logo Sign In

What if The Prequels were based on the Pre-PT EU and were more "OT Accurate"?

Author
Time

What if The Prequels were based on the Pre-PT EU and were more “OT Accurate”? (There was a different outline for the War in Thrawn and DE). How Anakin and the rest of the crew would have been? (

Author
Time

More “OT accurate” material for the Prequel era would be awesome!

It is a pity that Lucas kept the “Prequel era” off limits for writers before the PT movies were released, other than the content from thousands of years ago.

Which is kind of weird, as he used much of the TOTJ content for the Sith backstory and ideas for the PT movies?
 

More Solo books like Brian Daley’s, or Lando books like L. Neil Smith’s, would have been interesting. Quality stuff like Andor is how I imagine good Prequel era content that is “OT accurate”.
 

Was there any highly regarded “Prequel era” fan stories from before 1999?

“Don’t tell anyone… but when ‘Star Wars’ first came out, I didn’t know where it was going either. The trick is to pretend you’ve planned the whole thing out in advance. Throw in some father issues and references to other stories - let’s call them homages - and you’ve got a series.” - George Lucas

Author
Time
 (Edited)
  • Ben would’ve been born in 60 BBY. He also would’ve been Owen’s brother, indicating perhaps that his birth name was “Ben Lars”, with “Obi-Wan Kenobi” being a nom de guerre he adopted upon becoming a Jedi.
  • Anakin would’ve been born in 55 BBY.
  • The Clone Wars would’ve ended in 35 BBY. The wars, in part, would’ve been a conflict between the Republic and malevolent Clonemasters, possibly with a Mandalorian clone army at their command. A few decades of peace would’ve separated the wars from the rise of Palpatine’s New Order and the Jedi Purge.
  • Palpatine wouldn’t have been a Sith. He would’ve been extremely old, having been a senator in the Republic Senate in the pre-Clone Wars years, but would’ve used a combination of dark side sorcery and cloning to extend his life and maintain a youthful appearance.
  • Yoda would’ve already been living in exile on Dagobah for a hundred years or more, indicating he didn’t participate in the Clone Wars or know Anakin personally.
  • Luke & Leia’s biological mother may’ve been a Fallanassi adept named Nashira, though this is a VERY unlikely possibility. She wouldn’t have died at the end of the trilogy, whatever the case.
  • Jedi would’ve been allowed to marry/have kids, at least within their own order.
  • There would’ve been more lightsaber colour variety, for Jedi and darksiders alike.
  • Qui-Gon wouldn’t have been Obi-Wan’s primary teacher.

Suffice to say, an EU-accurate PT would’ve been a very different animal to the GPT even if the main beats of the trilogy been preserved.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time
 (Edited)

This is the fantasy I always have in my head. I really hate arguing with people about the prequel Jedi, balance in the Force, gray Jedi, Mortis, etc. when none of that crap existed before 1999. Jedi were so much more interesting. They could wear whatever they liked, go wherever they liked, serve causes they wanted to serve, could have families and children. They were much more like feudal knights or samurai. You could easily imagine different factions of Jedi, differing takes on Jedi philosophy and the Force, and non-Sith Jedi villains like C’baoth. There was no Chosen One prophecy, so Luke’s adventures after RotJ were just as eventful and important as anything before.

People who are into the prequel Jedi are easily impressed by what they think is Lucas subtly criticizing problems that he made up. They have no concept that their ideas are stuck in a box when compared with all the possibilities that were getting explored pre-1999. Even KOTOR takes the wild and crazy Tales of the Jedi era and crams prequel Jedi into it.

I do think Palpatine was intended to be a Sith, though. Once the Sith and the concept of Sith Lords existed, I’m fairly certain that Vader and Palpatine were integrated into it.

Author
Time

Vladius said:

I do think Palpatine was intended to be a Sith, though. Once the Sith and the concept of Sith Lords existed, I’m fairly certain that Vader and Palpatine were integrated into it.

Vader was a Sith in the production of Star Wars, but the lines in the crawl and briefing scene about the Sith were cut.

Author
Time

Vladius said:

I do think Palpatine was intended to be a Sith, though. Once the Sith and the concept of Sith Lords existed, I’m fairly certain that Vader and Palpatine were integrated into it.

Little doubt this is what Lucas intended, but it’s a factoid he apparently kept close to his chest, because Palpatine wasn’t characterized as a Sith in the pre-1999 EU. Darth Vader was characterized as THE Dark Lord of the Sith during the time of the Empire, and as per Tales of the Jedi, only the reigning Sith lord held the “Dark Lord” title. And Empire’s End excluded Palpatine from the Sith hierarchy.


The Sith spirits were gracious enough to make Palpatine an honorary Dark Lord in lieu of Vader, but that Vader had a throne set up for him in their mausoleum while Palpatine didn’t speaks volumes.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time

That’s really interesting. I actually just read Dark Empire and I’m on Dark Empire 2 right now. I still question that internal logic though because the Emperor was clearly Vader’s master, and the Dark Lord of the Sith wasn’t ever subordinate to anyone else in TOTJ, other than ghosts of former Dark Lords like Marka Ragnos.

Author
Time

Vladius said:

That’s really interesting. I actually just read Dark Empire and I’m on Dark Empire 2 right now. I still question that internal logic though because the Emperor was clearly Vader’s master, and the Dark Lord of the Sith wasn’t ever subordinate to anyone else in TOTJ, other than ghosts of former Dark Lords like Marka Ragnos.

I’m trying to think of a justification for this inconsistency and I’m coming up blank.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

BedeHistory731 said:

Vladius said:

That’s really interesting. I actually just read Dark Empire and I’m on Dark Empire 2 right now. I still question that internal logic though because the Emperor was clearly Vader’s master, and the Dark Lord of the Sith wasn’t ever subordinate to anyone else in TOTJ, other than ghosts of former Dark Lords like Marka Ragnos.

I’m trying to think of a justification for this inconsistency and I’m coming up blank.

I like to entertain the idea that Anakin joined the Sith specifically to gain the power to defeat Palpatine. But he overestimated his own abilities, confronted Palpatine half-cocked, had his ass handed to him, and was forced to join him or die.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time

Superweapon VII said:

BedeHistory731 said:

Vladius said:

That’s really interesting. I actually just read Dark Empire and I’m on Dark Empire 2 right now. I still question that internal logic though because the Emperor was clearly Vader’s master, and the Dark Lord of the Sith wasn’t ever subordinate to anyone else in TOTJ, other than ghosts of former Dark Lords like Marka Ragnos.

I’m trying to think of a justification for this inconsistency and I’m coming up blank.

I like to entertain the idea that Anakin joined the Sith specifically to gain the power to defeat Palpatine. But he overestimated his own abilities, confronted Palpatine half-cocked, had his ass handed to him, and was forced to join him or die.

This is a way better idea than Anakin joining the Sith to prevent Padme from dying during childbirth IMO.

Author
Time

I also like to think that there’s a major difference between Sith philosophy and Palpatine’s. They both worship the dark side of the Force, but the Sith adhere to certain traditions and codes of honour they consider sacred whilst Palps is purely a self-serving psychopath, putting them at odds.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time

Superweapon VII said:

BedeHistory731 said:

Vladius said:

That’s really interesting. I actually just read Dark Empire and I’m on Dark Empire 2 right now. I still question that internal logic though because the Emperor was clearly Vader’s master, and the Dark Lord of the Sith wasn’t ever subordinate to anyone else in TOTJ, other than ghosts of former Dark Lords like Marka Ragnos.

I’m trying to think of a justification for this inconsistency and I’m coming up blank.

I like to entertain the idea that Anakin joined the Sith specifically to gain the power to defeat Palpatine. But he overestimated his own abilities, confronted Palpatine half-cocked, had his ass handed to him, and was forced to join him or die.

It’s a really good idea for Anakin’s fall.

Also, as for Palpatine and Vader’s use of the Sith? I tend to think of Palpatine as somebody who used the Sith as a means to an end, while Vader fully embraced the ways of the Sith. A grifter vs a true believer, as some would say.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Vladius said:

This is the fantasy I always have in my head. I really hate arguing with people about the prequel Jedi, balance in the Force, gray Jedi, Mortis, etc. when none of that crap existed before 1999. Jedi were so much more interesting. They could wear whatever they liked, go wherever they liked, serve causes they wanted to serve, could have families and children. They were much more like feudal knights or samurai. You could easily imagine different factions of Jedi, differing takes on Jedi philosophy and the Force, and non-Sith Jedi villains like C’baoth. There was no Chosen One prophecy, so Luke’s adventures after RotJ were just as eventful and important as anything before.

People who are into the prequel Jedi are easily impressed by what they think is Lucas subtly criticizing problems that he made up. They have no concept that their ideas are stuck in a box when compared with all the possibilities that were getting explored pre-1999. Even KOTOR takes the wild and crazy Tales of the Jedi era and crams prequel Jedi into it.

I do think Palpatine was intended to be a Sith, though. Once the Sith and the concept of Sith Lords existed, I’m fairly certain that Vader and Palpatine were integrated into it.

Even though I am a Prequel fan, I pretty much agree with this. I, too, would have preferred if the Jedi were depicted like in the pre-1999 EU, especially like in the Tales of the Jedi comics. No Chosen Ones, no Balance of the Force, no strict rules against marriage and romance in general, and no Mortis. Like, I don’t mind the Jedi being depicted as a centralized Order who participated in the Clone Wars, had a unified philosophy and served the Republic, but I think that the rule against marriage and the Chosen One Prophecy shouldn’t have been introduced, and that they should have found another cause for Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side. Without the Chosen One thing, the Balance of the Force and the rule against marriage and romance, I think that the Force and the Jedi in general would be way less controversial today.

“Sometimes we must let go of our pride, and do what is requested to us.”
– Anakin Skywalker

Author
Time

Superweapon VII said:

Vladius said:

I do think Palpatine was intended to be a Sith, though. Once the Sith and the concept of Sith Lords existed, I’m fairly certain that Vader and Palpatine were integrated into it.

Little doubt this is what Lucas intended, but it’s a factoid he apparently kept close to his chest, because Palpatine wasn’t characterized as a Sith in the pre-1999 EU. Darth Vader was characterized as THE Dark Lord of the Sith during the time of the Empire, and as per Tales of the Jedi, only the reigning Sith lord held the “Dark Lord” title. And Empire’s End excluded Palpatine from the Sith hierarchy.


The Sith spirits were gracious enough to make Palpatine an honorary Dark Lord in lieu of Vader, but that Vader had a throne set up for him in their mausoleum while Palpatine didn’t speaks volumes.

Furthermore, the Sith spirits say “Emperor of numberless worlds” and “Palpatine”, not “Lord Sidious”. Lucas forbade the EU from identifying anyone alive within the lifetime of the movie characters aside from Vader as a “(Dark Lord of the) Sith”.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

This is the fantasy I always have in my head. I really hate arguing with people about the prequel Jedi, balance in the Force, gray Jedi, Mortis, etc. when none of that crap existed before 1999. Jedi were so much more interesting. They could wear whatever they liked, go wherever they liked, serve causes they wanted to serve, could have families and children. They were much more like feudal knights or samurai. You could easily imagine different factions of Jedi, differing takes on Jedi philosophy and the Force, and non-Sith Jedi villains like C’baoth. There was no Chosen One prophecy, so Luke’s adventures after RotJ were just as eventful and important as anything before.

People who are into the prequel Jedi are easily impressed by what they think is Lucas subtly criticizing problems that he made up. They have no concept that their ideas are stuck in a box when compared with all the possibilities that were getting explored pre-1999. Even KOTOR takes the wild and crazy Tales of the Jedi era and crams prequel Jedi into it.

I do think Palpatine was intended to be a Sith, though. Once the Sith and the concept of Sith Lords existed, I’m fairly certain that Vader and Palpatine were integrated into it.

Even though I am a Prequel fan, I pretty much agree with this. I, too, would have preferred if the Jedi were depicted like in the pre-1999 EU, especially like in the Tales of the Jedi comics. No Chosen Ones, no Balance of the Force, no strict rules against marriage and romance in general, and no Mortis. Like, I don’t mind the Jedi being depicted as a centralized Order who participated in the Clone Wars, had a unified philosophy and served the Republic, but I think that the rule against marriage and the Chosen One Prophecy shouldn’t have been introduced, and that they should have found another cause for Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side. Without the Chosen One thing, the Balance of the Force and the rule against marriage and romance, I think that the Force and the Jedi in general would be way less controversial today.

Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of things about the prequels. The Chosen One thing might be worth it just for Obi Wan’s scene at the end of ROTS. That’s incredible. Qui Gon, younger Obi Wan, and Mace Windu are great characters. The Jedi Council, as used in the movies, is a good concept.

What I mainly don’t like is all the insane real world baggage that gets dragged into it. The Jedi are like an ascetic Buddhist FBI that is also a fourth branch of government and also the leaders of the military and also diplomats and also bodyguards. The Republic is the Roman Republic but it’s also the United States during the Civil War and also the United States in modern times. The Senate is the Roman Senate and also the United Nations times a million. The enemies of the Republic are the Confederates from the Civil War and also modern international megacorporations. Anakin has aspects of Christ but is not perfect like Christ and ends up being the Antichrist.
All of the religion and philosophy in Star Wars is both Christian and Buddhist, Western and Eastern, per Lucas. Which means that it has both traditional good and evil, and suggestions of Yin and Yang “balance” stuff, without distinguishing between the two.
This all leads to confusion and really, really, really bad takes from fans about what it all means. Stuff like you should be equally good and evil, or that Anakin committing genocide on the Jedi was good and they deserved it. And then you have a bunch of EU writers, Disney writers, and Dave Filoni encouraging this.

Pre-1999 you could talk about individuals and characters and their traits. Each Jedi was unique, both visually and in their behavior. Now it’s all about a “flawed institution” that people somehow think exists with an analogue in real life. Mostly it just comes down to whatever stereotypes they’ve heard secondhand about the Catholic church that they assume to be true. Wow, the prequels are really a brilliant critique on… this fictional amalgamation of 30 different things that could never actually exist, plus psychic powers.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

BedeHistory731 said:

Also, as for Palpatine and Vader’s use of the Sith? I tend to think of Palpatine as somebody who used the Sith as a means to an end, while Vader fully embraced the ways of the Sith. A grifter vs a true believer, as some would say.

In my personal headcanon, I’ve smooshed the Palpatine and Darth Bane characters together. I imagine he had many of the same epiphanies the Bane of Legends/canon did. He may’ve even adopted the Rule of Two at some point. But that went out the window once he discovered how to escape physical death by transferring his soul into other bodies. At that point, any prospective apprentice became a spare body rather than an heir to the Sith legacy. Like the Jedi, the Sith believe in “passing on what one has learned”, but Palpatine would horde his knowledge, and this is anathema to the Sith. Another reason for acrimony between the two parties.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Vladius said:
What I mainly don’t like is all the insane real world baggage that gets dragged into it. The Jedi are like an ascetic Buddhist FBI that is also a fourth branch of government and also the leaders of the military and also diplomats and also bodyguards. The Republic is the Roman Republic but it’s also the United States during the Civil War and also the United States in modern times. The Senate is the Roman Senate and also the United Nations times a million. The enemies of the Republic are the Confederates from the Civil War and also modern international megacorporations. Anakin has aspects of Christ but is not perfect like Christ and ends up being the Antichrist.
All of the religion and philosophy in Star Wars is both Christian and Buddhist, Western and Eastern, per Lucas. Which means that it has both traditional good and evil, and suggestions of Yin and Yang “balance” stuff, without distinguishing between the two.
This all leads to confusion and really, really, really bad takes from fans about what it all means. Stuff like you should be equally good and evil, or that Anakin committing genocide on the Jedi was good and they deserved it. And then you have a bunch of EU writers, Disney writers, and Dave Filoni encouraging this.

I think this is actually the strength of the prequels as they are IMO.

Lucas challenges preconceptions of The Story with every subsequent movie starting from “I am your father” in ESB; where the PT contradicts the OT is intentionally in conversation. To me, what’d even be the point of these if the story were only the genre tropes and archetypes we could extrapolate from the OT? The “insane” real world baggage is what makes them worth handling in detail at all. It moves the needle from fairy tale to mythology. It’s not meant to be instructive.

Whatever analogues are in that mix shouldn’t be 1:1, otherwise then we would just be talking about Catholicism. Falling in line to real life historical or contemporary example is a hacky commentative form anyway; the only reality that demands consistency in fictional worldbuilding are the sociological and theoretical mechanics. Any philosophy or culture can be made up in that context, and should. That allows space to work with empathy / thought that real world sensitivities make difficult. If you’re looking for specific analogy, of course it’s incoherent. Of course all of this couldn’t really exist. But the exercise is about how something works, not what they are.

Your mileage may vary on what the difference is, but to articulate how I see the difference: Lucas isn’t writing about the United States or Christianity (just as examples). He’d be writing about hegemonic imperialism and the sociology of principled beliefs. From there your personal engagement is your personal engagement. The murkiness of What It All Means™ is a feature not a bug. I like that we can all have different perspectives about it.


That said, pre-PT lore is something I am obsessed with thinking about. As much as I like all the things I like about the prequels, it’s more in an admiration for what it attempts than its execution. I don’t think they are good movies or have even been well served post-ROTS. It’s difficult to parse because the prequels are very formative for me - I like movie and literature the way I do because of them probably. So a more congruent PT / OT might have changed that. But I can’t deny the appeal of just seeing the stuff Obi-Wan talked about in a more straightforward manner. It just wouldn’t have stuck as long I think.

Andor: The Rogue One Arc

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It doesn’t bother me that the Jedi are portrayed as a bureaucratic institution tied to the Republic’s government. It doesn’t bother me that they are portrayed as a centralized Order that has a unified philosophy. It doesn’t bother me that all Jedi are military leaders during the Clone Wars. What bothers me is the fact that they are portrayed as an Order that encourages celibacy and abstinence, and forbids romantic relationships and marriage. Personally, I think that one of the biggest reasons of why people don’t really like the Prequel Jedi is because they forbid marriage. Most people are against forbidding such a thing, as everyone considers marriage and romantic love as something natural. Plus, the Original Trilogy itself never implied that the Jedi forbade such things.

The same can be applied to the “Jedi must begin training at a young age” thing. I mean… Okay, the Original Trilogy implies that the Jedi begin to be trained at a young age, but there is a difference between starting to train a Jedi at a young age and having him join the Order as soon as he is born. The fact that Yoda said Luke was “too old” to be trained does not imply that Luke should have started training as soon as he was born. You could find a middle ground and say that the Jedi are usually brought into the Order when they are 14 years old, or something. This way, Yoda’s statement would have made sense anyway, since Luke was 22 years old at the time.

If Lucas had retained the bureaucratic and centralized aspects of the Jedi Order without introducing the rules about marriage and training at a young age, and had found another reason to make Anakin fall to the Dark Side other than attachment, then I believe that no one would ever think of saying that the Jedi are bad. Plus, not introducing the Chosen One Prophecy and the Balance of the Force would have avoided a lot of confusion about how the Force really works, and would have made things like the return of the Sith after Episode VI to be perfectly acceptable.

“Sometimes we must let go of our pride, and do what is requested to us.”
– Anakin Skywalker

Author
Time
 (Edited)

NFBisms said:

Vladius said:
What I mainly don’t like is all the insane real world baggage that gets dragged into it. The Jedi are like an ascetic Buddhist FBI that is also a fourth branch of government and also the leaders of the military and also diplomats and also bodyguards. The Republic is the Roman Republic but it’s also the United States during the Civil War and also the United States in modern times. The Senate is the Roman Senate and also the United Nations times a million. The enemies of the Republic are the Confederates from the Civil War and also modern international megacorporations. Anakin has aspects of Christ but is not perfect like Christ and ends up being the Antichrist.
All of the religion and philosophy in Star Wars is both Christian and Buddhist, Western and Eastern, per Lucas. Which means that it has both traditional good and evil, and suggestions of Yin and Yang “balance” stuff, without distinguishing between the two.
This all leads to confusion and really, really, really bad takes from fans about what it all means. Stuff like you should be equally good and evil, or that Anakin committing genocide on the Jedi was good and they deserved it. And then you have a bunch of EU writers, Disney writers, and Dave Filoni encouraging this.

I think this is actually the strength of the prequels as they are IMO.

Lucas challenges preconceptions of The Story with every subsequent movie starting from “I am your father” in ESB; where the PT contradicts the OT is intentionally in conversation. To me, what’d even be the point of these if the story were only the genre tropes and archetypes we could extrapolate from the OT? The “insane” real world baggage is what makes them worth handling in detail at all. It moves the needle from fairy tale to mythology. It’s not meant to be instructive.

Whatever analogues are in that mix shouldn’t be 1:1, otherwise then we would just be talking about Catholicism. Falling in line to real life historical or contemporary example is a hacky commentative form anyway; the only reality that demands consistency in fictional worldbuilding are the sociological and theoretical mechanics. Any philosophy or culture can be made up in that context, and should. That allows space to work with empathy / thought that real world sensitivities make difficult. If you’re looking for specific analogy, of course it’s incoherent. Of course all of this couldn’t really exist. But the exercise is about how something works, not what they are.

Your mileage may vary on what the difference is, but to articulate how I see the difference: Lucas isn’t writing about the United States or Christianity (just as examples). He’d be writing about hegemonic imperialism and the sociology of principled beliefs. From there your personal engagement is your personal engagement. The murkiness of What It All Means™ is a feature not a bug. I like that we can all have different perspectives about it.

No, I get all that. My problem is the lack of different perspectives. The orthodox fan view right now is that the light side = no emotions, the dark side = strong emotions, and the gray side = emotions in check. The Jedi are a cult who kidnaps and brainwashes children into having no emotions. When you force people to have no emotions, the Freudian id takes over and makes them turn to the dark side and snap and commit mass murder, and that’s your fault. For these fans (most of them online), there is no other perspective. There’s no dialogue or moral ambiguity. They took black and white, introduced “gray”, then called the gray white and everything else black.
Never mind that gray is nonsensical and involves being half good and half evil. You can have a little bit of turning into a gray-skinned yellow-eyed genocidal cyborg monster, as a treat. (This is how they describe Anakin in the Ahsoka show.)
It’s blatantly false both in and out of universe, but there is no disagreement about it. This is the consensus. In Dave Filoni shows and other stuff, it’s canon. There’s no broader discussion of Christianity and Buddhism or exactly WHY monks do what they do. It’s all judged through the lens of 21st century hyper-individualistic modern western culture where everything is about sex and doing what you want, when you want, screw everyone else.

I am okay with all the weird political and religious imagery mashups. What I am not okay with is the confusion between Good and Evil and Yin and Yang. That’s stupid. It’s based in a lack of understanding of what good and evil and Yin and Yang are supposed to be, in both traditions. I don’t think Lucas intended this but it’s his fault. He was really clumsy with this and didn’t correct it. “Balance in the Force” is such a misleading phrase and there is no reason it should have been put that way. That is the source of this cancer. (It’s that, and video games where you can use force lightning without consequence because it’s cool.)

It also makes the setting really boring because nothing ever matters. “Balance in the Force” for these people means equal light side and dark side, so there’s always going to be mass death and suffering to swing the pendulum back and forth and every victory (including the Chosen One’s) is just temporary and meaningless. Kreia in KOTOR 2 was intended to be a criticism of this idea and the direction Star Wars was heading at the time, but this type of fan that I’m talking about thinks she was objectively right about everything and had no ulterior motives, and they like the setting being boring.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Vladius said:

NFBisms said:

Vladius said:
What I mainly don’t like is all the insane real world baggage that gets dragged into it. The Jedi are like an ascetic Buddhist FBI that is also a fourth branch of government and also the leaders of the military and also diplomats and also bodyguards. The Republic is the Roman Republic but it’s also the United States during the Civil War and also the United States in modern times. The Senate is the Roman Senate and also the United Nations times a million. The enemies of the Republic are the Confederates from the Civil War and also modern international megacorporations. Anakin has aspects of Christ but is not perfect like Christ and ends up being the Antichrist.
All of the religion and philosophy in Star Wars is both Christian and Buddhist, Western and Eastern, per Lucas. Which means that it has both traditional good and evil, and suggestions of Yin and Yang “balance” stuff, without distinguishing between the two.
This all leads to confusion and really, really, really bad takes from fans about what it all means. Stuff like you should be equally good and evil, or that Anakin committing genocide on the Jedi was good and they deserved it. And then you have a bunch of EU writers, Disney writers, and Dave Filoni encouraging this.

I think this is actually the strength of the prequels as they are IMO.

Lucas challenges preconceptions of The Story with every subsequent movie starting from “I am your father” in ESB; where the PT contradicts the OT is intentionally in conversation. To me, what’d even be the point of these if the story were only the genre tropes and archetypes we could extrapolate from the OT? The “insane” real world baggage is what makes them worth handling in detail at all. It moves the needle from fairy tale to mythology. It’s not meant to be instructive.

Whatever analogues are in that mix shouldn’t be 1:1, otherwise then we would just be talking about Catholicism. Falling in line to real life historical or contemporary example is a hacky commentative form anyway; the only reality that demands consistency in fictional worldbuilding are the sociological and theoretical mechanics. Any philosophy or culture can be made up in that context, and should. That allows space to work with empathy / thought that real world sensitivities make difficult. If you’re looking for specific analogy, of course it’s incoherent. Of course all of this couldn’t really exist. But the exercise is about how something works, not what they are.

Your mileage may vary on what the difference is, but to articulate how I see the difference: Lucas isn’t writing about the United States or Christianity (just as examples). He’d be writing about hegemonic imperialism and the sociology of principled beliefs. From there your personal engagement is your personal engagement. The murkiness of What It All Means™ is a feature not a bug. I like that we can all have different perspectives about it.

My problem is the lack of different perspectives. The orthodox fan view right now is that the light side = no emotions, the dark side = strong emotions, and the gray side = emotions in check. The Jedi are a cult who kidnaps and brainwashes children into having no emotions. When you force people to have no emotions, the Freudian id takes over and makes them turn to the dark side and snap and commit mass murder, and that’s your fault. For these fans (most of them online), there is no other perspective. There’s no dialogue or moral ambiguity. They took black and white, introduced “gray”, then called the gray white and everything else black.
Never mind that gray is nonsensical and involves being half good and half evil. You can have a little bit of turning into a gray-skinned yellow-eyed genocidal cyborg monster, as a treat. (This is how they describe Anakin in the Ahsoka show.)
It’s blatantly false both in and out of universe, but there is no disagreement about it. This is the consensus. In Dave Filoni shows and other stuff, it’s canon. There’s no broader discussion of Christianity and Buddhism or exactly WHY monks do what they do. It’s all judged through the lens of 21st century hyper-individualistic modern western culture where everything is about sex and doing what you want, when you want, screw everyone else.

I don’t want to play the part of the devil’s advocate, but can you really blame the fans for this? I think that Lucas is to blame, not the fans. In the Prequels there is no indication whatsoever that the Jedi philosophy is not based on suppressing emotions. On the contrary, every time we see the Jedi do or say something in the Prequels, you always get the impression that repressing emotions is exactly what they do. Add to that the fact that the Jedi forbid marriage and romantic relationships, and you have the perfect formula for misunderstanding. If Lucas was not able to properly convey his message, then it’s not the fault of the fans, it’s Lucas’s fault. And even if Lucas had succeeded in conveying his message correctly, it doesn’t mean that people should not be contrary to the Jedi philosophy, because you can still be contrary to the idea of celibacy. I’m a collectivist and an anti-individualist myself, but I’m still contrary to celibacy.

“Sometimes we must let go of our pride, and do what is requested to us.”
– Anakin Skywalker

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Vladius said:
There’s no broader discussion of Christianity and Buddhism or exactly WHY monks do what they do. It’s all judged through the lens of 21st century hyper-individualistic modern western culture where everything is about sex and doing what you want, when you want, screw everyone else.

I’d want to push back on that. This view is also heavily informed by modern rejection of religious institutions, colored by decades worth of abuse scandals and cults getting exposed (e.g., Scientology and the Unification Church). The “cult that captures children and brainwashes them” doesn’t seem so unreasonable after watching Jesus Camp or any numerous videos of indoctrinated fundamentalist children. The Jedi also acting as an added branch of government doesn’t help much, given how religious institutions have invested in candidates over the years. Hell, I’m not surprised Jedi molester stories aren’t more common within AO3 fanfics.

The intention may have been noble to show monastic life in a positive light, but the execution in the films has left things open to this more critical interpretation. I wouldn’t say it’s wrong at all, but rather just operating off of what has been presented in the media/real-world context. It’s a bit of that post-Catholic scandal/post-911 antitheism of which the internet has long enjoyed.

Of course, I go for the “Anakin is basically a school shooter” philosophy and argue that Palpatine radicalized a long-vulnerable person down the path of the dark side.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

NFBisms said:

Vladius said:
What I mainly don’t like is all the insane real world baggage that gets dragged into it. The Jedi are like an ascetic Buddhist FBI that is also a fourth branch of government and also the leaders of the military and also diplomats and also bodyguards. The Republic is the Roman Republic but it’s also the United States during the Civil War and also the United States in modern times. The Senate is the Roman Senate and also the United Nations times a million. The enemies of the Republic are the Confederates from the Civil War and also modern international megacorporations. Anakin has aspects of Christ but is not perfect like Christ and ends up being the Antichrist.
All of the religion and philosophy in Star Wars is both Christian and Buddhist, Western and Eastern, per Lucas. Which means that it has both traditional good and evil, and suggestions of Yin and Yang “balance” stuff, without distinguishing between the two.
This all leads to confusion and really, really, really bad takes from fans about what it all means. Stuff like you should be equally good and evil, or that Anakin committing genocide on the Jedi was good and they deserved it. And then you have a bunch of EU writers, Disney writers, and Dave Filoni encouraging this.

I think this is actually the strength of the prequels as they are IMO.

Lucas challenges preconceptions of The Story with every subsequent movie starting from “I am your father” in ESB; where the PT contradicts the OT is intentionally in conversation. To me, what’d even be the point of these if the story were only the genre tropes and archetypes we could extrapolate from the OT? The “insane” real world baggage is what makes them worth handling in detail at all. It moves the needle from fairy tale to mythology. It’s not meant to be instructive.

Whatever analogues are in that mix shouldn’t be 1:1, otherwise then we would just be talking about Catholicism. Falling in line to real life historical or contemporary example is a hacky commentative form anyway; the only reality that demands consistency in fictional worldbuilding are the sociological and theoretical mechanics. Any philosophy or culture can be made up in that context, and should. That allows space to work with empathy / thought that real world sensitivities make difficult. If you’re looking for specific analogy, of course it’s incoherent. Of course all of this couldn’t really exist. But the exercise is about how something works, not what they are.

Your mileage may vary on what the difference is, but to articulate how I see the difference: Lucas isn’t writing about the United States or Christianity (just as examples). He’d be writing about hegemonic imperialism and the sociology of principled beliefs. From there your personal engagement is your personal engagement. The murkiness of What It All Means™ is a feature not a bug. I like that we can all have different perspectives about it.

My problem is the lack of different perspectives. The orthodox fan view right now is that the light side = no emotions, the dark side = strong emotions, and the gray side = emotions in check. The Jedi are a cult who kidnaps and brainwashes children into having no emotions. When you force people to have no emotions, the Freudian id takes over and makes them turn to the dark side and snap and commit mass murder, and that’s your fault. For these fans (most of them online), there is no other perspective. There’s no dialogue or moral ambiguity. They took black and white, introduced “gray”, then called the gray white and everything else black.
Never mind that gray is nonsensical and involves being half good and half evil. You can have a little bit of turning into a gray-skinned yellow-eyed genocidal cyborg monster, as a treat. (This is how they describe Anakin in the Ahsoka show.)
It’s blatantly false both in and out of universe, but there is no disagreement about it. This is the consensus. In Dave Filoni shows and other stuff, it’s canon. There’s no broader discussion of Christianity and Buddhism or exactly WHY monks do what they do. It’s all judged through the lens of 21st century hyper-individualistic modern western culture where everything is about sex and doing what you want, when you want, screw everyone else.

I don’t want to play the part of the devil’s advocate, but can you really blame the fans for this? I think that Lucas is to blame, not the fans. In the Prequels there is no indication whatsoever that the Jedi philosophy is not based on suppressing emotions. On the contrary, every time we see the Jedi do or say something in the Prequels, you always get the impression that repressing emotions is exactly what they do. Add to that the fact that the Jedi forbid marriage and romantic relationships, and you have the perfect formula for misunderstanding. If Lucas was not able to properly convey his message, then it’s not the fault of the fans, it’s Lucas’s fault. And even if Lucas had succeeded in conveying his message correctly, it doesn’t mean that people should not be contrary to the Jedi philosophy, because you can still be contrary to the idea of celibacy. I’m a collectivist and an anti-individualist myself, but I’m still contrary to celibacy.

I agree 100% and I think I mentioned that in one of my posts. It is Lucas’s fault.
I don’t believe in celibacy in real life either. However I’m willing to accept that it makes sense in the context of the Jedi, and I think that’s established in the prequels, though it could be done much better. Going back to pre-1999 though, they’re even better without that issue.

Author
Time

BedeHistory731 said:

Vladius said:
There’s no broader discussion of Christianity and Buddhism or exactly WHY monks do what they do. It’s all judged through the lens of 21st century hyper-individualistic modern western culture where everything is about sex and doing what you want, when you want, screw everyone else.

I’d want to push back on that. This view is also heavily informed by modern rejection of religious institutions, colored by decades worth of abuse scandals and cults getting exposed (e.g., Scientology and the Unification Church). The “cult that captures children and brainwashes them” doesn’t seem so unreasonable after watching Jesus Camp or any numerous videos of indoctrinated fundamentalist children. The Jedi also acting as an added branch of government doesn’t help much, given how religious institutions have invested in candidates over the years. Hell, I’m not surprised Jedi molester stories aren’t more common within AO3 fanfics.

The intention may have been noble to show monastic life in a positive light, but the execution in the films has left things open to this more critical interpretation. I wouldn’t say it’s wrong at all, but rather just operating off of what has been presented in the media/real-world context. It’s a bit of that post-Catholic scandal/post-911 antitheism of which the internet has long enjoyed.

Of course, I go for the “Anakin is basically a school shooter” philosophy and argue that Palpatine radicalized a long-vulnerable person down the path of the dark side.

I completely agree and I say that a lot. It’s absolutely based on however you feel about religion in real life. I think Lucas could have done a much better job of establishing why the Jedi are the way they are and steering clear of those kinds of stereotypes. I can accept that he wanted the Jedi to be nuanced and imperfect, but it’s distasteful how much he made them look stupid, and “creepy” to modern audiences.

Author
Time

Before the prequel trilogy, I always assumed the reason you didn’t hear about the Jedi having love lives was because they tended to be hyper-focused on their vocation, but if a Jedi were to fall in love it was no big deal.

At no point in the OT did either one of Obi-Wan or Yoda say to Luke something like “Now that you have chosen this path you must forsake any notion of a love life. Your father violated this.” or something to that effect.

Author
Time

I’m not really focused on the EU, but i think Yoda and Palpatine should never have had a lightsaber in the prequel. Lucas should have stuck with his original prequel outline. Vader hunts down the Jedi no order 66. Ben and Vader duel over a volcano. Leia’s mom goes to Alderaan and died when she was very young. Somewhere in there Ben tries to sway Anakin back to the good side and fails leading to their duel and Anakin finally needing the suit to survive.

The only thing i’m not sold on was the original love triangle between Ani, Luke’s mom and Ben. I don’t think Lucas could pull it off.

Things i wonder about Anakin being portrayed as an adventurous man who didn’t care about farming but wanted to solve things with his lightsaber. He wanted Luke to have his lightsaber when he was old enough. Those idealistic crusades Ben spoke of. What were they?

Were the Clone Wars about Mandalorians fighting the Jedi like Revan in Kotor? Where did the Clones fit in.