What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion. — Page 18

philraid said:

Some cast members also overlap with the Hammer movies because Peter Cushing played Dr. Frankenstein and Professor Van Helsing, David Prowse played Frankenstein’s monster, and Christopher Lee played Count Dracula (why else is he named COUNT Dooku?)

Yeah that too. Dooku is almost entirely a Dracula reference. Palpatine is also Dracula like in some ways. Even RLM noticed how Dracula-like he is in the Knighting of Vader scene.

Oh yeah, the Dracula thing for Dooku is definitely obvious. Forgot about that. The Vader Frankenstein thing makes sense too.

Something that’s insane to me is that Lucas when making the Prequels’ attitude towards Darth Vader. He spends the entire trilogy neutering the hell out of him, telling us he was a brat and that his iconic badass suit was actually hampering him (which doesn’t make any sense with how he established the Force to work), and even making him pathetically whine “Nooo!” like a cartoon. He doesn’t do this to any other villain. But at the same time, he gave into how much of a sensation Vader is by plastering him all over the advertising and making the entire saga surround him. It’s like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a creator have such a contradictory mindset about a character.

I’m more bothered by how he kneecapped every other Prequel villain. Darth Maul could’ve been the next Darth Vader but he gets killed in the first movie. Asajj Ventress could’ve been a decent replacement but she herself got replaced by regular old Christopher Lee in a cape, who himself gets killed off immediately at the start of the next movie. General Grievous is actually great but showing up only in the last movie it’s too little too late. Compare all that to how Darth Vader and Kylo Ren get entire trilogies to develop and the difference is night and day.

Anakin Starkiller said:

I’m more bothered by how he kneecapped every other Prequel villain. Darth Maul could’ve been the next Darth Vader but he gets killed in the first movie.

Unless you watch the Clone Wars or Solo.

But yeah, I would agree with that. Darth Maul should have been around for the whole prequel trilogy. Then an idea would be to have Obi Wan try to seek revenge on him for killing Qui Gon, which distracts him from training Anakin or something like that.

Or if you aren’t gonna do that, introduce Dooku in The Phantom Menace as a member of the Jedi Council and show him defecting after Qui Gon dies. It seems weird just introducing him out of nowhere in the next one.

I don’t get the appeal for Maul. Is it just the aesthetic? I think it’s banal. I like Iain McCaig’s original concept art, where there was an understated seductive quality to his expression and the “horns” were actually feathers tied in place with razor wire, but none of those qualities were carried through in the actual makeup or Ray Park’s performance. He’s just spooky scary demon man with bad teeth. Meh. I’d much rather Dooku had been the main antagonist, and with a whole helluvalot more depth to his character than what we got in AOTC & ROTS.

If you’re remaking a character from the ground up anyway, wouldn’t you pick the spooky scary demon with a double-bladed saber over Christopher Lee in a cape?

Anakin Starkiller said:

If you’re remaking a character from the ground up anyway, wouldn’t you pick the spooky scary demon with a double-bladed saber over Christopher Lee in a cape?

Considering Christopher Lee is among my favourite actors … nope.

Superweapon VII said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

If you’re remaking a character from the ground up anyway, wouldn’t you pick the spooky scary demon with a double-bladed saber over Christopher Lee in a cape?

Considering Christopher Lee is among my favourite actors … nope.

Okay, here’s a compromise: Christopher Lee in full Darth Maul makeup. 😆

Channel72 said:

And General Grievous… I mean… I realize that Star Wars was always basically a glorified Saturday morning cartoon for general audiences, but Grievous is just too much of a moustache-twirling Saturday morning cartoon villain.

That’s exactly why he works for me. He’s absurdly mustache-twirling and it makes him a joy to watch.

Okay, here’s a compromise: Christopher Lee in full Darth Maul makeup. 😆

Don’t know whether that would be hilarious or terrifying, but it would harken back to his Dracula days.

Which ones never move?

Is this a matte painting in The Phantom Menace?

Honestly I’m starting to think Coruscant in TPM looks better then in the other two.

TPM in general looks a lot less digital. It’s the only one that came out in the 90s and was shot on film and it shows. Pop culture digitized seemingly overnight when the new millennium came and the difference is night and day. The Prequels being one set of films manage to mask it better than most, but a subtle difference is still there.

Yeah, comparing screenshots, Coruscant in TPM looks more McQuarrie and OT-esqe then the other two, comparing it to his concept art for Had Abbadon. Not perfect (Had Abbadon looks a bit more ancient, more in line with the OT aesthetic) but I can definitely see it.

As films in isolation I really wish they went for a more matte painting aesthetic. I know doing so would have a ripple effect on film history for the worst, but just judging the films, I miss the matte paintings of the OT and would take them over the digital backgrounds any day of the week.

If Lucas really wanted to tout his 6 film saga as meshing perfectly together (it doesn’t), at least attempt to make it not look like it was made decades later.

I recently kinda realized the way Lucas frames cybernetic prosthetics as inherently sinister and lesser during the prequel era has ableist undertones whether intentional or not. Vader’s suit specifically is a great iconic of evil, it’s the suit of a villain and it looks scary. But simply being a cyborg should not be treated with such scorn as Lucas does.

His explanation for Vader losing power just because he’s a cyborg isn’t even consistent with HIS OWN exposition in both trilogies. Midichlorians are measured per cell, and Yoda in ESB literally says the Force even flows and binds us to rocks and Luke’s ship, so cybernetics and limb removal wouldn’t neuter jack shit. Mf literally created plot holes just to neuter Vader and make a point about how its evil to have prosthetics I guess.

In the OT, Luke gets a prosthetic hand and its not treated with scorn. It’s used in ROTJ to show how Luke is becoming like his father because he’s repeating the trauma Vader inflicted upon him, and that’s the extent.

This is partially why I prefer current Canon Darth Vader. He gets to be powerful and badass with the suit in the expanded material without any indication that it hampered him (because there’s still awesome EU Vader content, but it still always carries those undertones). In the Lords of the Sith novel it’s even explained that the isolation it brought allowed him to focus on his connection to the Force and therefore make it even stronger. It’s not telling me it would’ve been cooler for him to look like Christensen the whole time instead of the most iconic villain design of all-time.

It feels more true to how he’s presented in the OT. At no point are we supposed to see him as lesser just because he’s a cyborg. In fact, we’re supposed to see him as scarier because of it. It’s literally what makes him Vader. The fact that I see some prequel fans think it would be better for him to not have the suit because then he’d “be at his full potential” (holy shit, how do people not notice how blatantly ableist that is?) hurts my soul.

most positive depiction of cybernetics in the franchise

NFBisms said:

most positive depiction of cybernetics in the franchise

I don’t think the OT is negative about cybernetics on it’s own. As I edited into my initial post, Luke’s robot hand isn’t treated as sinister. When he puts it on it’s playing jovial music. In ROTJ it’s used as a symbol that he’s repeating the trauma inflicted upon him by Vader. It’s not necessarily the hand itself but the context paired with costuming symbolism.

In the OT, Vader being a cyborg is used to make him more imposing, not less. Vader is such a force to be reckoned with because not only is he powerful in the Force but because of his cybernetics he can do things like lift a grown man off the ground with one hand. It doesn’t explicitly neuter him, and is used to make him a greater villain, not lesser. Which is why I say Canon Vader is more like OT Vader in spirit.

Also, Lobot is a cyborg. Basically, cybernetics aren’t inherently bad, it’s about who’s using them, and they aren’t a weakness.

But in the prequels, it straight up has ableist undertones. Both Grievous’ cowardly nature and the retcons he does to Vader where he’s weaker because he’s a cyborg are both in the service of “prosthetics bad”. And there’s no characters framed as completely good that are cyborgs. Maybe Lucas had the same opinion when making both, but it doesn’t surface in the OT in an inherently negative light.

“He’s more machine now than man, twisted and evil” from Ben is kind of where I’m getting the OT’s thematic vilification of prosthetics. It’s both about the inflicted trauma and the corruption of nature via technology. I don’t think it’s out and out ableist in the same way - because it does make Vader more scary in the OT - but I guess an unfortunate unintended message is that disabled people are unnatural or evil. Which isn’t better lol

NFBisms said:

“He’s more machine now than man, twisted and evil” from Ben is kind of where I’m getting the OT’s thematic vilification of prosthetics. It’s both about the inflicted trauma and the corruption of nature via technology. I don’t think it’s out and out ableist in the same way - because it does make Vader more scary in the OT - but I guess an unfortunate unintended message is that disabled people are unnatural or evil. Which isn’t better lol

Yeah you’re right. Personally, I prefer to interpret the line as more symbolic: Darth Vader sold his soul and became a cold-hearted, almost machine-like man. But I understand it’s not the intent.

I don’t have a problem with Vader being a cyborg being used to make him scarier, because he’s a villain, he defines his suit rather then it defining him. He chooses to look scary and be evil. Luke’s cybernetic hand allows him to see that he’s inflicting the same trauma and chooses to not use it for evil, and there aren’t sinister undertones when he’s first fitted with it. Lobot isn’t necessarily slighted.

Not necessarily in line with Lucas’ intent, but I stopped looking at the movies the same way Lucas does a long time ago (and honestly never really did, as I realized the more I read his quotes). It helps that he can’t ever stick to a narrative and the other directors conflicted with him sometimes. Fan interpretation conflicting with the intent of the director happens quite often (see Ridley Scott’s Alien prequels). Part of the beauty of film is interpretation, and I’ll always love the OT as I interpret them.

But there isn’t any way to spin, “He’ll never be as good at what he does as he could because he’s a cyborg” in a way that isn’t negative framing of prosthetics.