CWBorne

I'm generally struggling with coming up with the nature of the opposing forces in the Clone Wars. While you can easily explain the Republic armies turning into Imperial forces (and some into Rebels) its tricky to figure out exactly what happened to the other side. 

Were they all wiped out? Banished to where they came from? All separated from each other, and placed into individual custody within the Republic? And if any of those are the answer why aren't they ever brought up by anyone minus quick references to the war itself in A New Hope?

The thing is, I'd really like to have some aspect of them that survives in some form into the original trilogy, so that even beyond the rise of Palpatine and the heavy militarization of the Republic, the Clone Wars had an even greater impact than that. 

I've been toying around with a concept in my head that the Mandalorians perhaps led the invaders in Clone Wars, but the vast amount of fighters and soldiers were largely pirates and criminals on the edge of the galaxy whose numbers were inflated by cloning. Plus that ties into the decay of the Republic as it was the Senate's inability to enforce law and order in those territories that allowed such a dangerous force to rise up to begin with. 

When the Republic does win the war, the Mandalorians are largely wiped out, but much of their armies desert and eventually end up in the Republic planets, most of them becoming criminals and bounty hunters, as there's little chance they'll find legitimate work once their past in the war was discovered. 

Thus while there was some underground criminal elements (smuggling, slave trade, illegal spice runs) in the core worlds, the number skyrockets in the years after the Clone Wars, and many of the crapsack elements of the galaxy circa the Original Trilogy can be traced back to the Clone Wars.

Again, just something I've been toying around with.  

TPM is probably the most painful to sit through for me. When I watch AOTC & ROTS, for all of their problems (plot holes, dubious acting, flat direction, stiled dialogue) at least something is actually happening. Phantom Menace just reeks of padding and redundancy.

And god help me, at least with the latter two movies, I can see a hint of competent acting by Hayden even with the awful direction Lucas gives him. With Jake Lloyd, its just bad directing, on top of saccharine dialogue on top of a lousy child actor. When they converge for stuff like "Yipee" its just too much. 

Is Lapti Nek the only missing part of the original trilogy soundtrack? If that's the case, its odd that it would be that particular song that's lost for good. 

This books sounds completely ridiculous. 

I'll stick to the subtlety and nuance of "The Glove of Darth Vader" thank you very much. 

One could conceivably split the whole thing into two. Perhaps the initial "war" occurring during the first film that's a relatively short and localized conflict involving a smaller force, which is defeated by the film's end. While most of the Republic (including the Senate) write it off as a relatively minor incident, Yoda and Obi-Wan sense that its not the end. 

Then in the next film, the second war starts with a much bigger army leading to a far more drawn out and destructive conflict with the battles in the first movie placed in the context of being just a test of the Republic's strength. 

I also have to second Mrebo's thoughts on the Sith. I think it makes for a more intriguing and thrilling story if the Jedi aren't really aware of the sheer scope of what they're up against until its far too late. It creates a tragic but understandable picture of the Order not having dealt with any real dark side users for such a long period that the Emperor's emergence as an evil wielder of the Force caught them completely by surprise. (Perhaps doubly so if the Jedi think Palpatine's little more than a crowd pleasing populist who not too different from previous bureaucratic Presidents in the Senate).  

And maybe this is stretching things too far, but it may explain things about Anakin too. Perhaps he didn't really get enough teaching about the dangers of the dark side, simply because it had been so long since the Jedi had seen anyone turn and/or encounter those who could potentially seduce students to turn from the light side. 

If there aren't any Sith running around, it would also serve to strengthen the relationship between Palpatine and Anakin if the former wasn't looking for a replacement apprentice, but actually saw something in Skywalker that made him realize the value in having a second in command who could wield the force, period. No rule of two, no Sith tradition; just a cunning dictator who realized the perfect weapon to destroy any Jedi opposition.  

Now the scenario from ROTS is much more convincing: a young, conflicted Jedi with the force flowing through him, lacking the true knowledge of the dangers of the dark side, being shown powers and possibilities he never before imagined by someone who's given no indication of hostile intent. Seems like an ideal situation for seduction to me. 

roryoconnor35 said:

Perhaps clone technology eventually falls into multiple hands on many planets who begin using huge clone armies to defend themselves in uncertain times? A war between separatists and the republic dissolves into galaxy wide insurrection?

Something like that could help to explain how Palpatine got popular, in that he spearheaded better, more effective efforts to bring down the clone uprisings. 

I find it funny that twice in A New Hope its Han who calls Leia "sister" in conversation. 

The decoy Vader thing is really a case of Your Mileage May Vary. I think going for it just creates too many hoops one would have to jump through in the writing process, and just accept that Anakin and Vader being the same is just common knowledge. Same thing with trying to shroud Yoda in mystery so the audience doesn't immediately recognize him when he appears in ESB.

I do think that if done well, you could explain Obi-Wan's statement about a "certain point of view" and his lie to Luke is a reflection of his own guilt regarding what happened. While most would see Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader, maybe Kenobi believes that Vader in some ways was emerging even before the worst aspects of Palpatine's seduction, and that he simply failed to see that there were almost two students in one individual both fighting for control.

One was the same idealistic and good hearted young man on Tatooine devoted to his friendship and learning with Kenobi, while the other was a bitter, cynical, unforgiving, and opportunistic pragmatist out who doesn't see the Jedi and possibly the nature of the Republic as things utterly crucial to the future of the galaxy. 

Thus he really did think of it as Vader killing Skywalker, and that Obi-Wan's mistake led to Anakin's destruction and Vader's emergence. By the time the two fight at the end of the prequels it becomes sadly clear to Kenobi that Anakin was dying before the fight ever started. Its Vader that he's facing, its Vader who really took control the moment Skywalker compromised himself to Palpatine. 

In terms of New Hollywood, the typical stuff comes to mind (French Connection, Godfathers, Dog Day Afternoon, Dear Hunter, Serpico, Chinatown, Bonnie & Clyde, Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid). Many very countercultural, with an anti-establishment streak to them. 

I do think that yeah, you can't suddenly make the prequels overtly gritty and reminiscent of that era, given that the originals were such fun escapist space fantasy. However, I do believe there is a way to have aspects of that kind of an element subtly present and working symbolically. 

Say for example if in the second film, Obi-Wan and Anakin are separated for much of the story, that's where one could really do some interesting stuff with tone.

Kenobi's settings feel reminiscent of the Golden Age of Hollywood and thus, the Republic: Bright, with vast colors, large settings, and an outworldly, yet personally pleasing style. Some visual hints that its starting to decay and fall apart a bit, yet it still retains a classical feel. People always seem to be part of crowds and groups. Even Kenobi's clean and quasi-majestic Jedi attire seems right at home.

Skywalker's story feels much differently. Muted color palette, confined settings, even a harsher feel in editing with the cuts. Various characters are much more isolated and alone. Anakin looks more haggard, his Jedi clothes not really fitting, with bits of dirt and grime starting to appear on his attire. He sticks out much more in his settings, never seems entirely relaxed. Have just enough little visual clues to make the surroundings feel  bit too familiar and close to home for the audience. 

Again, the key thing is subtlety and doing in a way that isn't overt and taking the audience out of the films. No doubt its a hell of gamble because its so easy to mess up. But if it can be pulled off, it would make for really interesting trilogy. 

Getting beyond issues of plot and character, I’m left thinking about the elements of tone and style and what kind of difference the prequels would have from the original saga. I guess part of me thinks that Star Wars films can’t really work without homage of some sort, and with the original films largely doing a pastiche of sorts the old serials, one wonders what episodes 1-3 could homage to.

Truth be told, as risky as it might be, it would be interesting to have a feel in the prequels (especially in the latter two) somewhat reminiscent of the darker shades for gray films from the New Hollywood of the 70s. Create a real sense of decay in the Republic and a growing distrust of those in authority. Perhaps even throw in some film noir tropes like those seen in 40s, which has real possibilities considering much of that genre is made up of settings glamorous and clean with a seedy underbelly underneath.

Really I think, if one were careful and smart about it, making a parallel between Anakin and elements of the Republic, with the loss of idealism in both, could potentially work. Demonstrating that once the people lost faith in the Republic that it became remarkably easy for someone like Palpatine to come in and start a tyrannical reign, in and of itself is a fascinating story. The "dark times" Kenobi references could be recalling not just days of the Empire, but for the decline the led to it.

If done right, it could in a broader sense set up thematically that the events of A New Hope did for the galaxy what the Star Wars itself did to Hollywood; ushering in a bright, optimistic, era that moved passed the cynicism of the proceeding generation. It could be something that could really illustrate how the respective eras affected Luke and Anakin so differently. 

I've had a bunch of different thoughts on this that I'll try to separate by post:

So much of the glimpses and hints of the back story we saw prior to the making of the prequel films seems so intriguing even still a dozen years later. 

I think personally the two key elements are Obi-Wan and Anakin. Its really their story, and in an odd way serve as the eventual respective "parents" of sorts to Luke. (This also helps to indicate the difficulty in writing about Anakin's wife given that she's an entirely self contained character in the prequels, but that's another matter entirely) Serving to how they ended up the way they did, and the falls of the two men (yes both) are what would make the story such a great tragedy. 

A lot of my thinking is going back to the various novelizations of the films, which do serve to have some interesting gems as far as character and plot points, especially with Kenobi in ROTJ. Indeed, having read that, I'm thinking there could be great potential in making Kenobi the one who's too sure of himself, too confident, too convinced he's the best possible teacher of Anakin. Obi-Wan himself is a generally good person, and too dedicated to his morals and ideals to turn, but his own massive character flaw does help to doom his student. 

I mean, we see in the original trilogy, an all knowing, well traveled mentor, who seems to possess wisdom beyond anything we could imagine. That sort of character, to me, feels like it means so much more if that wisdom came at a costly price. Truly understanding that much of Kenobi's actions in the original trilogy are to make up for the arrogance he had and resulting failure in him being a mentor and teacher to his student makes those scenes with Luke mean all the more. We see why he is a better teacher now, than he was then. 

Which of course, brings us to Anakin, arguably the real lynch pin of the entire prequel films. Something that I always wanted to witness in the first three films, is not simply how Skywalker turned, but how he turned into the exact kind of cold hearted merciless Sith he was the original trilogy. Evil can have many personalities, and the Vader of ROTS seems to resemble the one from the originals only cosmetically. He's an evil guy in a suit, and that seemed to be as far as they went with it. 

Its why I believe its critical to see exactly what character traits of Anakin's that either through being twisted or exaggerated, still existed within Vader. With that in mind, Anakin would have been better off as, well, being genuinely tragic. Somebody who starts out much like his son does; an eager and optimistic young man out to take on the world. Yet that while conflict and problems allowed Luke to grow into a mature, but still visionary member of the Rebel Alliance, his father grows into an increasingly shell shocked and bitter man. 

Indeed, both Luke and Anakin start off very similar (with perhaps the former at bit more inclined towards seeking adventure). The key split is that Luke never lost his idealism. With the support of his friends, the guidance of Yoda/Kenobi and the unfortunate example of his father set, Luke avoided it. 

Anakin wasn't so lucky. The sense of patience and discipline that defines him early on start to disappear (with him slowly getting less and less forgiving of mistakes and failures of those under his command) as the battles take a toll on him. Skywalker, a young man who started out on the "damn fool idealistic crusade to make the galaxy free, just, and peaceful becomes a desperate individual tired of the death and destruction of the Clone Wars, and is eventually just looking for peace in the galaxy at any cost.

Enter Palpatine who's able to offer him just that. The dark side being quicker and easier simply is far more appealing and turns into what ultimately drives him to trust Palpatine's judgement. Skywalker seeing the Emperor's rule as a fair price to pay to potentially save millions of lives from the war becomes the major moral compromise that ultimately dooms him. More importantly though, it helps to explain the specific facets of Vader in the original films. Its why he's so unforgiving of his own officers, why he's so personally determined to crush the rebellion, and why he made the offer to Luke in ESB. 

That desire for the galaxy to be safe, the thing that made Anakin into a Jedi, is what serves to damn him so badly, because after that one compromise with Palapatine, everything became easy to justify. Imperial officers ruining impeding his plans, the Rebel Alliance causing war, his son possibly opposing him; they're all hindrances to peace, all the things preventing him from indeed "bring(ing) order to the galaxy". It takes the cruel sadism of the Emperor's torture of Luke, and recognizing the true goodness of his son to make Vader realize not only that he himself needed to be saved, but that he could be saved.