT?

I quite like the idea of dark setting gray against gray it makes the ultimate victory of light much more satisfying.

Akwat Kbrana said:

 

That's one of the big problems I have with the PT: there's no one to root for! Every single character is in some way repugnant and unsupportable.

Well I don't like you either, doodie-head!

Akwat Kbrana said:

Timstuff said:

The prequels are a good versus evil story, where evil wins through deception. In some ways it was a deconstruction of the original, but ultimately the Jedi were still fighting for right, and the seperatists were bad guys.

I respectfully disagree. I'll grant that, as things presently stand, the separatists come across as bad guys. But the Republic & the Jedi come across, IMO, as corrupt and ineffective at best, despotic and morally compromised at worst. That's one of the big problems I have with the PT: there's no one to root for! Every single character is in some way repugnant and unsupportable.

Well, therein lies the problem I was concerned about. Will the prequel redux fix the problem of us having no-one to root for, or just make it worse by even further blurring the line between good and bad? Will making Count Dooku a sympathetic idealist, Grievous a humanitarian, and all this other stuff bring us any closer to the solid black and white divide between good and evil from the original trilogy, or move us even further away from it?

I think the two trilogies represent different but connected kinds of wars.

The Republic may have been originally set up as a Camelot sort of society.

Forged out of chaos with the best of intentions by idealists.

By the time we enter the story with TPM that's already breaking up.

It's become too complacent and the necessity for compromise has led to weaknesses that Palpatine can exploit.

We should feel pity for both sides because they are being played by someone genuinely evil which leads into the black hat/white hat war in the OT with the victor of the PT pitched against the Rebels trying to return things to the unseen Camelot of the early days of the Republic.

We need a bit more of an indication of how good the Republic used to be, there are a few references here and there but perhaps a few more subtle hints would make Anakin's story a reflection of the struggle in the Star Wars galaxy as a whole.

We don't get to see the golden age of the Republic but George should have given us a golden age of Anakin to make up for that.

If the Senators and Jedi voicing concerns over the Chancellor's increased powers are singing from the same hymn sheet as the Separatists it makes their conflict against each other more tragic.

The both want the gray Old Republic to be what it once was but Palpatine wants to make it purely evil.

That would make the final victory of the Rebels even more triumphant.

The problem is, a lot of people seem to almost be against development in the story. The rpequels are about the fall of Anakin, but many people, rather than see Anakin go from a confused but good soul to a bad one, they want him to bad before he even becomes a Sith (hence, things like removing his hesitation at killing Dooku, amongst other proposed changes). Rather than see the benevolent Republic become the corrupt and despotic Empire, they want the republic to be corrupt and broken well before Palpatine crowns himself emperor.

What I think the prequels ought to be is the story of good falling to evil, and making room for the return of good. Thematically, I think that the prequels would be pretty dull if we spend two movies looking at stuff that has already been corrupted, and then in the third one we finally call the duck a duck.

Timstuff said:

The problem is, a lot of people seem to almost be against development in the story. The rpequels are about the fall of Anakin, but many people, rather than see Anakin go from a confused but good soul to a bad one, they want him to bad before he even becomes a Sith (hence, things like removing his hesitation at killing Dooku, amongst other proposed changes). Rather than see the benevolent Republic become the corrupt and despotic Empire, they want the republic to be corrupt and broken well before Palpatine crowns himself emperor.

I hope that you're talking about Lucas and Lucasfilms, because there are MANY editors and edits that do not subscribe to making Anakin evil from the beginning. (if anything, Lucas's depiction of the character in the original films paints a far negative or evil figure than what he should've been)

As for how removing Anakin's hesitation in killing Dooku, I think you're missing the point entirely - cutting that element out does not make Anakin automatically evil, it makes him IMPULSIVE and RASH by giving in to his emotions (his anger and fear) and relying on them to overpower and kill his opponent. In ESB, Yoda states that anger, fear, agression, and hate is the path to the Dark Side, that a Jedi never uses his knowledge of the Force to attack/destroy and that once you start giving in those emotions of the Dark Side, the more and more that you begin to be controlled by them. By killing Dooku impulsively and out of anger, Anakin is stepping over the his boundaries as a Jedi and therefore, Dooku's murder could be seen as his entry into using the Dark Side (just as Luke gave in to anger in ROTJ, except Anakin succumbed to it whereas Luke realized and denied the Dark Side).

Timstuff, I completely agree with your points. I too would like to see the divide between good and evil better defined. Not because I don't think shades of grey aren't interesting, but as it is now, it's way too muddled. That's because none of the characters or situations are really developed.

I think the best any edit could do is making the Jedi order more sympathetic. The last movie is called Return of the Jedi, and we should feel happy that after the Empire is defeated the Jedi can return. The same goes for the character of Anakin. We should experience a sense of defeat when he turns to the Dark Side, and should feel happy when he is redeemed in ROTJ.

JasonN, I don't agree that Anakin killing Dooku without hesitation means he's impulsive and rash. He had Dooku on his knees and defeated. If he had killed Dooku in the heat of battle, then that may have been impulsive and rash, but now it's just a coldblooded kill. AOTC and ROTS already proved Anakin was impulsive and rash, and the fact that he resisted Palpatine's goading at first says a lot more about his character, I think. I also like how that particular situation comes back, but with a twist, when Mace has Palpatine at saber point.

RoccondilRinon said:

Agreed to an extent, but I feel the need to point out: there is a difference, when it comes to morals, between "shades of grey" and "murky and undefined".

That's the problem.

We are told that the Jedi are guardians of peace and justice but they are a bunch of gits who indoctrinate the very young, are on the beck and call of corrupt politicians (until their own turf gets trodden on) they are colossally stupid (as witnessed by the Fett investigation to nowhere) and cruel (they seem to keep Shmi in slavery just to test how attached Anakin is to her).

We are told that in the Clone Wars there were heroes on both sides, Gunray's appeal to Vader about wanting peace is the nearest we get to that but from his rubbery lips it comes across as just a vain attempt to get out of the stickiest of situations (as usual). Most of the time the Separatists are painted as just comedy villains with no real threat to them.

Neither are really gray complex groups, both are just badly defined and react completely to Lucas' whim to set up the spawning of an action sequence (which we have very little emotional attachment to because the players involved are less defined than they are in a game of Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat).

It would make more sense if cloning was a Gungan speciality (most of them look the same for some reason).

Jar Jar even claims to have "A grand army".

The Kamino cloning centre seems to be mostly underwater, it could be reworked that they are using Gungan methods to produce the army for the Republic.

Heck, Jar Jar could be a failed clone explaining why his body is so uncoordinated.

It could even explain that bizarre power station that Maul fights the Jedi in (though in my take it's moved to the Federation control ship).

Bingowings said:

RoccondilRinon said:

Agreed to an extent, but I feel the need to point out: there is a difference, when it comes to morals, between "shades of grey" and "murky and undefined".

That's the problem.

We are told that the Jedi are guardians of peace and justice but they are a bunch of gits who indoctrinate the very young, are on the beck and call of corrupt politicians (until their own turf gets trodden on) they are colossally stupid (as witnessed by the Fett investigation to nowhere) and cruel (they seem to keep Shmi in slavery just to test how attached Anakin is to her).

We are told that in the Clone Wars there were heroes on both sides, Gunray's appeal to Vader about wanting peace is the nearest we get to that but from his rubbery lips it comes across as just a vain attempt to get out of the stickiest of situations (as usual). Most of the time the Separatists are painted as just comedy villains with no real threat to them.

Neither are really gray complex groups, both are just badly defined and react completely to Lucas' whim to set up the spawning of an action sequence (which we have very little emotional attachment to because the players involved are less defined than they are in a game of Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat).

 

That was kind of my point, Bingowings, only you worded it much better. Don't you agree though that a lot of these things could be fixed? We could make the Jedi look a lot less dumb by cutting the Kamino investigation, and making them suspect Palpatine earlier. That's why I would also keep Dooku a Sith: there simply isn't enough of his character to support any ambiguity in his motivations.