Dagenspear

oojason said:

Aye, like Broom Kid’s post above - that is pretty much spot on for me, mate.

And like that, it doesn’t address what the problem is with it or what makes it poor.

Yeah, 100%. Along with the infamous lie and woeful attempt at re-writing history / time-travel from Lucas himself - an inane and bizarre attempt to give his then-new midichlorians idea some credibility (for want of a better word)… it certainly didn’t come from when Lucas attempted to claimed it to be - so ‘nowhere’ fits quite aptly.
 

How is it problematic, based on EU material doing something else? All of Star Wars is made up, just like the eu stuff about them having families was made up. Why is this a problem with these things or when they were developed?

oojason said:

You nailed it.
 

I think they are neither emotionally stunted, nor are they weird, as all the main Jedi show emotions and are never treated as bad for showing emotions. What does it matter when it existed? I think Padme is the main character of TPM, but why should she be the main character of the PT, when the plot about the fall of the Jedi has about nothing to do with her?

What’s terrible about Anakin being a child? And aging down? Anakin was never established in any movie before TPM to have been any age, so how is he aged down? You gave no reasons I think for what’s terrible about any of this, just resorted to claims about Lucas’ ideas of himself it seems to me.

And you didn’t give any reasoning for what’s stunted or more emotionally sensible about any of this.

Did you not percieve the idea of people indulging in their own selfish wants and fears and how that can lead to self destruction and the harm of those you care about and fascism? How is the PT, I think, saying that not something interesting about our own world and lives?

Broom Kid said:

Lucas’ conception of the Jedi being weird emotionally stunted monks (which did not exist until he really started writing Episode I, either) was one of the worst decisions he made in the 90s, honestly. Along with aging Anakin down to 8, and not making Padme the main character of the Prequel trilogy.

he made a ton of absolutely terrible calls in his mythology as he made it up, and because so much of his own self-mythologizing is built around the grandiosity of his own creativity, he basically couldn’t retcon his own bad storytelling instinct to arrive at any of the interesting endpoints his bad setup COULD be saved by.

That Trevorrow wound up looking at the ingredients Lucas laid out for his mythology and arrived at an answer that makes SOME kind of emotional/philosophical sense (vs the dogmatic adherence to what “Balance of the Force has to mean”) kinda speaks to how stunted and forced every aspect of Jedi dogma, both textually AND metatextually.

It’s like Lucas (and Lucasfilm) forgot all this shit is made up, and the only real use any of it has is for allegorical storytelling, and for figuring out a way to use those elements in the pursuit of saying SOMETHING interesting about our own world and lives.

I think they are neither emotionally stunted, nor are they weird, as all the main Jedi show emotions and are never treated as bad for showing emotions. What does it matter when it existed? I think Padme is the main character of TPM, but why should she be the main character of the PT, when the plot about the fall of the Jedi has about nothing to do with her?

What’s terrible about Anakin being a child? And aging down? Anakin was never established in any movie before TPM to have been any age, so how is he aged down? You gave no reasons I think for what’s terrible about any of this, just resorted to claims about Lucas’ ideas of himself it seems to me.

And you didn’t give any reasoning for what’s stunted or more emotionally sensible about any of this.

Did you not percieve the idea of people indulging in their own selfish wants and fears and how that can lead to self destruction and the harm of those you care about and fascism? How is the PT, I think, saying that not something interesting about our own world and lives?

JadedSkywalker said:

For me it would be the prequel doctrine on attachment I disagree with. Because Jedi had families and children in Star Wars lore before the prequels. Just like how the chosen one thing was made up and so was midichlorians.

To get the Jedi celibacy thing you have to go all the way back to discarded script drafts for the original film, the son of the suns prophecy for the chosen one thing. Midichlorians came from nowhere.

How is it problematic, based on EU material doing something else? All of Star Wars is made up, just like the eu stuff about them having families was made up.

JadedSkywalker said:

Some of his sequel ideas have also been repurposed. If Mando and Gorgo holds to be true they will be facing warlords running the remnants of the Empire. And Dave Filoni is using George’s ideas in Darth Maul Shadow lord with Darth Talon.

Wasn’t Luke as a colonel Kurtz like character allegedly in George’s treatment. That sort of ended up in the Last Jedi if not in the way George would have handled it. The astral projection/ Luke is a legend stuff. and not a straightforward redemption arc. That does not sound like George at all. I also don’t picture Lucas making the prequel Jedi failures and Luke’s meta narrative. Chuck the lightsaber it’s time for the Jedi to end. Burn the tree with the Jedi texts, oh that is right Rey stole them.

I do like the idea that the force is bigger than the light side and the dark side and its vanity that the force dies if the jedi religion dies. The balance being bigger than the jedi and Sith conflict is interesting and then its abandoned.

But not in the story context they were pitched, with the characters they were connected to.

I don’t care about Luke being in exile. I care that Luke sucks. Would Luke have been a petty man child, who discards his sister and his friends life and blames the Jedi for all his problems, even though they had nothing to do with him pulling a weapon on his sleeping nephew with intent to murder him? If not, Luke being in exile doesn’t annoy me that much.

oojason said:

I gave the DOTF script another read through last night (I’d forgotten how enjoyable and engaging it was) - and there is certainly that aspect of the Force being addressed throughout the script (especially with Rey; and meshing / riffing with themes on Luke and Vader in ROTJ).

For me, the finale was quite intriguing on the subject _(and also breaking that problematic

Problematic? How? Having self control is problematic? Or is this the whole interpretation that the Jedi aren’t allowed to have feelings, even though all the main Jedi are shown to have feelings and feel emotions?

JadedSkywalker said:

George wasn’t going to make sequels he was going to make Star Wars underworld and that never got made.

Disney’s priority was to make a commercial for a theme park. And to sell toys. Other ancillary merchandise. Storytelling was never as important as corporate planning was. They have shareholder calls and meetings, corporate boards and governance. Quarterly quotas.

I called them outline ideas, not scripts. I do still think there’s more creativity in them than the ST though.

[Spartacus01 said:]

Anakin never went to see his mother before Attack of the Clones because the films heavily imply that the Jedi weren’t allowing him to. You can say whatever you want about Anakin, but one thing we know for sure is that he’s impulsive, rebellious, and doesn’t hesitate to take risks or rush to save the people he cares about. That’s his core trait and also his biggest flaw. If he had been physically able to visit his mother whenever he wanted, and if the Jedi really weren’t stopping him, then you’d expect him to go see her every chance he got. And as soon as he started having those nightmares, he would have immediately run to check on her. The fact that he didn’t, even while being haunted by those visions, means that something was holding him back. And since he was part of the Jedi Order, it makes sense to conclude that it was the Jedi themselves who were preventing him from going.

Stop him? The Jedi stopping anyone from doing anything by coercion is neither something the Jedi are shown to do in the movies, nor are they said to do it. What would they do to stop him? How would they stop him? I don’t think that lines up. Moreso, I’d think they’d advise against it.

Anakin was told by his mother to not look back and that her future was there. Anakin trying to be committed I think can have other reasons, trying to be a proper Jedi, trying to make his separation from his mother worth it, trying to justify a feeling of guilt in him potentially feeling like he abandoned her. Especially considering the Jedi aren’t shown to have any ability or attempt to force any Jedi to do anything in the movies.

Yes, it’s true that Anakin could technically have walked away from the Jedi Order whenever he wanted. But it’s not that simple. If he’d left before Attack of the Clones, he’d basically be on the streets. Everything he owned belonged to the Order, so leaving would mean giving all of that up. He’d end up wandering the lower levels of Coruscant, trying to scrape together some crappy job just to survive. And if he’d left after marrying Padmé, sure, he could’ve lived with her, but Anakin wasn’t the kind of guy to sit around doing nothing all day. He’d still need a purpose, something meaningful to do, a goal to chase, and that’s not something you just figure out overnight. After spending over a decade in an institution that gave him structure and something to focus on, walking away wasn’t exactly simple.

First, it’s never said in the movies that people just are tossed out with no assistance and no oversight if they quit. Second, Anakin wasn’t a lone kid. He had Palpatine behind him as an ally. If he quit the Jedi, I don’t see why Anakin would expect that his friend in political high places Palps wouldn’t back him.

The rest is in regards to Anakin’s emotions on the situation, not what the Jedi make him do, which was my issue.

It’s so hilarious to me to see some people here so overly touchy about Lucas that they’re getting annoyed at outline ideas that I think do pitch distinct enough ideas comparably to Disney’s ST. It’s like a grasping of defenses for Disney’s lack of creativity to me.

JadedSkywalker said:

I think it’s merely a design preference. But I preferred the used universe of Star Wars 1977 over the bright and clean cgi esthetic of the prequels. It lent a sense of authenticity and realism that the prequels lacked. And that also the sequel trilogy lacked.

I’d suggest it’s also a totally different part of the galaxy mostly, at a different time. Why would it be the same if the place, time and structure of things is different?

The dinged up and dirty and dingy look of things. Landspeeders, the Millennium Falcon. X-Wings of the rebel alliance. Lightsaber hilts etc, blasters. Kenobi’s Robes. The detail work on Threepio and Artoo. And on Vader’s suit and all its parts and pieces including the cape.

Being older things, I think makes sense they’d be that way. New things owned by politicians and newer Jedi with more resources, I think it works that it’s not that really.

And how the Rebels were much more utilitarian. the Empire more clean and antiseptic and austere in design. How the rebels could just be farmers or privateers or whatever port of call they hailed from. Some of them might even be criminals like Han Solo. Or people out on the fringe. Luke being a former moisture farmer and all of that. Kenobi being able to pass as a Tatooine local wearing the garb of a farmer. Of course, they made those Jedi Robes.

Who said it was the garb of a farmer? There’s similarities I think (robe and neck thing mainly), but Obi-Wan’s clothes aren’t what I see as aggressively similar. Obi even has a clasp on his belt for his saber. Also, ROTJ is the movie that showed Anakin wearing the exact same clothes as Obi I think, in his post Vader form.

I think each world and culture should have varied more in the prequels. You would only get bright and Shiny on Coruscant but not on the lower levels.

I think there’s more of grungy kinda vibe in the lower levels when we see it in AOTC. And the Gungan city I think looks neither like Coruscant or Naboo. Similar with Geonosis and Utapau not looking like any of them.

JadedSkywalker said:

Vader does say in the OT the Emperor is not as forgiving as I am. Don’t you remember. Apology accepted Captain Needa. Admiral Ozzel is as clumsy as he is stupid, You’ve failed me for the last time admiral.

I don’t see any of those as puns, more dry remarks or insults.

Prequely is flashy twirly lightsaber moves. Style over substance. Not fitting the tone of SW 77 where Vader enters Leia’s ship. Lightsabers are to be held with both hands as if they have weight and heft to them.

Who says how lightsabers should be held? Because some characters did it that way in a couple movies? What’s style over substance about either of these things? Tension, weariness, conflict are all still explored in the PT fights.

Suited Vader is imposing and moves exactly as he does in SW and TESB. The lightsaber combat style in the OT is completely different than the prequels.

Vader isn’t trying to fight Luke to the death in TESB I think, so I don’t see a contradiction in behavior or actions. And Luke isn’t nearly skilled enough.

Vader’s design looking like Star Wars 1977 or closer than the prequel is completely what I meant as well as how James Earl Jones sounded. Still not the imposing figure of David Prowse though. I don’t like Episode III Vader at all.

I prefer the cleaner look. Seems more a preference thing per person to me.

I’d like everything to hew and adhere to the OT esthetic.

I don’t think that changes much, especially considering in the PT we are seeing a totally different side of the galaxy for the most part. I don’t think it counters anything in the OT really much.

I know someone mentioned Mustafar, I could do without a prequel reference there but not a dealbreaker.

What does a prequel reference harm?

NFBisms said:

Eh, idk about that. If anything you can argue its depiction in TLJ alone lands on being didactic against it. That stuff isn’t politics though, nor has that necessarily been a conversation re: woke in Star Wars

It’s depiction is used still, I think, to present Rey in a passive role that serves Kylo and Luke’s story. By making it that way, I still think it’s not against it. That the romance angle is there at all, I think suggests a random favoritism for the concept, that doesn’t take Rey’s character and emotions about everything she’s experienced by Kylo’s actions into account.

I was suggesting that runs counter to some of those who argue it’s political or woke.

JadedSkywalker said:

To me that was the worst part of Rogue One Vader far too prequelly. In fact every appearance of him since the prequel except in Rogue One before the hallway scene has been prequely.I also found the Darth Maul scene in Solo to be lame.

What’s prequelly?

I liked Vader with the red lenses and don’t choke on your aspirations, that was very OT Vader.

What do the red lenses add, other than bearing a resemblance to OT? And Vader in the OT never makes a pun that I remember. Also, why would Vader in everything else that takes place years before the OT not be closer to the prequel version?

As for Finn I felt like Force Awakens was setting up him and Rey to be a thing, and then last Jedi all of sudden Reylo happens. Which reminds me of Hayden Skywalker/Padme from the prequel. The bad boy psycho romance. Rey is all I can save him I can fix him. There is still good in him.

Not really I think. Because Anakin and Padme:

A. Has a personal relationship before the romance that isn’t hatred and violence.

B. Padme isn’t written to break away from any relationship for Anakin.

C. Padme’s romance with Anakin isn’t developed to be when Anakin is already a monstrous villain.

Even TLJ doesn’t clear the very low bar that AOTC actually put some effort into as a romance. Hilarious.

Mocata said:

Does woke mean anything these days? I use to think it was something do do with common sense being replaced by box ticking and messaging but it’s hard to say any more. Overall I still like TLJ but it’s odd if you break it down in any detail. Grifters complaining about Hollywood will say the Rose side-plot is forced but fail to say how beyond the basics of a lame non-romance. Would they be complaining less if Finn and Poe Dameron did this mission or is that too gay for them (or Disney)? Does it make sense Finn gets talked down to about how evil the First Order is when he’s witness to a massacre?

Elsewhere things like Luke being in hiding to avoid the circular nature of the conflict makes some sense. Some people say he shouldn’t be shown as an old grouch. But can the same old heroics go on forever, can these characters be simplistic and static? Which to me is the problem with Rogue One… it’s just so bland and has more fan service and CG action than personality. The sequels might not have much to say but RO is just ‘here’s Darth Vader, please clap’, and then people do.

Broom Kid said:

Woke is one of the more fun reappropriations of language to mean absolutely nothing that’s happened in quite awhile.

I was suggesting how I think it’s nonsense to claim it’s woke or progressive.

But at least I think the Rogue One does have something going on in it’s story and character structure concepts, other than the fan service of Vader. And Vader being involved in some way makes some sense I think because of the lead in to ANH, even if I think it’s not strongly done.

Broom Kid said:

Complete side-tangent: I know it’s a bit of a tiny kerfluffle regarding “the red lenses” on Vader (and he did have sort of darker amber/tinted lenses in Star Wars that often had a bit of a red hue when the lights hit them) and how Rogue One supposedly overdid it to some degree; but as someone who has cut a version of that movie and pixel-peeped QUITE a bit, a lot of the “red lenses” stuff is literally just red light IN the shot reflecting off the lenses, which otherwise still look mostly dark/black. The meeting with Krennic on Mustafar seems to be a scene that gets complained about heavily, but you can actually see the set lights casting a red glow on the scene and reflecting off the mask. It’s not that the lenses are red, it’s that there are orange/yellow/red lights bouncing off that plastic.

I don’t really get why some people make a thing out of little visual things like red lenses. What does not having them like hurt about the character, that makes them so gasp prequelly in a way that is poor?

NFBisms said:

Not gonna lie, I genuinely still don’t get it! The ST are extremely, and almost outright intentionally, apolitical movies with genuinely nothing to offer on that front. And I like TLJ! Andor, Acolyte, sure. But The Last Jedi?

I’d argue TLJ is more sexist, with how I think it shoves Rey into a passive role as a protagonist and builds her story around the dumb, to me, bad boy good girl romance with Kylo. That, plus, all the female characters are basically props for the male characters stories. Luke may suck, to me, but I still think Rey is written not really as her own character, but for Luke’s as well as Kylo’s.

And yet, the movie is bashed as woke and acclaimed as progressive. Hilarious to me.

Broom Kid said:

I believe the entire purpose of Driver pursuing Soderbergh (who then got Burns onboard) was primarily to investigate the idea of the character not being “redeemed” - Driver had initially signed on thinking that was the goal with the guy, and that had been reinforced by how The Last Jedi was done.

I don’t think they were trying to cement Kylo’s importance to the overall story, really. In fact, his being forcefully, clumsily shifted to hold almost the whole focus of the ST by the midway point of Rise of Skywalker is a huge reason it folds in on itself, dramatically - the movies start by pairing Rey and Finn as the co-leads, and then Rey takes center stage for the 2nd chapter, and instead of Finn & Rey coming together for the 3rd chapter, they backseated both of them for the sake of making Ben the hero/main character. Say what you will (I do, all the time, LOL) about Trevorrow’s skills as a creative, but at least his first couple whacks at the story recognized where The Last Jedi was pointing towards, and it was NOT a “redemption” for Kylo, and it was 100% at Finn leading some sort of uprising amongst the First Order (which is probably the only way the Resistance overcomes having almost no numbers).

This seemed to have been a story looking to pursue the original idea in a different framework. Kylo/Ben wouldn’t actually be prominent to that degree, he’d be hunted, and the clumsy, facile idea of “redemption” forced on him would be sidestepped for a more interesting examination of the character who actually IS too far gone.

I think Kylo was given more focus than Rey was in TLJ, to her detriment. The character being bent around reylo, for the sake of her trying to turn him away from villainy I think is a showcase of that. Along with all their scenes being mostly Kylo talking at her or her saying very little at all. Same with her scenes with Luke, where she mostly just reacts to what other people are saying and doing. I think that was the movie that pushed that idea of Kylo changing as a core concept for the protagonist Rey to pursue, out of nowhere I think, not TROS. I think even TROS drops Kylo out of prominence within the story to focus on Rey and that Kylo has very little character growth and is mostly a device to keep Rey from dying within the movie. Trevarrow’s draft, that I’ve seen, does not much that different with Kylo as a character overall, and still has him change at the end from Leia’s persuasion and then heal Rey, dying in her place.

I think TROS moreso takes away all the focus from Kylo and gives it to Palpatine in regards to Rey’s story, giving Palpatine the one draining lifeforce at the end, being the one behind the deaths of her parents (if I remember correctly that was revealed to be Kylo in Trevarrow’s draft, I think giving Rey an actual drive against Kylo) and the one who was seeking to take over the galaxy and wipe out the resistance.

TLJ also I think outright didn’t do much with Finn’s connection to his stormtrooper thing, cutting out the scene where Finn got some troopers to turn on Phasma, which I think was one of the only things that gave Finn much of a voice in the movie. I think TLJ also did that to Rey a lot as well.

SparkySywer said:

It may open up the story to future movies where Ben Solo is more prominent, plus the opportunity to more fully realize the ST cast. Plus, if Adam was pitching this movie, he may be more prominent than just showing up at the end. Search for Ben Solo sounds awesome to me

Why do we need Kylo to fully realize the ST cast? What’s of value about Kylo’s prominence?

rocknroll41 said:

Had the Ben Solo movie gotten made, I have a feeling it woulda lifted elements from the scrapped Duel of the Fates script (mainly Mortis). On the other hand, maybe it woulda been cool to see Ben have to explore the criminal underworld, and get a taste of his dad’s life.

But it would’ve been about Kylo…

henzINNIT said:

You think he sucks? Who cares, when many disagree with you.

That doesn’t change my issue.

Mocata said:

Compared to Rey and Finn? Lol.

Both likable, to me, and had actual backgrounds and origins and didn’t suck entirely, to me, so yeah.

henzINNIT said:

An actual actor and an actual director were excited to do a Star Wars film, based on one of the few original characters from Disney that is actually pretty popular, and the suits can’t see past a retcon. Madness.

Popular? Who cares, when I think he sucks worse than any of the other main ST characters. So good riddance for me. I’d rather see Palpatine dance on Vader’s grave than more of what I think is an entirely junk character be pretended to matter.

SparkySywer said:

Yeah they’re totally putting out feelers for bringing back Adam Driver for that Rey movie

Classic Disney if so. Feminism, until they see an opportunity to put down their main female lead with a, to me, dumb trash bad boy good girl romance nonsense that negates her agency and common sense. It’s TLJ all over again. Get ready for Rey to be a near totally passive character while Kylo whines about nothing at her and I think for no real reason, despite him having assaulted her, invaded her mind, killed her ally and hurt her other ally, she’s fallen for him, and then people will simultaneously laud it as progressive and bash it as woke.

rocknroll41 said:

Adam Driver confirmed in an interview today that in 2021 he tried convincing Disney to make a movie about Kylo coming back to life called The Hunt for Ben Solo, but they said no.

oojason said:

He sounded really positive about it - and working with Steven Soderbergh for it - as well…
 

Adam Driver on Jarmusch, ‘Star Wars’ and putting filmmakers first - article from AP News

'“I always was interested in doing another ‘Star Wars,’” says Driver, who starred as Kylo Ren in the trilogy kicked off by “The Force Awakens.” “I had been talking about doing another one since 2021. Kathleen (Kennedy) had reached out. I always said: With a great director and a great story, I’d be there in a second. I loved that character and loved playing him.”

Driver says he took a concept to Soderbergh for a film that would take place after 2019’s “The Rise of Skywalker.” That movie culminated in Ren’s redemption and apparent death. Driver had undertaken the trilogy with an arc in mind for Ren that inverted the journey of Darth Vader. As the trilogy evolved, it didn’t play out that way. Driver felt there was unfinished business for Kylo Ren, or as he was known before turning to the Dark Side, Ben Solo.

Soderbergh and Rebecca Blunt outlined a story that the group then pitched to Kennedy, Lucasfilm vice president Cary Beck and Lucasfilm chief creative officer Dave Filoni. They were interested, so the filmmakers then pulled in Scott Z. Burns to write a script. Driver calls the result “one of the coolest (expletive) scripts I had ever been a part of.”

“We presented the script to Lucasfilm. They loved the idea. They totally understood our angle and why we were doing it,” Driver says. “We took it to Bob Iger and Alan Bergman and they said no. They didn’t see how Ben Solo was alive. And that was that.”

“It was called ‘The Hunt for Ben Solo’ and it was really cool,” adds Driver. “But it is no more, so I can finally talk about it.”

Soderbergh, in a statement, said: “I really enjoyed making the movie in my head. I’m just sorry the fans won’t get to see it.”

Representatives for Disney and Lucasfilm declined comment.’

Sounds like reasoning to celebrate to me! For me, good riddance to what I think is an empty, black hole of a character.

Mocata said:

If they can’t figure out what to do in six years then maybe it should just stop. Or at least have producing duties taken off them. Kylo being the one who lived and wandered into the desert was the obvious choice since he was actually written as a real character.

Is this a joke? Kylo? The guy who I think has no developed solidly origins, goals or motives, is written as a real character?

Nah. I think good riddance. I’d rather watch Palpatine dance on Vader’s grave than Star Wars pretend that Kylo has any value as a character as is. Right now, I’d rather see a Rey movie than more Kylo favoring, reylo nonsense.

I think TCW messed with Anakin, to me, taking away the rawness of the character and vulnerability, and leaning more into a generic jockey like hero character, and emotionally hindering the character.

That all being said. Personality, in basics, Anakin in TCW I don’t think is written much differently in TCW than how he is during the speeder chase in AOTC and in the for the most part first half of ROTS. So, from both angles, new things and similarities to the movies, I don’t think Anakin is given much that’s better constructed. Moreso, to me, some things are more given more time to them, maybe?

SparkySywer said:

I don’t think that’s true at all. The more their friendship is genuine, the more drama there is when they fight. They don’t need to secretly resent each other to end up fighting.

I didn’t speak on the drama. I spoke on character. To me, Anakin’s tension with Obi works as a set up for his resentment and bitterness and then hatred of him.

JadedSkywalker said:

I think Anakin would have worked better if he was portrayed differently. He is so unlikable. So unrelatable. A problem of the prequel is there no Luke Skywalker to latch onto. No real central protagonist, even though Anakin is supposed to be that. Is he supposed to be an Anti-hero? Lucas didn’t seem to know where he wanted to go with the character.

Hayden acts like he is portraying dark and conflicted/selfish and arrogant. But where is the good friend and star pilot. Damn fool who follows old Obi-Wan on an idealistic quest.

Anakin and Obi in AOTC and ROTS interact with playful camaraderie. Anakin snipes in direct petty arrogance once at Obi AOTC. I think the movies flaws is that it doesn’t start building their friendship enough in TPM. Not because of Qui-Gon, because I think both can be done.

That being said, if Anakin and Obi didn’t have the turmoil, I don’t think it’d make much sense for Vader to wanna kill him. I suppose that could just be about his injuries, but personally, I like the tense emotional resentment and bitterness of a brother who feels like he has to prove he’s better kinda angle to me.

You don’t have a believable through line of the Anakin who wants to use power to restore order to the galaxy, because he has zeal for justice, but the ends justify the means. And the more he uses the dark side, the more he digs himself into a place where he can’t escape and The Emperor is waiting to grab a hold of him.

That is what I wanted to see the Shaw Anakin become Darth Vader. The Horror Gargoyle in the Mask, the machine man.

But that has nothing to do with how Vader turns away from the dark side in the OT and it doesn’t parallel Luke’s potential to turn, which was done by Palpatine and Vader using those he cared about to try and manipulate him.

He is a slave to the Sith as much as he was a slave on Tatooine and a slave to the Jedi. He really is an undeveloped person and a pathetic and pitiable wretch. Frankenstein’s monster, and a terror to the galaxy.

And Padme’s dreams and Anakin’s ambitions they all are manifest in their children.

People dislike that, but apparently that was what George wanted a scared kid trapped in a machine body. A young man who lost his mother and his wife. And his true sin was not in his evil acts, it was his desire to hold onto them selfishly.

I think one spirals into the other, if Anakin had not been so selfish, I think the idea is that he wouldn’t have done the evil acts, as he wouldn’t have viewed it through the lens of getting what he wants only.

I don’t see the issue with being the scared kid thing, as Vader’s penchant for lashing out with violence, I think showcases his immaturity.

Condemned to live as Darth Vader because he tried to change fate based on a vision of the future. Like Oedipus trying to outsmart the oracle. If he accepted the nature of things and dispassionately let them fade into the force, he would have been a good Jedi or so the films attempt to say. Letting people stay slaves is fine too, it’s not the mandate of the Jedi to free them.

It’s never stated that letting people stay slaves is “fine”. And Anakin’s conflict is never about freeing slaves, it’s just about his mom. Freeing slaves is never said to be wrong in the movie. But it’s something no one is any position to do in TPM. The slaves have bombs in them, so Qui-Gon and Obi can’t do anything about it. In overall context, to take action to rescue the slaves could cost the slaves their lives.

Broom Kid said:

Most Anakin problems are rooted in Lucas’ late decision to age him down to single digits instead of letting him be a middle-school kid/pre-teen.

I think that disconnects from the softer angle and the longing for a parental figure that I think a lot of main relationship dynamics hinge on. Qui-Gon works, to me, more as a potential dad figure that is lost if Anakin isn’t a teen, and the loss of that is what Palpatine steps into, emotionally manipulating Anakin, again I think works more with him as a child vulnerable and such. His dynamic, in concept, with Obi, I think works more as a brotherly angle of Obi being responsible for Anakin, and when Qui dies, Obi takes on the responsibility of raising his brother basically, which leads to a relationship that while is still one of love is also one of tension and rivalry and bickering, because Anakin doesn’t respect Obi as a dad figure and Obi struggles in being a mature guardian figure, because Palpatine has usurped that role for Anakin, and down the road of the character I think takes away the weight of what Vader killing Palpatine in Return Of The Jedi is, to me, which is: Vader rejecting the dad whose manipulated and oppressed him and used him nearly his whole life, to be a selfless dad in giving up his life to rescue his son.

And honestly, his whole weird conception of the Jedi as super-repressed monks - which is only just now in the last 10 years getting seriously investigated as a terrible thing to have been in the first place. And frankly a massive disconnect from what he was alluding to in the first three movies. They were clearly samurai-ish, so there was obviously a code, but he turned them into deranged monks and then mandated we’re supposed to think of them all as good guys ANYWAY.

They never do anything really villainous in the movies as a collective, so why would we see them as bad guys?

Also, I don’t see what is in the OT that is contradicted by the jedi’s depiction in the PT. They seem to have all the same main rules and goals to me.

The truth is simply that he didn’t really have a handle on basics like characterization and plot when he came back from a self-imposed creative retirement, and he never got that handle he USED to have back. He wrote all his heroes like robots and undercut any real dramatic forward motion whenever he could, and instead of making it better he fell back on “I meant to do it like that, of course” and because he’s the CEO there’s nothing you can really say to that.

But yeah, if Anakin starts at age 13 you have so much more opportunity to infuse him with a roguish personality from jump, and it’s easier to build that forward in the next two movies. But instead you start him at 9 and now nothing about him makes a lot of sense, or reads as recognizable human behavior.

Why should he have a roguish personality?

But then again choosing to make him more or less the main character of not just the prequel trilogy, but BOTH trilogies (by default) by retconning the story to be about Anakin Skywalker’s fall and redemption (even though he never actually GOT redeemed at the end of Jedi, he just did one good thing for his kid before dying) he also completely goofed. Anakin should have been a SUPPORTING CHARACTER at best, and the POV should have been either Padme or Obi-Wan. But it obviously would have never occurred to him to make the Prequel Trilogy be ACTUALLY about Luke & Leia’s mom, in the same way the Original Trilogy was about Vader’s kid. Not Vader.

I think Padme is the main character of TPM. I think AOTC is more an ensemble, though I actually think Obi is more the main heroic protagonist of AOTC than anyone else, as he’s the one whose driving the main plot forward. I think ROTS is the only movie where Anakin is the central protagonist, which I think makes sense at least.

Vader died to rescue his son out of a selfless love I think, and is depicted I think at the end of ROTJ to have become a heroic character again.

Padme isn’t in the OT, so I think it’d be a narrative disconnect to make her the one the trilogy is about wholesale, and also I think it’d not showcase much in the way of story structure for Anakin becoming Vader.

Superweapon VII said:

It never occurred to me, either. But damn, now I love the idea.

Vladius said:

Because it shows how the prequels failed to communicate the story, and why their legacy continues to make the setting worse. This mainstream interpretation of events is directly responsible for The Last Jedi and The Acolyte and lots of other bad EU stories, and like I’ve been saying, retroactively damages the original trilogy. I think it has some real life consequences as well but I won’t get into that.

I don’t think that connects. People come out of movies all the time with different ideas. And when the movies basically put out the opposite of this for the most part, I think that’s the issue with those that interpret it that way.

A. I think TLJ had almost nothing to say about the Jedi as a whole, and just had Luke whine about how they failed mostly. Even the Acolyte’s writing is thin, to me, and it only actually directly says that a few Jedi were corrupt or messed up. Which changes nothing about the Jedi as a whole. Again, I think the responsibility of those who wrote it that way. Why would the PT be at fault for the decisions of others? Criticize the movies all you want, but the jedi’s worst trait, that I see, in the movies, at worst, is a couple having arrogance issues or apathy or lacking awareness, in regards to personality. Yeah, there’s the idea of them being lacking in competence from some (which I don’t entirely agree with), but nothing that would lend itself to anything TLJ or Acolyte may be trying to do with them (I say try because I think they’re so weak or thin they say fairly little, beyond what I said above).

B. Why does it matter that other people saw it this way to the point where they’d do these things? Why would it change the views or emotions of someone who doesn’t think that?

Vladius said:

I wasn’t talking about you.

But I’m questioning why it matters that other people think these things about it.

Vladius said:

Just an example of how deeply this set in, here’s an average fan youtube channel with a poll - Did Anakin need to destroy the Jedi to restore balance to the Force?

57% yes, 43% no

https://imgur.com/a/ien7kbi

The most upvoted comments on it have some correct information but here’s a sampling of some other comments, all stuff that I’ve talked about before. This isn’t a handful of people, it’s the mainstream view, no matter how many times you explain it another way.

“The mere existence of Jedi and/or Sith throws the force out of balance, destroying either wont fix anything, you’d have to destroy both”

"Before the Jedi and Sith, the Je’daii Order existed, centered on the planet Tython. The Je’daii embraced both the light and dark sides of the Force, a balance that would later be split, forming the Jedi and Sith Orders.

The ideal state of true balance is where the Force flows naturally, and no one side, light or dark, dominates or seeks to control it."

“I think it’s an obvious yes. The sith were severely outnumbered and outgunned before Anakin did what he did. Idgaf what George says - balance cannot be achieved by destroying one side of the equation. Balance is the same amount of power being used for good and evil, seeing as evil is the only thing that gives good context at all.”

“Anakin destroying the Jedi was more likely a punishment by the force itself as a result of them becoming to political and moving away from the ways of what the force wanted them to be.”

“Kind of funny how restoring balance to the force involved killing everyone on the light and the dark.”

“How could there ever be balance when there were hundreds of jedi and only 2 sith?”

“The jedi order was in the Tens of thousand and there was legitimately only 1-2 sith at one time with less then 5 people waiting in the wings for someone to betray someone.”

“Both sides were too extreme and flawed.”

“The Jedi Order stagnated, the council thought nothing could touch them, and fell for their own dogma.”

“Yes . They were weak , negligent , ineffective , clueless . List goes on . They needed a new start . Unfortunately change was painful”

“You have to remember that it’s widely believed that Anakin would’ve never fell to the dark side if Qui-Gon didn’t die. In the prophecy, all he needed to do was kill Palpatine to bring balance to the force but Qui-Gon’s death just triggered a different timeline for how that was going to happen. So no, the Jedi didn’t need to die.”

“They needed a reset but not pure destruction. But their ways were so unbelievably flawed and genuinely stupid.”

"I think a Jedi Order that let Anakin and Dooku fall to the Dark Side and drove Ahsoka away is an order in decline and irredeemably indoctrinated.

The whole point of the prequels was to show that the Jedi were too caught up in being Jedi and not serving the Force."

“With the way Jedi were during the prequels it was probably a good idea for a hard reset”

I don’t know why that should matter that much to me. It doesn’t change what I think happens in the movies. Why would it change how I see them? Seems like a ‘trying to outright blame others for the mistakes of characters we like or sympathize with’ type of thing to me.

Vladius said:

I agree with you that Anakin could have quit at any time, but I’m talking about the perception people have about the movies. The standard reading now is that the Jedi are a creepy cult that kidnaps children and brainwashes them to not have emotion. I know that that’s blatantly incorrect on every level. However, the Jedi do look really dumb due to their inability to figure out obvious details happening right in front of them with regard to the clone plot, Republic corruption, Palpatine, and Anakin/Padme, so it gives the impression that they have to be doing something wrong to make them act that way and/or deserve it when it comes crashing down. People fill in the blanks and put it up to something to do with emotions, suppressed emotions, attachment, “too much light side”, etc.

Well, some may. But I think that’s not in the movies like that.

I disagree about the clone plot and Palpatine and think they have nothing to lead them to Palpatine on that really and the clone. Suspicion about how they were made yes, but the movie kinda keeps the Jedi from getting specific information. Republic corrupt and Anakin/Padme, sure, but the republic thing I think isn’t connected to the jedi’s other things really to me. Anakin/Padme, to me, isn’t much of an issue.

The Balance in the Force thing is vague and the Chosen One prophecy is vague, and they tell you straight up in ROTS that the prophecy could have been misread. To most people this means you can interpret it however you want, even though there are token references to it being about destroying the Sith. Yes ultimately it swings back around and winds up being true when Vader does take out the Emperor, but people also insert a step where it means he had to exterminate the Jedi or reduce them to 2 because there were too many.

Obi says it in the movies what it is. Yeah, they say it could be misread, but we see it play out in the movies that Anakin kills the sith. It’s also been developed in every mainstream thing after ROTS that there are surviving Jedi, so Anakin didn’t kill most of them and that’s never developed in the movies to be the thing, because the clones as well wipe the majority of them that we see, not Anakin. I don’t think Anakin was needed for that. To me, this is more of a lack of exploration thing from the movies though, I admit. It could’ve been delved into more. A flaw I have with some things in these movies is that not enough time, to me, is spent on them.

By contradictory I was talking about the other post I was quoting, where the other poster was trying to reconcile the movies and their messaging. I said it seems contradictory because people are trying to read something into it that wasn’t there previously.

My full sentence was
“It doesn’t contradict the OT, it (according to a fan interpretation) retroactively adds an unnecessary part to it that gets tied in with something unrelated.”

For example when a story does the “it was all a dream” trope, it doesn’t technically contradict anything that happens in the story itself, or break continuity, because anything can happen in a dream. But everyone hates it because it changes the perspective on the story to make it a lot less interesting and impactful. That’s what reducing everything to attachments/no attachments does for me, even though you can technically shoehorn Yoda and Obi Wan’s comments into that framework.

But I don’t think it does, as I think it’s not doing anything against it. It aligns, to me, with their view in that movie, not just their advice to Luke in that scene. Yoda’s whole thing about being about knowing when he’s calm and passive. Different ways of saying it or approaching it, maybe, but I don’t think it effects it. Especially considering, I think of relationships and attachments as 2 different things, so it doesn’t do much of anything for me in the PT. I think if we’re approaching the idea that Vader changed only because he cared about his son enough to rescue him over being imperial, doesn’t make it so Vader learns from his mistakes in joining the empire and what led him to being Vader, in that view of doing things. Adding to Vader’s motivation being someone who grew so attached that he was unwilling to allow them to die at the detriment of pursuing the right thing to do, I think brings more weight to what Luke does in ROTJ and what Vader does after seeing what Luke chooses. In that Vader learns from his son’s choices and refusal to compromise, to me. Loving his son, yes, but not just for himself and keeping his son.