What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion. — Page 20

Channel72 said:

You know, I don’t think Darth Vader really should be depicted as agile in the cybernetic suit. Vader in the OT - particularly during the ESB duel - was more like this methodical, slow-moving, unstoppable force that just keeps slowly advancing forward. I know people won’t like the comparison, but I think Vader was somewhat designed to invoke similar fears that someone might experience watching horror movie icons like Jason Vorhees or Michael Meyers just silently walking forward like an unstoppable hulking mass. Rogue One certainly capitalized on this aspect of Vader’s aesthetic. I mean, Vader basically lives in a dark tower on a Mordor planet - an idea going back to the 1970s, pre-dating Rogue One by decades. He was never meant to be agile like Darth Maul. He’s meant to be a slow, imposing, unstoppable hulk. These physical mechanics are inextricably tied to the design of his suit.

I agree with all of this, I never really said or believed he should be that agile either. I just get annoyed when people act like he’s geriatric and anybody in the PT would whoop his ass (they wouldn’t).

I think it would’ve been awesome if Anakin wore the Vader mask, robes, and armor as soon he was knighted a Sith. Not only would it be badass but it would make sense for him to want to conceal his identity. He could have the mask off during his duel with Obi-Wan if one insisted that his facial expressions need to be seen for the right emotional resonance. Then after getting burned is when he gets the cybernetic lungs.

I also think it would’ve been cool if perhaps one were to take cues from Canon Grievous and have Anakin upgrade parts of his body with cybernetics, perhaps in an attempt to feel more powerful, an illusion of immortality.

Essentially, a more gradual physical transformation into Vader, that would logically coincide with a more gradual spiritual one.

I’ve been recently rewatching (and enjoying) 30s monster movies (Frankenstein & Bride, The Invisible Man, etc.) I can say 100% that the romance scenes are never as cheesy as the AOTC ones. Sometimes it’s a bit on-the-nose, but it’s charming rather then grating (tho I will say, the romance in The Wolf Man hasn’t aged well, due to the social conventions of the time).

The performances play a part of it too. Claude Rains eats up his power-hungry monologues as Jack Griffin as much as James Earl Jones does as Darth Vader OT, and his scenes with Gloria Stuart are flowery but charming. Both Rains and Stuart were theatre actors, and thus knew how to pull off compelling melodrama. Same with Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein and the two actresses that played Elizabeth.
Meanwhile, it feels like Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman are uncomfortable with the dialogue. They’re not experienced with that theatre melodrama, so it’s just awkward.
It’s also why Ian McDiarmid and Christoper Lee fare better with their material. McDiarmid is a theatre actor and Lee was basically reprising his role as Dracula.

They totally should’ve gone full Frankenstein with Vader’s scene of being put into the suit.

“Now I know what it feels like to be God!”

An homage to the line from Vader could be like, “Now I know the true power of the Force!”

This just came to me: what if Tarkin designed Vader’s suit?

Tarkin should’ve been in the Prequels. He’s too important to have not been. He should’ve been a military admiral alongside Anakin, thus adding to Vader and Tarkin’s mutual respect.

Also, it’d be a great nod to Hammer horror, in which Peter Cushing played Victor Frankenstein.

G&G-Fan said:

I’ve been recently rewatching (and enjoying) 30s monster movies (Frankenstein & Bride, The Invisible Man, etc.) I can say 100% that the romance scenes are never as cheesy as the AOTC ones. Sometimes it’s a bit on-the-nose, but it’s charming rather then grating (tho I will say, the romance in The Wolf Man hasn’t aged well, due to the social conventions of the time).

The performances play a part of it too. Claude Rains eats up his power-hungry monologues as Jack Griffin as much as James Earl Jones does as Darth Vader OT, and his scenes with Gloria Stuart are flowery but charming. Both Rains and Stuart were theatre actors, and thus knew how to pull off compelling melodrama. Same with Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein and the two actresses that played Elizabeth.
Meanwhile, it feels like Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman are uncomfortable with the dialogue. They’re not experienced with that theatre melodrama, so it’s just awkward.
It’s also why Ian McDiarmid and Christoper Lee fare better with their material. McDiarmid is a theatre actor and Lee was basically reprising his role as Dracula.

The problem with the love story in Attack of the Clones is that they removed a lot of scenes where the dialogue and performances were far more natural, and kept scenes that add absolutely nothing to the development of the relationship. For example, if they had replaced the balcony scene by the lake on Naboo with the dinner scene at Padmé’s parents’ house, and had trimmed some of Anakin’s awkward dialogue, it would have worked much better. The romance would come across as more natural and believable with just a few small adjustments. Unfortunately, they made a lot of mistakes in the editing of the film. They cut scenes that would have helped the love story feel more organic and kept others that serve no purpose, which is why the romance feels so rushed and unnatural.

It makes sense that Anakin is a bit awkward and does not know how to be charming. After all, Anakin is a Jedi, and flirting with girls is not exactly part of Jedi training. It is not surprising that he would not have the smooth, confident demeanor of someone like Han Solo, because his life has been focused on discipline, duty, and developing his abilities — not on romantic relationships. Padmé is inexperienced too. She has not had much time to think about romance or boys, since she devoted herself to politics for most of her teenage years. So, it makes sense that some of their interactions feel a bit awkward. Neither of them knows exactly how to navigate the situation. But the awkwardness should not be overdone. There needs to be a balance between the natural awkwardness of two people who are inexperienced in romance and the natural flow of dialogue. This could have been achieved with a few small adjustments, but again, they made mistakes in the editing. They could have found that balance with just a bit of tweaking, but unfortunately, they didn’t, and that’s why some of the scenes feel off.

Channel72 said:

People often assume that critics of the AoTC love story performances want Anakin to be all suave like Han Solo, and deliver polished, teen-heartthrob romance dialogue. But nobody really wants that. We’re fine with Anakin being slightly awkward. Luke was awkward and whiny and acted stupid as well. That’s fine. What we really want is for Anakin to not come off so much like a creepy asshole. At one point Anakin actually channels Malcolm McDowell from Clockwork Orange as he Kubrick-stares at Padme while grinning, prompting her to say she feels uncomfortable. Anakin can be really clunky and awkward, but he shouldn’t be creepy and grating to the point that I am physically compelled to want to skip all those romance scenes.

I understand your point, but I have one objection. Yes, in that specific scene, Anakin does have a rather creepy expression. However, I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault — neither George Lucas’ nor Hayden Christensen’s. Hayden has distinctive facial features, and every time he tries to pull off a smug look, it comes across as a bit creepy. This happens in other films he’s been in as well. It’s just a feature of his face, and you can’t really blame anyone for that. Unfortunately, there’s no way to cleanly remove this from the film without disrupting the flow of the scene. Every attempt at fan editing to fix this ends up feeling incomplete, and you immediately realize that the scene has been cut, because the transition between that scene and the next scene doesn’t feel natural.

The worst thing is that nothing happens in AOTC that really explains why Padme even likes this guy. I guess she feels bad about his mom or something, but you’d think any sympathy she had would dissipate after finding out he committed mass murder.

In my edited version of the film, I kept the scene where Anakin carries out the massacre, but I eliminated the scene where he confesses it to Padmé. This way, you can assume that Anakin didn’t kill the women and children, only the men. Plus, Padmé wouldn’t know about it either, making her reaction in Revenge of the Sith — when she finds out he killed younglings in the Temple — feel more natural and believable. In any case, I believe that if they wanted to include a scene in which Anakin confesses to having carried out the massacre, then he should have talked about it with Palpatine, and Palpatine should have strengthened Anakin’s beliefs by saying that he had done nothing wrong, and that revenge is a natural thing.

G&G-Fan said:

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 for some reason had a random flashback to this comment I made, and wanted to clarify that I don’t think Lucas hates Darth Vader or was “out to get him”. Of course he still wanted him to be a terrifying and powerful villain.
I just think that, at times, the Prequels went too far in trying to subvert him, and leaned too hard on the pathetic side of the character, which I think should be handled more sparingly and subtextually, like the theatrical ROTJ. And this was me venting my frustration in that aspect. Tho I’m sure a lot agree anyway.

G&G-Fan said:

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.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think that your argument is not logical. In my opinion, it is influenced more by your strong attachment to Vader as a character, and by the fact that you want him to always be portrayed as cool and badass, rather than by a rational analysis of the broader narrative and character development that the story is trying to achieve.

To expect a character like Anakin to be consistently badass throughout the Prequel Trilogy is, frankly, an overly simplistic expectation. Characters with depth experience growth, regression, and internal conflict. Anakin was never supposed to be flawless or permanently in control. His youthful arrogance and emotional volatility were central to his character development, showing how his eventual descent into the Dark Side was driven by personal flaws, fears, and the manipulations of others. The fact that his iconic suit was portrayed as limiting is a reflection of how far he had fallen — once a powerful Jedi, he was now imprisoned in a life-support system due to his own choices and actions. This is not a contradiction of the way in which the Force was portrayed in the Original Trilogy, but rather a symbolic representation of how his anger and fear led to his own destruction. Also, this type of criticism is not new. In fact, very similar arguments were made when Lucas released Return of the Jedi. Many fans at the time felt that Lucas had weakened Vader by introducing the internal conflict between his role as a Dark Lord and his role as a father. Some felt that his redemption arc made him appear less intimidating, as they had only known him as the menacing figure from the first two films of the Original Trilogy. However, over time, this portrayal of Vader as a conflicted character struggling with his humanity became central to what makes him so compelling.

The idea that Lucas simultaneously “plastered” Vader all over the advertising while exploring his vulnerability does not seem contradictory to me. Vader was always meant to be a central figure, and his popularity as an icon is undeniable. However, being an iconic villain does not mean that the character should be static or devoid of complexity. Lucas’ decision to show Anakin’s flaws and weaknesses was not about diminishing the character, but about showing the human side of him — one that eventually succumbs to darkness. I find that labeling this as Lucas trying to “have his cake and eat it too” oversimplifies what he was attempting to achieve with these films. Characters are not meant to be eternally unchanging symbols of strength. Anakin’s journey was always intended to be a tragic one, and part of that tragedy lies in the fact that he was not always the infallible, imposing figure fans initially saw in the Original Trilogy. Ultimately, the Prequels show that even someone with incredible power can be brought low by their own decisions, insecurities, and inability to control their emotions. To me, this nuanced portrayal enriches Anakin’s character, rather than diminishing him.

Of course, it is undeniable that Lucas went too far with certain aspects of Anakin’s portrayal in the Prequel Trilogy, and is absolutely true that there are moments, particularly in Attack of the Clones, where Anakin’s character should have been toned down. However, despite these missteps, I still believe it is right that the younger version of Vader is shown with flaws and vulnerabilities. Anakin should not have been the same badass figure that we see in the Original Trilogy because his journey was one of growth — and ultimately failure. It makes sense that, as a younger man, he would be reckless, emotionally unstable, and struggling with his identity. These traits serve as the foundation for his fall to the Dark Side, which is the very heart of his arc. Anakin was, after all, human. It is fair that he should have weaknesses, especially in his youth, when he is still grappling with the immense pressures placed upon him by the Jedi, his own ambitions, and the temptations of the Dark Side. His insecurities and fear of loss are what drive him to make the choices that eventually transform him into Darth Vader. To portray him as badass or already as imposing as he is in the Original Trilogy would have undermined the depth of his character and the story Lucas wanted to tell.

In the end, I think that the decision to show Anakin as a deeply flawed young man, despite some over-the-top moments, makes sense for his character’s progression. It allows us to understand the gravity of his transformation into the Dark Lord we all know, and it gives us insight into the personal weaknesses that the Dark Side preys upon. On the other hand, it seems like you want the young version of Vader to be portrayed exactly like Vader in The Empire Strikes Back, with the only difference being that he is more good-natured. But this is not retroactive character development — this is simply depicting the same character in the exact same way, with a few minor alterations.

Spartacus01 said:

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think that your argument is not logical. In my opinion, it is influenced more by your strong attachment to Vader as a character, and by the fact that you want him to always be portrayed as cool and badass, rather than by a rational analysis of the broader narrative and character development that the story is trying to achieve.

I feel like my viewpoint has been overly simplified, though I don’t think you did it on purpose. I earnestly love Darth Vader as a villain, not someone to be idolized, and part of that is the character’s distinct, contrasting layers.
I will submit, I wasn’t being rational when I wrote that initial message.

I never wanted Anakin or Vader to always be badass, or his internal conflict to not be explored. I am attached to Darth Vader being an awesome villain. But it’s not just that. Otherwise that high would’ve wore off a bit ago (I have ADHD and therefore am prone to addiction-like hyper fixations; however, I’ve loved Vader for years).
I adore ROTJ and the scenes of Vader showing vulnerability. I could not imagine Vader not being a father. “I am your father” is the greatest twist of all-time, and elevated the OT ten-fold. Both Luke and Vader as characters.
I would not love Vader as much if not for that duality between the monster and the man beneath. Both badass and pathetic. Menacing and sympathetic.

I like Vader still being powerful despite the suit because yeah, I love his menacing presence. But I also like how Vader being powerful but miserable deep down emphasizes that contrast. Star Wars is about love vs. greed. What does it say that the most powerful being in the galaxy is also miserable? That Luke gains happiness because he chooses compassion over power-hunger? That’s an impactful message for a young man like myself.
He’s still punished. He still loses everything and got burned.

In discussing the character’s emotional portrayal, we have to distinguish Anakin and Vader.

Anakin in fact should be expressive, but also have a tendency to repress his emotions in distress, forming a cold persona. This doesn’t mean he can never fly off the handle either. He goes cold because he cares too much.
As I’ve noted, this is shown in the OT. Vader regresses into his cold persona immediately after he admits something vulnerable or Luke says something that gets to him. In Anakin’s death scene, now having abandoned the dark side, we see he is very caring and sentimental.

Vader, mostly, is cold, fueled by a tranquil rage. He’s an imposing villain that I enjoy on a primal level.
There’s vulnerable moments before his redemption, but they’re sparing, yet more impactful because of that.
That’s important to his character. Vader is a tyrannical egomaniac who shuts out his emotions because he never wants to feel pain again.

Just as much as his vulnerabilities enhance the character, they enhance his villainy. It’s petrifying to realize that a person who was even once a noble hero could become that robotic monster, and adds depth to both Luke and Vader.
Evil is not beyond us. Part of Luke’s emotional journey is realizing that he could become just like his father.
It’s also impactful to see such a monster of a man redeem himself. It’s never too late.

My issues with the Prequels is that they too often handle his vulnerabilities in an almost infantile way. Way less often then OT Luke. It works for him because it’s less consuming.
When Anakin flies off the handle, it’s less of an adult anger and more amateur and teenage. A 23 year old man should not be yelling “It’s not fair!” in the childish manner he does.
Compare Vader angrily commanding his troops in ANH to that scene. It’s just not the same.
While you can argue it’s because he’s young for 2/3 of the trilogy, that’s one of it’s fundamental flaws of the trilogy IMO.

Anakin’s journey should parallel Luke’s better. Similar, but they should also fundamentally contrast one-another.
He should’ve been 19 in TPM, his mother dying in that film. Unlike Luke, where his uncle and aunts deaths inspire him to be a hero to prevent others from feeling that pain, Anakin wants to gain power to prevent himself from feeling that pain again.
Then in AOTC, we can parallel Luke in that now he’s an established general, but also goes on this journey of spiritual discovery, this time leaning on the dark. At the end of the film, when given a choice between selfish and selfless (like Luke’s sacrifice), he chooses selfish.
In ROTS, he’s colder. Not exactly like OT Vader, but more like ROTJ Luke, where he’s calm, but still prone to anger. The crucial difference is that Luke achieves that by actually letting go of his emotions. He in fact allows himself to feel them, but not consume him. Anakin achieves it by repressing them, so he goes cold. Darth Vader is the ultimate culmination of that.

G&G-Fan said:

Anakin in fact should be expressive, but also have a tendency to repress his emotions in distress, forming a cold persona. This doesn’t mean he can never fly off the handle either. He goes cold because he cares too much.
As I’ve noted, this is shown in the OT. Vader regresses into his cold persona immediately after he admits something vulnerable or Luke says something that gets to him. In Anakin’s death scene, now having abandoned the dark side, we see he is very caring and sentimental.

In the Prequel Trilogy, Anakin was in his early 20s, while in the Original Trilogy he was in his early 40s. It is natural that his behavior and mannerisms would have changed over time. Twenty years separate the events of these two trilogies, and it is uncommon for individuals to retain the same attitudes and ways of behaving in their 20s as in their 40s. This is especially true in Anakin’s case, given that he fell to the Dark Side and became a Sith Lord. It is entirely realistic for a person to evolve over such a span of time. Thus, Anakin’s transformation reflects both the natural passage of years and the profound personal experiences he underwent in his journey from Jedi Knight to Darth Vader. Furthermore, I do not remember any particular instance where Vader represses his emotions in front of Luke. Could you provide some examples?

Spartacus01 said:

In the Prequel Trilogy, Anakin was in his early 20s, while in the Original Trilogy he was in his early 40s. It is natural that his behavior and mannerisms would have changed over time.

G&G-Fan said:

My issues with the Prequels is that they too often handle his vulnerabilities in an almost infantile way. Way less often then OT Luke. It works for him because it’s less consuming.
When Anakin flies off the handle, it’s less of an adult anger and more amateur and teenage. A 23 year old man should not be yelling “It’s not fair!” in the childish manner he does.
Compare Vader angrily commanding his troops in ANH to that scene. It’s just not the same.
While you can argue it’s because he’s young for 2/3 of the trilogy, that’s one of it’s fundamental flaws of the trilogy IMO.

ROTJ Luke never acts as teenage as ROTS Anakin does sometimes. And he’s also 23.
The point of ROTJ is that, despite how much he’s grown, Luke is just as prone to turning to the dark side as Anakin was.
Both trilogies are supposed to be about one’s personal responsibility in their choices to be selfless or selfish.

George Lucas:

“It was designed to be a film, like, mythology, of “this is what we stand for, you’re about to enter the real world. You’re 12-years old, you’re gonna go on into the big world, […] here is a little idea of some of the things you should pay attention to.” Friendships, honesty, trust and doing the right thing. Living on the light side, avoiding the dark side. Those are things that it was meant to do.”

(for the record, he says in another similar quote that the films are for everybody, but are also supposed to be made to be suited for 12-year-olds)

Anytime it seems like the Prequels are trying to divert responsibility away from Anakin for his fall, or make it look like he had more of a reason to turn then his son, is a misinterpretation as a result of poor execution on Lucas’ part.
The only difference between father and son in their battles with the dark side is that they made different choices. One chose power-hunger, the other chose love. Or at least, that’s how it should be.

Anakin doesn’t need to be exactly like OT Vader, but a younger version of the same character, recognizable as him.
Like 2017 Comic Vader: he’s cold, but at times more openly rageful, boastful, and impulsive. Yet, it’s handled delicately, he’s written like an adult, and it’s recognizably Vader. It’s a respectable younger version of OT Vader.

Lucas already made a trilogy where the character goes from a more youthful, teenage anger to a colder, more adult anger, and it’s called the Original Trilogy. It’s actually astounding that ROTJ Luke acts more like OT Vader then ROTS Anakin, especially considering the former is the one that rejects the dark side. There’s no reason Lucas couldn’t have done a similar thing again.

it is uncommon for individuals to retain the same attitudes and ways of behaving in their 20s as in their 40s. This is especially true in Anakin’s case, given that he fell to the Dark Side and became a Sith Lord.

The point of the Prequels is to show how Anakin became Vader. He fell to the dark side and became a Sith in the movies.

Spartacus01 said:

Furthermore, I do not remember any particular instance where Vader represses his emotions in front of Luke. Could you provide some examples?

Luke: “I’ve accepted the truth that you were once Anakin Skywalker, my father.”
Vader: (angry) “That name no longer as any meaning for me!”

Luke: “It is the name of your true self you’ve only forgotten. I know there is good in you. […]”
(Vader turns on Luke’s lightsaber as a subtle threat, reminding him who has the power in the situation, a defense mechanism against his son’s armor piercing words.)
Vader: (changing the subject, cold again) “I see you have constructed a new lightsaber. […] Indeed you are powerful, as the Emperor has foreseen.”

Luke: (compassionate) “Come away with me.”
Vader: (vulnerable) “Obi-Wan once thought as you do.”
(immediately goes cold again)
Vader: “You don’t know the power of the dark side. […]”

Luke: (firm) “I will not turn. And you’ll be forced to kill me.”
Vader: (cold as ice) “If that is your destiny.” (literally telling his son he will kill him if he doesn’t turn to the dark side)

Vader: (vulnerable) “It is too late for me, son.”
(motions his troops)
Vader: (cold again) “The Emperor will show you the true nature of the Force. He is your master now.”

He spends the entire conversation either ignoring Luke’s words, getting mad at him, or briefly admitting something before immediately going cold again, talking about the dark side, power, and the Emperor (the things that have defined his life to this point). Because Vader is a tyrannical egomaniac who loves feeling invincible, he refuses to allow himself to ever feel “weak” again. He’s a toxic-masculine character.
This conversation is the exception. He only opened up because his son showed him compassion and believes in him despite only knowing him as a Sith Lord who cut off his hand and tortured/killed friends. That was enough to weaken the armor (and thus his connection to the dark side) but not enough to destroy it, and he doubles down again and again. The armor can only be destroyed by himself by making the choice to be compassionate instead of cold by saving his son.

Vader represses his vulnerable emotions in the entirety of the first two movies and the rest of ROTJ until he redeems himself. One of the most on-the-nose examples:

Luke: (sensing the repressed conflict in his father) “I feel the good in you, the conflict.”
Vader: (cold) “There is no conflict.”

ken-obi said:

Stardust1138 said:

ken-obi said:

Firstly, if people enjoy the Prequel films then all power to them. It is pleasing that some people enjoyed these films. A younger generation of fans have now come through online: and the young kids who enjoyed them at the time are now grown up and want to talk about them and why they enjoyed them. Good for them.
 

But for those of us that didn’t enjoy them:

George seemed to forget the golden rule of making movies with the Prequels:

Show. Don’t tell.
 

Show: George should have done was delivered on what he promised - the story of a great man and his fall into darkness. Although The Phantom Menace is probably the best of the three films, but it served little purpose in the greater narrative. He could have centered the first two films on an intelligent, thoughtful but conflicted Jedi who was lured to the Dark Side. The third film would have then chronicled the crusade of a tortured, Vader who traveled the galaxy hunting down the remaining Jedi.

But instead George gave us something very different - the adventures of an annoying hot-shot child who got lucky in a repeat of a space battle seen twice before in previous Star Wars movies, who then started a toxic controlling relationship with the mother of Luke and Leia, and somehow inexplicably morphed into Vader. George also gave the audience countless contradictions to what had already been explained and established in the previous Original films.

When you consider what could have been, and probably should have been, it is difficult not to feel letdown. Disappointed. Frustrated. In need of a good Fan Edit or 50! 😃
 

Don’t Tell: Since the backlash on the Prequel films George, Lucasfilm and many Prequel fans has spent considerable time and effort to explain why the Prequel films were what they were, and that people who didn’t like them just didn’t understand them, or that in not liking the films they were being mean to him. Mental gymnastics is required to take George at his word, And that is a problem in itself - George had the opportunity to show us the films he later espoused about, but he didn’t. The quality, the heart, the thrill, the story, the talent, all in abundance in the Originals, just wasn’t there for the Prequels. The later explanations and attempts at reasoning why the Prequels weren’t widely liked mean little to the people who paid their ticket money on these much hyped and publicized films at the time, sat down to watch them, and left disappointed. Or people who just plain didn’t like them or thought they were “merely okay”. Or just don’t want to watch them again.
 

Licensed books, animated and live actions series trying to explain the contradictions and plot holes between the two trilogies really only serve to remind people how poor, lazy and incoherent the Prequel films were. Selective interviews from George with friendly journalists and pre-approved questions, more retcons, extensive PR campaigns, videos, blogs, articles - all trying to justify, explain, or give some reason why the Prequels were better than we think or remember, or that we just didn’t understand them - all fail in their purpose: to get more people to watch, like and appreciate these films.

Why would George and others who champion the Prequels think people who didn’t enjoy these films want to read articles and watch videos and so on, or have it explained to them they were somehow wrong not to like these films? Or that they didn’t understand them? It seems a waste of time and effort to me, and yes, we understood them perfectly fine, thank you. George would probably have more respect from fans if he was more honest, about his own shortcomings in approaching the Prequels and the films themselves. Answer the tough and hard questions, not avoid them. Sometimes films don’t work out - not every film is going to be a smash and that is okay. It is also okay to say you “got it wrong” or could have done it differently. Many of us would rather find other Star Wars content to enjoy, whether new games, books, comics series and films.

Enjoy what you like. Leave what you don’t enjoy behind.

There’s a great documentary about this from History Channel. It’s just the Prequels tend to get more unfairly treated because the media tended to propel the backlash to continue as they attacked Ahmed Best, Jake Lloyd, Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, and Rick McCallum. They attacked George too. Why would they want to listen to people who are going to accuse them of being racists, poor actors, yes men, or out of touch mainly deprived from not giving fans what they want? You get nothing from attacking people personally. Instead that’s exactly what happened and still does with a different group. George did listen to critics but he also recognised most were circlejerking around the ideas of things that just weren’t true about him or his colleagues. Most critics tend to view the films from the view of what they wish had happened in the films versus the actual stories and understanding them for what they are. An artist is equally not obligated to tell you their intentions. Andrei Tarkovsky or even Stanley Kubrick never explained themselves. George doesn’t need to either.

“Many don’t understand the Prequels and even Original Trilogy for that matter.”

“racists, poor actors, yes men, or out of touch mainly deprived from not giving fans what they want? You get nothing from attacking people personally”, and “most critics were circlejerking”

WTF? I just don’t like the films. Like I said before many people just don’t like them too, and has nothing to do with what you listed above.

“Most critics tend to view the films from the view of what they wish had happened in the films versus the actual stories and understanding them for what they are.”

No, they don’t. Critics may offer possibilities and alternative scenarios sometime after - but they can also understand the actual films for what they are.

“Andrei Tarkovsky or even Stanley Kubrick never explained themselves. George doesn’t need to either.”

I completely agree, and said before George “doesn’t need to”, yet George continues to attempt to explain them, retcon them, and bridge them so many years afterwards? Again, show - don’t tell.

"What matters I think though is you try understanding the author’s intentions and how successfully they achieved what they set out to do." and “at least give things a chance from the filmmaker’s prospective instead of brushing them off off and thinking only about what you thought could’ve been better”

No. What matters is people making their own mind up if they enjoyed watching a series of films or not. Again, show - don’t tell.

If people decided they did not enjoy them, they do not need to be labelled or associated with, as you did above, as being inferior minded people, accusers of others being racist, people who personally attack others, or are people who don’t understand the Prequels, or other films. Yes, a minority of those toxic fans exist, but they do not speak for the vast majority of those who simply did not enjoy the Prequel Films. A running theme with your posts is that if people critique the Prequel films (or George) then they somehow do not understand them. So there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

I am happy you and others do enjoy these films, but the many that didn’t enjoy the Prequels certainly don’t need lectures on how we just “don’t understand them”.

 

SparkySywer said:

Really, I just can’t understand why Revenge of the Sith is considered by anyone to be some operatic masterpiece. The only good qualities it has comes from depicting the interesting events ANH describes, but even then it butchers them. It’s really just an uncompelling story, shot and directed as blandly as possible, with a healthy helping of bloat and a completely tangential VFX reel every 15 or so minutes to make sure you don’t fall asleep.

Fanedits of Revenge of the Sith that cut out the cheese and the bloat completely fail for me because once you cut that out, the movie has very little left.

I agree for the most part of that, especially when depicting the events that are described in the original film (that don’t contradict it). It does feel at times that the filmmakers wanted it to be over and done with, and as long as “the boxes were ticked” it was somehow “good enough”. It seemed very flat and uninspiring, and not at all what you expect for the climax of the final Prequel film.
 

JadedSkywalker said:

Star Wars was from the Adventures of Luke Skywalker. It was about him and he was the main character. Darth Vader wasn’t his father, and there was no long planned out saga of Darth Vader. Vader was Tarkin’s henchmen. With the first film obviously, then Lucas started rewriting from Empire on.

Lucas made it all up as he went. Its very clear he only started writing the prequels in 1994. He never bothered to watch the original movies again to keep continuity.

It certainly appeared that way given the many contradictions, and the mental gymnastics required to even to attempt to make some them more coherent, in the Prequels.

I think you have partially misinterpreted my views on this subject. Yes, some of Anakin’s reactions in the Prequel Trilogy do come off as exaggerated — even over-the-top, especially in Attack of the Clones. There are moments where he should use more restraint, and I do think that some of his reactions should be toned down. I will not deny that; in fact, in the Prequel edits I am planning to create, I intend to remove certain moments that are simply too over-the-top. However, I still believe it is fitting for Anakin to be more emotionally expressive in the Prequels than he is in the Original Trilogy. Anakin’s heightened expressiveness does not feel out of character to me. After all, he is still young, still learning to navigate his immense power and the emotions that come with being the Chosen One. So, while I plan to moderate some of his more exaggerated reactions in these fan edits, I also intend to keep his character a bit more openly expressive than Vader in the Original Trilogy. This intensity — even if occasionally dramatic — reflects his inner conflicts.

As you pointed out, in the Original Trilogy we can certainly see Darth Vader as a character who appears far more controlled and repressive. I will not deny that. (Just to be clear, when I asked you to give me some examples, I was not trying to be sarcastic. I genuinely wanted you to give me some examples, because I did notremember them.) Yet, there are still moments in which the Original Trilogy’s Vader recalls that same passionate Anakin from the Prequels. For instance, in A New Hope, when Vader captures Leia and accuses her of being a spy and a traitor. His line, “You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take her away!” has a fierceness that feels very much like Prequel-era Anakin, revealing the passionate core that has always been a part of him. Both trilogies show these two sides of Anakin’s character — his struggle to suppress his emotions and his inability to do so at times. In the Prequels, while he may seem overly expressive, there are also instances where he tries to hold back. Take, for example, when he tells Padmé, “Jedi do not have nightmares.” In this moment, he is suppressing his vulnerability, trying to project the calm and control that a Jedi should embody. And I have not watched the films in quite some time, but I am certain there are other moments in the Original Trilogy where Vader’s reactions are similarly spontaneous, as well as other moments in the Prequel Trilogy where Anakin tries to deny his own emotions.

In my opinion, both of these aspects — sometimes repressing his emotions, sometimes failing to contain them — are part of Anakin’s character arc. It would be unrealistic to expect him to behave consistently in one way across every situation, especially given the intense, conflicting pressures he faces. So yes, while I do plan to reduce some of Anakin’s more exaggerated reactions in my fan edits, I believe his expressive nature as a young man adds depth to his character. It shows us the raw conflict within him — a conflict that defines both Anakin and Vader in different ways across the trilogies.

PS: I apologize if my previous response was brief and did not address all your points as thoroughly as this one. Last time, I responded a bit too quickly and without much thought. I tend to fixate on certain things, and having unread messages or unresolved responses really bothers me. So sometimes, just to ease that feeling, I end up sending answers that are not fully thought-out, simply to get it off my chest.

JadedSkywalker said:

For me personally Battle of the Heroes is the worst lightsaber fight of the prequel trilogy. It’s too much style over substance. It’s supposed to be the most personal one in the entire Saga, but I can’t get over all the twirling they do its just ridiculous. And the cgi looks so bad.

I relate to this bc even tho I said earlier I enjoy that duel, I watched a version without music recently and realized Williams was hard carrying.
And I don’t think that’s unfair considering they didn’t include the music to the first part of the Vader vs. Luke ESB duel bc they realized it was better without it. Scenes are more then their music.
Maybe it’s my ADHD but it’s just overstimulating noise. The grounded swordfights in the OT, where you felt the stakes, the power of every slash, is completely gone. There are parts of the duel I like, I don’t dislike it I guess, but it should be cut in half. Maybe even a quarter.

It’s funny to me. For years I thought I loved the duel but it turned out half the time I was just jamming to John Williams. I guess I shouldn’t complain too much.