xhonzi said:
In short- I think you have to keep Star Wars prequels primarily about ACTION and less about moral dilemmas... Though they should be there to a point... But the main con I see about your take on clones is that it places the emphasis on the clones themselves. I can't get my head around that, because I think the clones, while necessary to explain the war, should not be too much the focus of the movies. I'm too tired to explain that better, but perhaps you know what I mean.
I'm not saying it should be one huge debate with little or no action. That would make it Next Gen Star Trek and not Star Wars. But how can a good Jedi go bad without a moral dilemma? As it is now, the war is too much in the background, and that's because there's no human element to it. Anakin falls only because he wants to save his wife. He could have been working at a bakery and still would have fallen to the dark side. My thinking is that the events of the war weakens his resolve and NotPadme's illness pushes him over the edge.
I'm not a script writer but it seems like the amount of time they wasted explaining space taxes and parliamentary procedures in the prequels could have been used to explain why the war is important and what some of the moral implications could be. If you had NotPadme, Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Yoda being some of the few ('few' is key) fighting for peace only to be betrayed by Anakin later? I think that could be amazing to watch. And there would be plenty of room for dog fights and lightsaber duels. So let's say 70/30, action/drama. But the action needs to have a soul.
Now I talked this over with my sister and she doesn't like the telepathy idea and thinks they should be pretty much be Mandalorians who find a new Mandalore. It's too KotOR/300 for me but whatever makes them a threat worthy of naming the whole war after them (but with none surviving - they're that bad) is ok by me.
And thank you for your comments. There has been so much said about Star Wars that I figured I was unknowingly beating a dead horse.