Sign In

Worst Ideas in Star Wars/Good Ideas that went Horribly Wrong — Page 3

Author
Time

Spottyfriend said:

Slavicuss said:

Qui-Gon Jinn wasn’t necessary. All that was needed was Obi-wan and Anakin. The prequels could have begun with them already Master and apprentice, building their bond right from the beginning of Ep. 1 - instead of pissing away the first chapter on a little boy and his mom.

Obi-Wan should have been older, and already a Jedi Master in Ep. 1, and Anakin, a teenager not a small boy.

Lucas traveled too far back into Anakin’s past for the prequels. We could have been spared all the childish crap that swamped Ep. 1.

Completed agreed. That’s why I am a fan of (much of) Clone Wars - it does what the Prequel Trilogy should have been all about: Anakin and Obi-Wan’s relationship. Also, this is why the Machete Order is the superior watching order - it skips Ep. 1 and is better for it!

Interestingly, early drafts of the TPM did not include Qui-Gon (according to various sources). Man Liam Neeson was awesome as Rob Roy though! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u_76dg61ns

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time

I feel like ESB did more harm than good for Vader. I came across an article in an old issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland (around 1978) and it had a really interesting point about the code of honor which Vader seems to exhibit in the original Star Wars, and it read quite a bit of character into him that is easy to imagine being a reason for the spike of popularity he achieved between 1977 and 1980. I’ll try and post it if I can find it again. It made some interesting points.

Anyway, in Empire Strikes Back I feel like the nuance of Vader’s characterization was almost entirely lost. The constant killing of his subordinates (to a degree it almost becomes a running gag), the comparatively angry delivery of his lines versus the more soft-spoken delivery of the original, and the fact that his dialogue becomes considerably more blunt. He has his moments of greatness, certainly, but I feel like from the outset of development they were too far gone into making him over-the-top evil rather than the comparatively mysterious and intimidating figure he was in the original film.

I’m actually curious, does anyone else think this?

I’m just here because I’m driving tonight.

Author
Time

Tack said:

the comparatively angry delivery of his lines versus the more soft-spoken delivery of the original,

You sure about that?

Author
Time

I’ve truthfully never heard of ESB criticized because of Vader. I think it’s just Vader freaking out in the most Vader way he can. He knows his Force sensitive son is out there, so he wants the best of the best in his Empire. Anyone underperforming to his standards is subject to harsh consequences.
Whenever the Jedi were wiped out, he must had lost a sense of purpose. But with Luke brought to the forefront, it’s like he’s forced out of temporary retirement. Imagine what he must look like in front of his peers. Basically a fool because some kid blew up their most powerful weapon. So of course he’s more angry sounding and tougher.

The Rise of Failures

Author
Time

Tack said:

I feel like ESB did more harm than good for Vader. I came across an article in an old issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland (around 1978) and it had a really interesting point about the code of honor which Vader seems to exhibit in the original Star Wars, and it read quite a bit of character into him that is easy to imagine being a reason for the spike of popularity he achieved between 1977 and 1980. I’ll try and post it if I can find it again. It made some interesting points.

Anyway, in Empire Strikes Back I feel like the nuance of Vader’s characterization was almost entirely lost. The constant killing of his subordinates (to a degree it almost becomes a running gag), the comparatively angry delivery of his lines versus the more soft-spoken delivery of the original, and the fact that his dialogue becomes considerably more blunt. He has his moments of greatness, certainly, but I feel like from the outset of development they were too far gone into making him over-the-top evil rather than the comparatively mysterious and intimidating figure he was in the original film.

I’m actually curious, does anyone else think this?

An interesting opinion, and I think you are on to something. ESB Vader is not someone you can imagine having a conversation with but in SW, yeah if you were of sufficient rank, I can see it. In SW he is far more of a human being rather then this uber-powered Sorcerer/Dark Paladin type character. Of course the Jedi themselves were conceived very differently too.

On of the most interesting things about Vader in SW77 is the question of his position in the Imperial Hierarchy. Apparently Vader does not outrank a Grand Moff nor, in all likelihood, other senior military commanders and government officials. Admiral Motti is certainly not afraid to express his poor opinion of Vader’s abilities and religious sensibilities; and in a very disrespectful manner. Deleted scenes from ROTJ, as well as early drafts of both it and ESBs scripts, show that he is not the unquestioned successor to Palpatine. Interesting stuff!

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

a story set in the Old Republic that shows how the Jedi transitioned into fundamentalism

YES

Initiating self-destruct countdown…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Tack said:

I feel like ESB did more harm than good for Vader. I came across an article in an old issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland (around 1978) and it had a really interesting point about the code of honor which Vader seems to exhibit in the original Star Wars, and it read quite a bit of character into him that is easy to imagine being a reason for the spike of popularity he achieved between 1977 and 1980. I’ll try and post it if I can find it again. It made some interesting points.

Anyway, in Empire Strikes Back I feel like the nuance of Vader’s characterization was almost entirely lost. The constant killing of his subordinates (to a degree it almost becomes a running gag), the comparatively angry delivery of his lines versus the more soft-spoken delivery of the original, and the fact that his dialogue becomes considerably more blunt. He has his moments of greatness, certainly, but I feel like from the outset of development they were too far gone into making him over-the-top evil rather than the comparatively mysterious and intimidating figure he was in the original film.

I’m actually curious, does anyone else think this?

Vader raises his voice quite a few times in SW '77 and strangles a guy to death with his own hands. I don’t think he ever raises his voice in the sequels (all his anger’s of the cold variety), and he never physically assaults anyone (aside from cutting Luke’s hand off/tossing Palpatine into a pit). TESB did go too far with the Force-choking, though.

Virgin since 1987, horny since 1999. Thank God I’m not an incel.

Author
Time

It’s kind of weird that the movie that establishes Vader as Luke’s father (albeit perhaps a clone thereof or something) also features an extreme uptick in him Force-choking officers to death.

I blame George Lucas & Larry Kasdan reacting to the mild-mannered Vader of Leigh Brackett’s draft, where he dismisses officers who fail him with mild reproofs like “Leave me, you incompetent idiot.”

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time

ATMachine said:

It’s kind of weird that the movie that establishes Vader as Luke’s father (albeit perhaps a clone thereof or something) also features an extreme uptick in him Force-choking officers to death.

I blame George Lucas & Larry Kasdan reacting to the mild-mannered Vader of Leigh Brackett’s draft, where he dismisses officers who fail him with mild reproofs like “Leave me, you incompetent idiot.”

I think I can agree most with your take on it. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my original post: Vader, while he does raise his voice in a number of instances in the original movie, is given a lot more contextual cause to do so. In his own ranks, he carries the amount of respect and professionalism that you could expect a high-ranking officer to have. If the briefing room scene had been in ESB, Vader would almost certainly have killed Motti. The only times he raises his voice are against Leia and in a moment right after a failed interrogation. I’m not arguing that he was less evil in the original, I’m arguing that I think the evil was portrayed a lot more realistically.

And I have to admit, Brackett’s more mild-mannered Vader appeals to me in a certain sense. Again, my main problem with ESB is the fact that his casual dispatching of his underlings is almost played as a running gag.

At least they didn’t stick with him having a pet gargoyle or ripping Threepio’s heart out.

I’m just here because I’m driving tonight.

Author
Time

ATMachine said:

It’s kind of weird that the movie that establishes Vader as Luke’s father (albeit perhaps a clone thereof or something) also features an extreme uptick in him Force-choking officers to death.

I blame George Lucas & Larry Kasdan reacting to the mild-mannered Vader of Leigh Brackett’s draft, where he dismisses officers who fail him with mild reproofs like “Leave me, you incompetent idiot.”

Replacing the (bad) dialogue with something much more frightening (telekinetic strangulations) was the right move.

I wish the deleted scene from RETURN OF THE JEDI made the final cut, the one with Vader almost killing the cheeky little sh*t officer that prevents him from seeing the Emperor.

Author
Time

Tack said:

I feel like ESB did more harm than good for Vader. I came across an article in an old issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland (around 1978) and it had a really interesting point about the code of honor which Vader seems to exhibit in the original Star Wars, and it read quite a bit of character into him that is easy to imagine being a reason for the spike of popularity he achieved between 1977 and 1980. I’ll try and post it if I can find it again. It made some interesting points.

Anyway, in Empire Strikes Back I feel like the nuance of Vader’s characterization was almost entirely lost. The constant killing of his subordinates (to a degree it almost becomes a running gag), the comparatively angry delivery of his lines versus the more soft-spoken delivery of the original, and the fact that his dialogue becomes considerably more blunt. He has his moments of greatness, certainly, but I feel like from the outset of development they were too far gone into making him over-the-top evil rather than the comparatively mysterious and intimidating figure he was in the original film.

I’m actually curious, does anyone else think this?

I like the transition from ANH to TESB because it sets Vader up as a creature of pure rage. He’s kind of out of his element in ANH - being on the Death Star with Tarkin and everything - but in TESB he’s running his own show. And yes, the strangulations become something of a running joke but it’s a pretty sick joke - and not something you can really come back from. This guy kills people who piss him off! Which for me really fuels the horror of the revelation at the film’s climax. Had Vader been more sympathetic, we might not have been so floored by that iconic reveal. The fact that Vader is not a good guy lends weight to Luke’s (and our own) shock IMO.

Author
Time

I feel like it’s worth mentioning Vader chokes a total of two people in all of TESB.

Author
Time

A great idea - Christopher Lee as a rogue Jedi
Failed execution - see above

and while talking about bad (and badly executed) freakin’ ideas:
General Greivous.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I feel like it’s worth mentioning Vader chokes a total of two people in all of TESB.

Really? Damn. Maybe I’ve been grasping at straws this whole time. SOMETHING feels different to me.

In any case, I found the article. It just gets my imagination going as to what a more nuanced version of Vader would be like.

https://archive.org/details/Warren_Presents_003_Star_Quest_Comix_01_mothra/page/n23

I’m just here because I’m driving tonight.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

Tack said:

I feel like ESB did more harm than good for Vader. I came across an article in an old issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland (around 1978) and it had a really interesting point about the code of honor which Vader seems to exhibit in the original Star Wars, and it read quite a bit of character into him that is easy to imagine being a reason for the spike of popularity he achieved between 1977 and 1980. I’ll try and post it if I can find it again. It made some interesting points.

Anyway, in Empire Strikes Back I feel like the nuance of Vader’s characterization was almost entirely lost. The constant killing of his subordinates (to a degree it almost becomes a running gag), the comparatively angry delivery of his lines versus the more soft-spoken delivery of the original, and the fact that his dialogue becomes considerably more blunt. He has his moments of greatness, certainly, but I feel like from the outset of development they were too far gone into making him over-the-top evil rather than the comparatively mysterious and intimidating figure he was in the original film.

I’m actually curious, does anyone else think this?

I like the transition from ANH to TESB because it sets Vader up as a creature of pure rage. He’s kind of out of his element in ANH - being on the Death Star with Tarkin and everything - but in TESB he’s running his own show. And yes, the strangulations become something of a running joke but it’s a pretty sick joke - and not something you can really come back from. This guy kills people who piss him off! Which for me really fuels the horror of the revelation at the film’s climax. Had Vader been more sympathetic, we might not have been so floored by that iconic reveal. The fact that Vader is not a good guy lends weight to Luke’s (and our own) shock IMO.

Unfortunately, it runs counter to the notion that this is a man who “still has good in him.”

Virgin since 1987, horny since 1999. Thank God I’m not an incel.

Author
Time

Tack said:

DominicCobb said:

I feel like it’s worth mentioning Vader chokes a total of two people in all of TESB.

Really? Damn. Maybe I’ve been grasping at straws this whole time. SOMETHING feels different to me.

In any case, I found the article. It just gets my imagination going as to what a more nuanced version of Vader would be like.

https://archive.org/details/Warren_Presents_003_Star_Quest_Comix_01_mothra/page/n23

That’s an excellent article. Too bad Lucas and later writers didn’t read it/take it to heart.

Virgin since 1987, horny since 1999. Thank God I’m not an incel.

Author
Time

regularjoe said:

A great idea - Christopher Lee as a rogue Jedi
Failed execution - see above

and while talking about bad (and badly executed) freakin’ ideas:
General Greivous.

I like the idea of a Sith who is a sophisticated gentleman on the outside but inside is evil to the core; Lee played Dooku always calm and in control on the surface and I wish Lee had been given more screen time.

Greivous was very well executed in that Clone Wars microseries, but yes his conception was a silly idea. One of the prequels problems was that Lucas kept introducing a new “main” villain every movie. What would have been wrong with Darth Maul as the main antagonist for the entire PT?

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Shopping Maul said:

Tack said:

I feel like ESB did more harm than good for Vader. I came across an article in an old issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland (around 1978) and it had a really interesting point about the code of honor which Vader seems to exhibit in the original Star Wars, and it read quite a bit of character into him that is easy to imagine being a reason for the spike of popularity he achieved between 1977 and 1980. I’ll try and post it if I can find it again. It made some interesting points.

Anyway, in Empire Strikes Back I feel like the nuance of Vader’s characterization was almost entirely lost. The constant killing of his subordinates (to a degree it almost becomes a running gag), the comparatively angry delivery of his lines versus the more soft-spoken delivery of the original, and the fact that his dialogue becomes considerably more blunt. He has his moments of greatness, certainly, but I feel like from the outset of development they were too far gone into making him over-the-top evil rather than the comparatively mysterious and intimidating figure he was in the original film.

I’m actually curious, does anyone else think this?

I like the transition from ANH to TESB because it sets Vader up as a creature of pure rage. He’s kind of out of his element in ANH - being on the Death Star with Tarkin and everything - but in TESB he’s running his own show. And yes, the strangulations become something of a running joke but it’s a pretty sick joke - and not something you can really come back from. This guy kills people who piss him off! Which for me really fuels the horror of the revelation at the film’s climax. Had Vader been more sympathetic, we might not have been so floored by that iconic reveal. The fact that Vader is not a good guy lends weight to Luke’s (and our own) shock IMO.

Unfortunately, it runs counter to the notion that this is a man who “still has good in him.”

Not at the time. The ‘still has good in him’ thing was a ROTJ addition.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Shopping Maul said:

Tack said:

I feel like ESB did more harm than good for Vader. I came across an article in an old issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland (around 1978) and it had a really interesting point about the code of honor which Vader seems to exhibit in the original Star Wars, and it read quite a bit of character into him that is easy to imagine being a reason for the spike of popularity he achieved between 1977 and 1980. I’ll try and post it if I can find it again. It made some interesting points.

Anyway, in Empire Strikes Back I feel like the nuance of Vader’s characterization was almost entirely lost. The constant killing of his subordinates (to a degree it almost becomes a running gag), the comparatively angry delivery of his lines versus the more soft-spoken delivery of the original, and the fact that his dialogue becomes considerably more blunt. He has his moments of greatness, certainly, but I feel like from the outset of development they were too far gone into making him over-the-top evil rather than the comparatively mysterious and intimidating figure he was in the original film.

I’m actually curious, does anyone else think this?

I like the transition from ANH to TESB because it sets Vader up as a creature of pure rage. He’s kind of out of his element in ANH - being on the Death Star with Tarkin and everything - but in TESB he’s running his own show. And yes, the strangulations become something of a running joke but it’s a pretty sick joke - and not something you can really come back from. This guy kills people who piss him off! Which for me really fuels the horror of the revelation at the film’s climax. Had Vader been more sympathetic, we might not have been so floored by that iconic reveal. The fact that Vader is not a good guy lends weight to Luke’s (and our own) shock IMO.

Unfortunately, it runs counter to the notion that this is a man who “still has good in him.”

Not at the time. The ‘still has good in him’ thing was a ROTJ addition.

True.

Virgin since 1987, horny since 1999. Thank God I’m not an incel.

Author
Time

A redemption arc of some sort was always a possibility from the moment Vader became Luke’s father. Either that or Luke would’ve found a way to let a hazardous environment kill Vader, like with Ra’s al Ghul in Batman Begins. ("…through inaction, allowing a human being to come to harm," as Asimov would say.)

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time

One of the prequels problems was that Lucas kept introducing a new “main” villain every movie. What would have been wrong with Darth Maul as the main antagonist for the entire PT?

What’s wrong with Darth Maul is Dooku. They should have gone with Dooku from E1 straight through 3.
I realize that the Empire doesn’t exist yet but Maul as the apprentice runs counter to the xenophobia of the realized Empire and Palpy was the one behind all that so Maul doesn’t make sense at all.

Christopher Lee was a sadly wasted opportunity of quality; instead we were given Grievous in 3 and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom level garbage.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

regularjoe said:

One of the prequels problems was that Lucas kept introducing a new “main” villain every movie. What would have been wrong with Darth Maul as the main antagonist for the entire PT?

What’s wrong with Darth Maul is Dooku. They should have gone with Dooku from E1 straight through 3.
I realize that the Empire doesn’t exist yet but Maul as the apprentice runs counter to the xenophobia of the realized Empire and Palpy was the one behind all that so Maul doesn’t make sense at all.

Christopher Lee was a sadly wasted opportunity of quality; instead we were given Grievous in 3 and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom level garbage.

Ignoring Palpatine’s xenophobia, Maul’s just a metalhead’s wet dream with a gimmicky lightsaber played by an ascended stuntman; he’s all style, no substance. Dooku, on the other hand, was played by one of the greatest actors who ever lived, and all the ingredients for an amazing complex antivillian prefiguring Vader were there.

Virgin since 1987, horny since 1999. Thank God I’m not an incel.

Author
Time

Goshhh Dooku is seriously the biggest missed opportunity of the prequels. He has like, a minute or two of screen time where he isn’t fighting and it’s so infuriating.

I’m a girl!!!
Champions of the Force

Author
Time

snooker said:

Goshhh Dooku is seriously the biggest missed opportunity of the prequels. He has like, a minute or two of screen time where he isn’t fighting and it’s so infuriating.

For about 20 minutes while watching Episode II for the first time I thought it was brilliant that he captures Obi-Wan and basically tells him the truth. It looked like they were setting up Dooku as one of the founders of the Rebellion. Having a “bad guy” be basically be on the same side as the Rebels would have been an interesting twist. But they flushed that down the toilet by the end of the film.