CO

Originally posted by: Mike O

I see it more like him saying "put your money where your mouth is." And the sales figures show that people have do so. Now we wait.

Originally posted by: dagobahexile

I will say, however, that these so-called "OT Purists" make me sad sometimes. This is because, for a decent number(but certainly not all) of these purists, it's not just "The prequels suck". It's that ANYTHING Star Wars related that isn't in the OT, doesn't matter. There is a huge amount of "Expanded Universe" stuff that is "canon"(whatever the hell that means), but there are OT fans that simply don't care. There is huge amount of story, before the OT(and even before the PT) and after the OT, a huge amount of other characters, a huge amount of this FANTASTY GALAXY that's been created that is left unexplored by many.
.

Originally posted by: Tiptup

Well, you make a very good point there. Yet for some reason it is very frustrating for me, as a Star Wars fan, to have seen the films fall to the place where they are now. I know they aren’t the worst films ever, but they could have been somewhat good.

Perhaps I believed Lucas’ own self promotion a little too much. Perhaps I shouldn’t have believed he was a genius who single-handedly built the original trilogy as he tried to claim (despite that no being true at all). Perhaps, then, the prequel movies and the SE wouldn’t be so frustrating for me now.
.

Originally posted bybi Jeewhyen

Well, then I hope you (and perhaps others here) won't think ill of me for applying the same emotional response to the O.T. Empire and Jedi are not the story that comes after Star Wars - because that film presents a universe where Luke's father, Anakin, was betrayed and murdered (not in an imaginary sense) by someone entirely different, i.e., Darth Vader ... and Princess Leia is a legitimate love interest for the hero, and not the hero's sister.

The follow-up movie is so completely different in story, and in tone, and in throwing in both retarded childishness and boring maturity (faults thrown at the P.T., but sooooo applicable to The Empire Strikes Back) ... and frankly is different in everything I found enjoyable in Star Wars such that I don't consider it a "continuance" at all ... but rather an offshoot that has almost no continuity with the source.

But I can still enjoy Empire and Jedi to an extent. And I can't even sit through any of the prequels. Heck, I tried to watch my favorite of them just the other night, and I couldn't stand more than half-an-hour of it. Gak!
.

Originally posted by: zombie84
Very unsurprisingly, the final installment of that initial trilogy did not meet the standards of the first two. Normally this would be though of as "duh, what else did you expect," but the fact that ESB met--and perhaps surpassed in some peoples opinions--the original made us believe that the rest could keep up this standard. If ESB had been "average" the way ROTJ we would have gone "meh," enjoyed the original for the masterpiece it was, and painfully acknowledged that a bunch of sequels were unsurprisingly made for it that werent very impressive but had their moments. Like Jaws. Like the Exorcist. Like Rocky. Like Superman. Like The Matrix.
But people enjoy ROTJ because it survived on the coattails of ANH and ESB. It was just average as a whole, good in parts and great in moments. But it was part 2 of 2, the resolution of ESB, and in many other ways part 3 of 3, the resolution to the trilogy of which the other parts were two of the best films ever made. So it gets by, even though it is criticised.

Originally posted by: vote_for_palpatine

It bothers me that in order for certain PT plot points to work, I have to A) watch the Clone Wars cartoon B) reference a Lucas quote about the given scene C) read a Visual Companion or D) craft some kind of elaborate theory about why ________ happened. Here's a for instance:

Someone named "Darth Toe Jam" on another SW forum (thefarce.net) trumpets in his signature that he thought of the Anakin/Vader "Duel Persona" theory before Lucas confirmed it. The Dual Persona theory, for the unitiated, states that Anakin died when he became Darth Vader and that's why Mannequin Skywalker appears at the end of ROTJ. I have two questions:

1) Why wasn't this made evident in the movies? Why do we need to hear from George Lucas after the fact?
2) Who the Blue Hell threw the Emperor down the freaking Death Star II shaft?!? Lucas made it clear that Anakin was dead at that point!

This is the kind of thing that can drive me up a goddamn wall in the PT. Some stuff gets explained into the ground while other stuff is presented so badly that the question remains unanswered on film.

Again, I don't deny a bias in this matter, but I think by and large the majority of my criticisms of the PT are rooted in storytelling flaws.

[Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

As much as I respect all of your opinions, I still get this huge feeling like a lot of you don't like the prequels simply because they -aren't- the OT. Sometimes it seems as though a lot of you had no problem effortlessly suspending your disbelief for the classic trilogy, but now it seems like you guys are expecting the prequel trilogy to be more perfect than the classic trilogy had to be.
.

Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

"Training to become a Jedi is not an easy challenge. And even if you succeed, it's a hard life. Take that line by Qui-Gon, add the fact that Anakin was raised by his mother exclusively for nine years but can't see her because of the Jedi way, on top of the fact that he's been labeled the Chosen One and he knows it(literally) and feels it and end it with his superiors constantly keeping a watchful eye on him and holding him back.

I think you can possibly see why Anakin is a little different, 10 years later...and why he goes back and forth between doing his duty and training as a Jedi and he desires toward Padme in Episode II. He's a good kid in Episode II. He's just dealing with some angst when it comes to the Jedi Way.

"Must be difficult having sworn your life to the Jedi. Not be able to visit the places you like or do the things you like."
"Or be with the people that I love."

Originally posted by:Jumpman

But back to Anakin, his idea that the Jedi are greedy and evil has more to do with the fact that it's the Dark Side dominating him for than having two versions of Episode III. His dialogue means squat because he's obviously out of control and dominated by the Dark Side of the Force. Hell, Anakin and Obi-Wan's dialogue while lava surfing was part of reshoots where he refilmed Anakin's turn...

zombie is partly right that Lucas had two different versions but he makes it work with the idea of the Dark Side dominating Anakin's actions and words. That's the reason he lost that fight with Obi-Wan. It had nothing to do with Obi-Wan being better.

Originally posted by: zombie84

But, CO is right--the rest of the film does not follow the logic laid out in the "doing it for padme" arc. Lucas was so close to creating a great character film. What happened? Well, the film was not written--or even shot--with the whole Padme arc in mind. It was all added in post-production--even the dream sequences; initially it was just a single nightmare, and not even the primary reason for his turn. But it fell flat. It didn't work because AOTC was a debacle, so he had to re-shift the entire film to a spontaneous, emotional act--saving Palpatine in order to save Padme. This was a stroke of brilliance in my opinion--finally we are dealing with character motivation and emotion here. But Lucas ultimately botched it. Why? Because he didn't rebalance the rest of the film. It was just too late--the film was already shot and in the can, and in order to re-balance it the film would essentially have to be re-shot and re-filmed from the ground up. The problem was that after Anakin turns the film links back up to the initial version where Anakin is "twisted by the darkside". When he accepted Palpatine's offer in Palpatine's original "reveal" scene he genuinely believed that the Jedi were plotting against him and was slowly feeling the darkside and being corrupted by it; in fact, in the original version when he kills Mace Windu he doesn't say "what have i done"--he says "i cant believe the jedi were really taking over." Thus, his decision to go to the temple and kill these traitors was justified, and this links up with what he says at the end--"I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over...from my point of view the Jedi are evil." But instead Lucas re-filmed the entire arc of his transformation. He re-filmed the reveal scene to make about keeping Padme alive. He added more vision scenes and more scenes about anakin become obsessed about saving padme. He added a scene where Anakin tells Mace about Palpatine's identity. He added the brilliant rumination scene. And he added the great scene were Anakin is absent for the Mace-Palpatine fight, comes in halfway and is goaded by both of them to choose a side--and then choses Palpatine, saying "what have i done...just help me save padme." But now after this section is finished, it returns to the original version--why the hell is Anakin suddenly killing his children, when he was just loyal to Mace windu a few minutes earlier when he told him the truth about Palpatine?? His acceptance of the Sith was a spontaneous emotional response related to Padme, not any sort of personality flaw or corruption/betrayal issue.
.

Originally posted by: Jumpman
CO,

Less is always definitely better. But, I guess Lucas wanted to show more of the Star Wars universe. I can't fault him for that. Clearly, he has a much more invested interest in Anakin than Luke.

And to this day, I'll give Return of the Jedi the benefit of the doubt. I'm telling you if Lucas had the money, time, and technology to pull of Kashyyyk and the Wookies, Jedi wouldn't be getting crucified as it does now. The Han situation, along with the Ewoks is interesting, because Lucas took alot of criticism after Episode V was released for it not being as fun as Episode IV, hence the feel of Episode VI.

Originally posted by: Jumpman
CO,

Above you quoted the Annotated Screenplays. I wish to God I could find that quote of Lucas back in early 80's about what he would do with the "backstory" if he ever made it because he essentially said he was going this route...a route that many of you don't like.

I'm not saying you're wrong with that quote above, but the quote I've read about "if he made the backstory" is even more telling and why I like the Prequels.

Originally posted by: Jumpman

But CO, you have to see the trap Lucas was going to fall into if he kept it the same. He keeps it the same, he gets crucified for not doing something new and original. Now, he's getting crucified for straying too far way from what made Star Wars, Star Wars.

Originally posted by: Jumpman
CO,

You're right. But, clearly in those sixteen years between Episode VI and Episode I, Lucas was trying for something else. And again, we have some that get it and actually like it to love it. But we also have some that despise the character study angle he went with.

I just find it funny that critics say Lucas is all style and no substance when it comes to character and yet here we are talking about how Lucas may have made a mistake choosing a character study over a style that made the Original Trilogy and Star Wars what it was....

I just feel that Star Wars shouldn't be defined as one way. That's my whole point.

Originally posted by: Jumpman
zombie,

First off, you're correct. But, for me, I can buy the Anakin character and the love story in Episode II. That's why Episode III works wonders on me.

I can see where people HATE the Anakin character in Episode II. Luke was the same way in Episodes IV and V, but not to Anakin's level. Essentially, Anakin wants to be more than what he is now and he feels he can be more...hence the whining. I can buy that. It doesn't make him likeable but I understand it. Where I find Anakin likeable in Episode II is his story with Padme and his arc with his Mother. He's a good kid. It's just that he's also a teenager who wants more than wants being given to him at the time...and that's not enough. It's especially not enough when some one else, Palpatine, is telling you the exact opposite to what your mentor and superiors are telling you.

Originally posted by: Jumpman
CO,

You know what's the most interesting part of this whole debate? If you read the "Making of Episode III" book, originally, Lucas conceived, wrote, and shot Anakin's turn in the manner to which you suggested. But, he didn't think it jived with what had been done on Episodes I and II.

Plus, he really wanted to show that Anakin, even by choice, was a victim in this whole game. He did choose, but between the Jedi and Palpatine, he was also a victim.

And I can understand the idea of "Darth Vader being a victim" would piss off Original Trilogy fans.