Sign In


User Group
Join date
Last activity

Post History

What changes would you make to the Prequels?

Hal 9000 said:

Anakin would be a teenager when he meets Kenobi, with the reason he’s reluctant to leave home having to do with his mother’s delicate help or desperate quality of life rather than his being a child. He would already have a relationship with Owen Lars by this point, who could be either a relative or close friend. Owen would be vocal about his disagreement on Anakin leaving, but equally vocal about looking after his mother.

We would get onscreen exposition and/or a flashback about Darth Bane and the line of succession about the rule of two. We’d also get some basic information about why the Sith are bad and why it matters that they may resurface.

These are both excellent ideas.

Anakin’s fall to the dark side would not be predicated on saving her life, and would resemble Lucas’ ideas circa 1983.

What were his ideas back in 1983?

What changes would you make to the Prequels?

Servii said:

This all sounds really good. As time has gone on, I’ve started to think that the whole Chosen One prophecy is a bit of a narrative crutch. Anakin’s fall would have been more compelling if, instead of being a child of prophecy, Anakin is shown distinguishing himself through his good deeds and heroic acts. As the war would go on, the people of the Republic would look to him more and more as their champion. He’d become this symbol of hope to the galaxy, all while the war continues to traumatize and wear away at him, until he finally snaps under the pressure of watching everything crumble around him.

At the same time there’s something very compelling to me about the one destined to save the galaxy literally doing the opposite and being ultimately responsible for plunging it into darkness when he refuses his destiny, only to then turn back and fulfill his destiny after 23 years of being a monster. It’s a complete subversion of the trope. It’s as if they took the Chosen One trope and completely flipped it on it’s head. Are there any other Chosen One’s in fiction that literally become Satan’s right hand for 23 years? Are there any other Chosen One characters that are as mentally dysfunctional as Anakin? Like, I do think they made Anakin way too whiny for their own good (one of the biggest problems with AOTC), but at the same time you can’t really say it’s following The Chosen One cliche anymore.

“…instead of being a child of prophecy, Anakin is shown distinguishing himself through his good deeds and heroic acts.” Both is better. It makes it more tragic that he falls. He’s this super powerful being (Anakin/Vader being distinguished as incredibly powerful even among the Jedi has been around since ESB; Yoda says so) born with the potential to save the entire galaxy and he doesn’t.

If you wanna make someone’s fall from grace tragic, emphasize lost potential. Emphasize what could’ve been. Take Walter White’s turn to Heisenberg in Breaking Bad (which was done way better then Anakin into Vader). One of the reasons it’s so tragic IMO is because Walt was a genius and if hadn’t left Grey Matter (or refused Elliot’s offer to come back) his life could’ve been amazing and he could’ve made a positive impact on the world. Instead he becomes a drug kingpin and a monster who loses everything and ruined so many people’s lives. Setting up Anakin as this guy who’s destined to destroy the Sith and be the ultimate hero only for him to screw up and become an evil cyborg who hates everything? Brilliant.

Also, Darth Vader being the prodigal son of the Force itself is awesome.

<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread

Regarding Darth Vader’s added "No"s when he picks up the Emperor in the special edition, while I absolutely prefer him being quiet as in the theatrical cut, I feel like it wouldn’t bother me so much if the first one wasn’t there. The second one as he picks up the Emperor kinda feels at least a little organic. Again, it was still better quiet, but I don’t think it would destroy the scene as much. But the first one before he picks up the Emperor is just beyond cheesy and it just makes me wonder how the Emperor doesn’t hear him and turn around and start zapping him. It always just throws me out of the scene.

Just my thought as I rewatched the versions of the scene in comparison.

Did G. Lucas ever intend to portray the Jedi as a flawed institution in the prequels? Or was it added later in the EU?

BedeHistory731 said:

What’s conveyed by the writing, cinematography, editing, and cultural context > authorial intent.

This thread is entirely about whether it was George’s intentions or not. So that’s the discussion. It’s irritating whenever this discussion is had and someone has to come up and say, “It wasn’t conveyed well”, like yeah, no shit. Obviously it wasn’t since so many people are confused. But whether it was conveyed well isn’t the topic of discussion.

People will talk about how George was such a genius for making the Jedi Order ideologically flawed when that wasn’t his idea, and if you follow his intent they aren’t flawed in the ways people think. That wasn’t George’s idea, it’s yours.

Also no matter how well an intent was conveyed or not the authorial intent is still canon. If you decide to not watch the films from a different lens from what the author had in mind that’s your head canon, or fanon. Now obviously canon doesn’t matter to you and that’s totally cool. The issue is when someone talks about this re-interpretation of the Prequels as if it is canon.

Community Focus Thread 1: The Phantom Menace

Would there be any possible changes anybody could make to the Jedi Council scene wit Anakin to get George Lucas’ intent across better? What I mean by this is make it so it doesn’t seem like the Council is being critical of Anakin being afraid and moreso just trying to get him to admit it.

If you don’t know what I mean:

The <strong>Original Trilogy</strong> Radical Redux Ideas Thread

honestabe said:

If you do not mind me asking, are you planning to share your edit of ESB? It is okay to say no.

I’m definitely willing to share it, it’s not just something I’ve really shared yet because it’s a minor edit. I wanted to wait until others are finished to I could offer it in a sort of package deal.

It’s just Adywan’s ESB with the SE Wampa scene, “A Jedi Master who instructed me” from Hal9000, no Luke and Leia kisses and Temuera Morrison Boba voice using Hal’s edited versions of the lines, not the ones from the Blu-Ray. I mostly made it because I wanted a version of Revisited with the SE Wampa scene, but then I just did the other edits because they were simple.

The <strong>Original Trilogy</strong> Radical Redux Ideas Thread

hinventon said:

Has anyone successfully removed the Luke/Leia attraction from ANH and ESB? It’s only like a handful of lines and the kiss scene and obviously goes nowhere, would be much better without them.

I made a personal fan-edit of ESB, and removing the kiss was one of the choices I made. I ended the scene with “Who’s scruffy looking?” and then the next shot Leia looking angry at him. I moved the audio of the guy on the intercom telling important personnel to report to the command center forward to explain where they’re going before wiping to Ryken. It kinda has the same effect, leaving the tension between Han and Leia unresolved. It’s not as funny and I don’t think it’s perfect but it does the job and keeps the most iconic lines.

It is kinda a shame because without the context that they’re siblings the scene is really funny and it’s objectively well-constructed, but the retcon kinda makes it uncomfortable to watch, so IMO it still kinda had to go.

Did G. Lucas ever intend to portray the Jedi as a flawed institution in the prequels? Or was it added later in the EU?

Servii said:

As I said, that’s not the same thing. That’s not Obi-Wan and Yoda saying “You need to give up your attachments to the people in your life.” They’re just telling him he needs to focus on his training and avoid throwing himself recklessly and impulsively into situations due to those attachments. It’s a lesson about patience and forethought, not about non-attachment. That lines up with what George is saying in those quotes.

Contrast this with Luke and Ahsoka in BoBF, where there’s this implication that they want Din and Grogu to never see each other again for Grogu to become a Jedi.

Edit: It’s also telling that, even in George’s own words, he says that Luke is acting out of a sense of compassion. In ESB, Luke isn’t saying stuff like “I need my friends,” or “I can’t live without them.” He says “They’re my friends. I’ve gotta help them.” He wants to help them because he has a good heart, not because of selfish possessiveness.

That’s true, you got me there. But the entire point of the attachments thing is it’s, as you said, possessiveness. Possessiveness is selfishness. Of course George Lucas thinks possessiveness in a relationship is bad. Not only is that Relationships 101, it’s part of being greedy. The whole attachment debate only happens because people think the Jedi are saying, “You can’t love Padme/your mother” when they’re actually saying, “You can’t choose Padme/your mother over your duty, you can’t waste your energy when there’s nothing you can do, and if they die and it was out of your control, you can’t keep blaming yourself for it and craving power, you have to let go.”

That’s the problem with Grogu. Grogu not only isn’t putting his all into his training because he misses Din Djarin, but he would absolutely choose saving Din over saving 100 people in a burning building. That doesn’t make him a bad person, but it does make him a bad Jedi. So Luke makes him choose, Din or being a Jedi. Grogu chooses Din, and he respects his choice.

Besides the point is ultimately he can’t prioritize these people he cares about over the mission. He can’t sabotage the entire plan to destroy the Sith and the Empire they created because he jumps in unprepared to save the people he cares about and either is killed or seduced to the dark side by Darth Vader and the Emperor.

He didn’t veto her, though. He vetoed many other proposed EU ideas, but not that.

Every quote I’ve read says Lucas didn’t pay any attention at all to the EU. He always viewed it as a separate universe from his. Which is why he ignored it in everything he made. The Prequels contradict the EU as does The Clone Wars. You’d have fans yelling at him because he changed Koriban to Moraband and it’s just like, well yeah, he didn’t give a shit. When did he “veto” anything?

RogueLeader said:

I appreciate G&G-Fan pulling from the good tumblr post showing that Filoni’s interpretation of the films isn’t always the same as Lucas’. It is a good reminder.

But I do think it is interesting that Filoni, who has worked closely with George and probably knows George’s opinion on his own work more than anyone, would still have his own opinion about Qui-Avon and the failings of the Jedi even though he would know better than anyone that it doesn’t gel with George’s own view.

I think there is truth in both perspectives, not only George and Filoni’s, but also G&G and yotsuya. Because yes, George has stated his view on the story plenty of times, but it is also valid for the audience to look just at the films and pick up an interpretation. George might have had Opinion A in mind, but he isn’t a perfect filmmaker and may not totally conveyed what he was actually trying to convey. The Jedi come off as quite cold in the films, and operate out of a literally ivory tower. Arguably they have become this way because of Sith machinations and it doesn’t have to do with the Jedi system being fundamentally broken, but whether George meant to do it or not, he does not depict the Jedi as perfect. They are good, but they make mistakes.

And why can’t there be some truth in both views? Why can’t Anakin have failed the Jedi, but the Jedi also failed Anakin in some ways? I think there is a lesson in both directions: Jedi have to confront their fears or otherwise be consumed by them, but a Jedi must also remember that institutions can also obscure the will of the Force if one forgets to listen.

Seem like the debate is getting pretty heated but I’ve seen both views conveyed quite a lot online, and I think both views are interesting and valid.

This entire thing is basically just arguing from a “Death of the Author, people can come away with different interpretations”, but that’s the opposite of what this thread is about. This thread is about whether it was Lucas’ intent. And I’ve basically proven that no, it wasn’t Lucas’ intention for the Jedi to be flawed, at least ideologically (joining the clone war is something that’s debatable, but even so it was either that or avoid the draft and just stand back as people die).

I’ve never said anything about it being wrong to have a head canon or different interpretations, only people claiming their head canon is the intention of the author. “Death of the Author” is a valid way of looking at art, people are allowed to come away with different interpretations, but you then can’t say “This was the point”, only, “This was my interpretation.” You can certainly look at “Puff the Magic Dragon” as a song about smoking weed (yes, this actually happened, look it up), but the creators said, “No, it’s not.” But then you can’t turn back and say, “Actually, it was, they just don’t want to admit it!” Just accept that that was your reading of it and not the intent of the author.

I’ve also acknowledged that Lucas being a bad writer is what caused this whole thing in the first place. The Jedi appear cold to people due to Lucas’ flat way of writing dialogue, and he never talks about what his usage of the word “attachment” actually means properly. The Jedi don’t assure Anakin that it’s ok to be afraid. This are all things that caused misconceptions about what the scene is intended to say. That’s where the head canon sprouted from in the first place.

It’s important to realize that it wasn’t the author’s intent and stop speaking as if it were, but that’s not to say “You can’t view the films in this way.” I have head canons. I don’t view the sequels as canon. In fact I generally pick and choose what’s canon in Star Wars because I can’t even be bothered to read all of it XD. Another head canon I have is that in Spider-Man: No Way Home, I prefer to think that the villains in the movie aren’t actually from the movies they’re actually taken from, but rather slightly alternate versions of them from universes like them but not exactly the same as it explains the contradictions (like Doc Ock knowing Green Goblin’s identity). I know full well that wasn’t the authors intent (as indicated by the script), but who cares? If it clears up an inconsistency and makes the viewing experience better, I just go with it.

Now, I mostly prefer to go by a “Word of God” standpoint for two reasons.

  1. Usually head canons result in contradictions. Someone who says the Jedi suppress their emotions is gonna have to find some loophole to explain why Yoda openly cries when he feels Anakin is in pain or openly says he’s happy for Padme when she survives the assassination. Usually this leads to, “Yoda is different from the other Jedi,” which is funny because every time a Jedi shows emotion they have to keep adding them to the list of those that aren’t like the other Jedi (Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Plo-Koon, etc.) without ever realizing that maybe the reason so many Jedi (AKA the only ones given more then exposition) “aren’t like the other Jedi” because they actually are like the other Jedi. Hell, even Mace Windu when he’s given more to do then exposition shows emotions and compassion.
  2. Going by the author’s intent has a lot more predictive power. People wouldn’t have been taken aback by Luke citing Grogu’s attachment to Din Djarin if they understood the nuance of attachment (because some people go by the interpretation that Luke choosing to love Darth Vader is attachment, when, in Lucas’ terms, it’s compassion), they would’ve seen it from a mile away rather then being surprised. Another example is that if people recognized that MJ had a look of recognition on her face in her final scene of No Way Home (obviously foreshadowing that she will return and remember Peter; this is mentioned in the script, too) they wouldn’t have been taken aback by Sony saying Zendaya is expected to return in the 4th MCU Spider-Man movie, they would’ve known from the beginning that she was always intended to return (which I’m personally very excited about, I love her character and Peter and MJ as a couple in the MCU). Their misinterpretation of the scene lead to them making an incorrect prediction about upcoming content. The difference here is that I found the author’s intent in NWH to be fairly obvious (I mean, come on, it’s the last shot of the scene) and the misinterpretation of the scene to be the result of either stupidity or denial vs. the misinterpretation of the Jedi which I think is a result of bad writing.

But if it does no harm, there’s no contradiction (or if you can manage to find a loophole for every contradiction) and it doesn’t interfere with anything upcoming (and even then, I guess you can just say the upcoming content isn’t canon to you), then who cares? But that doesn’t mean you can be factually wrong about the creator’s intentions.

Making fan-edits in general is “Death of the Author”. You’re intentionally creating your own non-canon version. You’re allowed to do that, but you gotta accept it’s not canon. But hey, if you love your fan-edit more then the real movie, who cares? Same with restoring the original cuts of the OT and preferring to watch that. The special edition is canon, but if you prefer the original cut, who cares what’s canon? I don’t care if Darth Vader yelling “Nooooooo!” when he pick sup the Emperor in ROTJ is canon, I still prefer the original version and I’m gonna watch that. You can pick or choose what you want, but in the end you still can’t lie about what’s canon. What’s canon is canon, but what’s head canon is up to you.

The thing about the whole “Filoni learned from Lucas, therefore it must be Lucas’ intent too!” is that it doesn’t account for two things. One, Filoni is still a Star Wars fan. He’s talked multiple times about times in which he came up with his own fan interpretation of something. For example, one time he stated that he believes that Anakin learned how to become a force ghost before he became Darth Vader, while in the ROTJ commentary, Lucas states he learned right before he died during the events of ROTJ from Obi-Wan and Yoda. Second of all, people who work on things together can still have different viewpoints. In Avengers: Endgame, according to the directors, Captain America created an alternate timeline when he went back to the 40s to live with Peggy. According to the screenwriters, he was still in the main MCU timeline and just lived again until the present day (closed loop). At that point you can go by which one you want. I prefer the the directors interpretation because the other one breaks the rules established by the film that every time you go back in time it creates a new alternate timeline.

Did G. Lucas ever intend to portray the Jedi as a flawed institution in the prequels? Or was it added later in the EU?

Servii said:

I’m not so sure that his perception has never changed. There was no mention in the OT of a need for Luke to leave behind his attachments. Obi-Wan cautions him to not let the Emperor use those attachments against him, but that’s not the same thing.

Except there is. Here are quotes from the Empire Strikes Back commentary track:

“It’s pivotal that Luke doesn’t have patience. He doesn’t want to finish his training. He’s being succumbed by his emotional feelings for his friends rather than the practical feelings of “I’ve got to get this job done before I can actually save them. I can’t save them, really.” But he sort of takes the easy route, the arrogant route, the emotional but least practical route, which is to say, “I’m just going to go off and do this without thinking too much.” And the result is that he fails and doesn’t do well for Han Solo or himself.”
-Scene: Luke sensing Han and Leia are in danger

“Luke is making a critical mistake in his life of going after- to try to save his friends when he’s not ready. There’s a lot being taught here about patience and about waiting for the right moment to do whatever you’re going to do.”
-Scene: Luke leaving Dagobah, ignoring Yoda and Ben

“Luke is in the process of going into an extremely dangerous situation out of his compassion— Without the proper training, without the proper thought, without the proper foresight to figure out how he’s gonna get out of it. His impulses are right, but his methodology is wrong.”
-Scene: Luke flying towards Bespin

The Jedi, here, are telling him that he needs to prioritize his training over his attachments. And Lucas agrees with them. Yoda has always been a character used to give his own teachings and philosophy. You read about any scene Yoda’s in and Lucas always portrayed Yoda as in the right.

Also, Lucas was able to give the greenlight on plot points in the EU, so he must have been aware of and greenlit the Luke-Mara Jade romance and marriage and the New Jedi Order doctrine changes. Of course, he later said he disagreed with the idea of Luke getting married, but that was later.

Lucas never liked Mara Jade. Ever.

Did G. Lucas ever intend to portray the Jedi as a flawed institution in the prequels? Or was it added later in the EU?

yotsuya said:

Us old farts knew Senator Palpatine was Darth Sideous when we saw him in his first scene. Young kids had no idea. The entire PT is written that way.

No, it’s written so it’s obvious he’s the Sith Lord. Why do you think him trying to egg Padme on is so on-the-nose? Him ordering Anakin to kill Dooku? Or the opera scene in Revenge of the Sith? There’s no attempt as a disguise of his voice or anything? It’s obvious on purpose. This is because Palpatine being evil is used to create tension. You’re supposed to know that something’s up with him. Most of the time it’s much better filmmaking to use tension then a surprise. Surprise can be great, but most of the time it’s way better to ring out the tension. It’s like Alfred Hitchcock’s famous quote. It lasts longer, it sticks with you more, it keeps you on the edge of your seat for longer.

The blurb on the back of the DVD cover certainly suggests that it wasn’t a big secret…

“Obi-Wan Kenobi, the wise old Jedi from the original series, is a determined young apprentice and Palpatine, well known as the evil Emperor, is an ambitious Senator in the Galactic Republic…”

When Palpatine reveals himself as a Sith in ROTS, it’s not even made to feel like a big of a reveal to the audience. It’s nothing like Vader revealing himself to be Luke’s father, which is obviously written as a big reveal from the way the scene slowly crescendos to the famous line to the huge bombastic music afterwards. Palpatine’s revealing he’s a Sith is nothing like that. There’s no big “gotcha!” moment. It’s made to be like a reveal to Anakin, not the audience.

And there is much more. Or else why as adults do we still love these films. His story telling is genius because it has layers for every audience. A five year old can watch it and love the gadgets and ships. A ten year old can love it because the story is incredible. An adult can love it because the story rings so true at every level.

12 year old’s are very good at digesting the intended story of Star Wars. He literally says he made the films to teach 12 year old’s lessons.

"The original film was designed to allow young people to think outside the box. It was designed for 12-year-olds, adolescents, kids who were starting to think outside the box anyway, as a way of saying, “Let your fantasies run free, because this is the time to do it.” That was one of the original purposes of “Star Wars.”, 2005

That’s why George Lucas uses his knowledge of avant-grade cinema to make all of his films very visual in their storytelling; it appeals to our primal reactions.

When Darth Vader first walks in the door in A New Hope, you know he’s the powerful evil dark lord of the Sith all because of the visuals. You see the huge guy with the black costume, the scary mask and the huge cape and immediately go, “He’s evil, he’s in charge, he’s super powerful, what a badass”. The same with Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace. You look at him and go, “Shit he looks like a Demon.” It’s why Mustafar blatantly looks like Hell. It’s why Sidious groans like a demon while Knighting Darth Vader (because Sidious is the Devil? Get it?). It’s why the Jedi Temple looks like a religious place of worship.

“The one exception to Coruscant’s predominant art deco style is the Jedi Temple. Lucas wanted the place where the Jedi to have a sacredness to it, as well as a daunting dose of grandeur. As a result, the Jedi complex is a bit Gothic, a bit pyramidal, and a but Chinese Forbidden City.”
-Jonathan Bresman, The Art of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

"In contrast to the corporate coldness of the senate building, the Jedi Council architecture was designed to suggest a place of worship, a place that was both religious and monumental. For reference, Chiang took pictures of monuments from various cultures, then exaggerated their shapes and heights in his drawings.”
-Laurent Bouzereau & Jody Duncan, The Making of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

“The symbol of good in the galaxy, the sacred Jedi Temple is a hybrid of Gothic, art deco, and ancient Chinese and Egyptian architecture. […] Inspired by the TransAmerica pyramid and the rest of the San Francisco skyline, Chiang and Natividad designed the temple complex to be distinctly different than the rest of Coruscant.”
-Jonathan Bresman, The Art of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

(nothing about an “ivory tower” here like the Star Wars fanbase likes to claim it’s meant to be interpreted as)

The movies are meant to be visually obvious. As is the dialogue, which is why Lucas writes the dialogue in such a flat, utilitarian, and blatant way.

Also you seem to be underestimating how smart a 12-year-old can be.

And frankly I think that you ignoring what is clearly in the films is ignoring some of Lucas’s brilliance as a storyteller.

I literally addressed everything you said. I think George Lucas is brilliant too. And so does David-Talks-SW. You’re just coming away with the wrong stuff. If you read David-Talks-SW posts you would realize George’s actual vision is even more brilliant then your fanon.

Also, you seem to think that Filoni made Clone Wars and Rebels in a vacuum away from Lucas.

No, I don’t. In fact I’m one of the few people who actually recognize that The Clone Wars was made by George Lucas. Which is why it fits his vision more then Filoni’s.

This post proves that Filoni doesn’t even entirely understand The Clone Wars (the series everybody says is his own and not George’s?):

They worked together, with Filoni learning both about the Jedi and about film making from Lucas constantly for nearly a decade. So when Filoni describes Qui-gon’s role and the deeper meaning to the PT, things that are covered the PT and Clone Wars, I don’t think you can blanket state that the publicaly available comments Lucas has made override that level of apprenticeship that Filoni has had.

Except I literally gave you a link to a list of stuff that shows that Filoni interprets the prequels differently from Lucas in multiple different fashions, from The Jedi, to Anakin’s attachments, what they think of the Jedi joining The Clone Wars, and the state of the Republic. How about you actually read the shit I send?

The Clone Wars does not make Qui-Gon out to be “the only true Jedi Master”. It makes him out to be the guy who discovers force ghosting, which is exactly what he is in the movies. There’s nothing in TCW that implies that Qui-Gon should’ve been Anakin’s master and not Obi-Wan.

This post here describes the true meaning of Qui-Gon’s character:

REBELS, however, has nothing to do with George Lucas. That’s Dave Filoni’s.

Lucas’s other public statements regarding things like when he came up with the PT story, how far back Leia was Luke’s sister, etc. are full of easily disproven information so I don’t tend to take Lucas at his word in interviews. He is selling Star Wars and there is a reason behind everything he says, but it is not always accurate to what he was thinking when he wrote the story or the scripts or directed the film. Often he greatly simplifies what he says and makes it sound like that is the way it has always been.

You can take him at his word because with Leia and Vader it was an attempt to make it seem like he knew everything from the beginning while with the Jedi he’s clearly giving them his own philosophy. Every lie George has done was for the sake of making it appear like what’s in the prequels was always the story. He lied about Vader always being Luke’s father and Leia always being his sister because he wants people to take the movies he’s making right now as “the true story”. That motivation doesn’t fit lying about the story he’s making at the time. It doesn’t make sense to say he was lying about the intent of the movies he’s making right now when the only reason he lies at all is to make the intent of the movies he’s making right now seem like the intent from the beginning. Come on, man. The motivations are not the same.

Like I said, the idea that George Lucas said the Jedi are the good guys just to appeal to the fanbase is absolute. Lucas doesn’t give a shit what the fanbase says, he’ll praise Jar Jar and call Darth Vader pathetic and say Star Wars is for children (especially 12 year olds) despite how much backlash he’d get. He says what he says and means what he says. But you’re not gonna address that, are you? Cause you can’t.

I still think the most hilarious thing about your argument is your actually saying the guy notorious for saying “fuck the fans, fuck Hollywood, I’ll make what I want and say what I want” actually made up a bunch of lies about his films to cater to fans. Sorry but that’s a whole goddamn circus.

So yeah, when I rewatch that interview with Filoni I don’t hear him explaining what he thinks the PT story is. I hear him relaying to us what he learned from Lucas. His explanation of Duel of the Fates fits the name of the track,

It doesn’t fit the fact that Duel of the Fates plays in the battle between Yoda and Sidious which has nothing to do with Anakin. That reasoning for the name does fit with the fact that it was a track made to symbolize the battle between Good and Evil.

These quotes are from John Williams, not George Lucas. Wanna try your “George Lucas hid the truth” conspiracy theory on this one?

Qui-gon is determined to train Anakin and instead he gets Obi-wan. Instead of a seasoned Master he gets a newbie Knight.

Except if you actually read the shit I send it would prove why Obi-Wan was a great master for Anakin. Anakin’s fall was not Obi-Wan’s fault.

Anakin would’ve been a great Jedi Master like Qui-Gon if it weren’t for Palpatine.

Filoni’s interview puts it in words, but his words really ring true.

Literally no. I already sent you a link to a post which proves everything he says wrong.

Especially in light of how Qui-gon might have returned in ROTS.

He did return in ROTS, but only to tell Yoda about force ghosting. That was his only planned appearance ever in that film.

But after TPM, it is tracked where Anakin is facing a turning point.

You mean when Yoda and Sidious are fighting?

And it hinges on that duel on Naboo. It turned on who lived and who died.

If you read the stuff I sent you you would know it’s not true. The notion that Anakin was doomed to fail from the get-go is going against the principle of choice that George was adamant to include in the Prequels. Anakin’s fall was caused by his own choices, not the outcome of some duel that has nothing to do with him. This is Filoni coming up with head canon because he thinks the duel is “boring” if it has nothing to do with Anakin. I know this is head canon because it goes against what John Williams says the track is meant to symbolize and it goes against one of the main themes of the prequels.

Yes, fate/destiny plays a part in Star Wars, but whether you follow it is contingent on your choices. As Lucas puts it:

George Lucas says it hinged on Anakin choosing to kill Palpatine in the office. If there was no Palpatine, Anakin would’ve been just fine. Anakin’s turn was not Obi-Wan’s fault.

So I see no reason to not take Filoni’s desription as 100% accurate. He has always been more literal and forthcoming in interviews where Lucas seems to be forever altering things.

Lucas has not once altered his opinion on the Jedi. Back in the 1980s, 2000s, and nowadays, he still says the Jedi were right and still echoes their philosophy as if it were his own.

You also didn’t address that the Jedi’s philosophy is obviously Lucas’.
^^^ Here’s George Lucas just recently agreeing with Yoda in ROTS when he tells Anakin he needs to let go of what he fears to lose

^^^ Here’s George Lucas agreeing with the Jedi at a University lecture

SparkySywer said:

I used to be the resident prequel hater here but I think you’re selling the prequels short, brother

I didn’t say the prequels weren’t complex at all though.

I said:

Not that the prequels aren’t complex, but the fact is, “The Jedi are good, the Sith are bad” is a still a bit too black and white for some adults. So they have to make it “You see, Jedi ideology is actually somewhat wrong, they say you can’t ever be afraid or attached to anybody, what assholes!” when that’s not what Jedi ideology is. But people wanna cling on because the idea that the Jedi are morally perfect is boring to them. Adults project flaws onto the Jedi because they can’t relate to morally perfect characters like children can.

People like to cling to the idea that the Jedi were corrupt because it’s makes the prequels more complex then “The Jedi were right, Anakin was wrong.” But that’s not what Lucas is going for. They just don’t wanna accept that Anakin only turned to the dark side because he was greedy for the power to cheat death. It makes Anakin’s turn seem more reasonable or logical to say, “Well actually he was rebelling against a religion that bulled him into repressing his emotions, therefore it was reasonable for him to commit genocide” (not that that justifies killing all the Jedi anyway, but some people like to act like it does). But that’s not true and that’s not the narrative of the prequels. The prequels still have complex themes about democracies and dictatorships, greed, possessive love, war, etc. But it is not, in any way, a critique of the Jedi or a critique of organized religion.

George Lucas made the prequels to show how democracies become dictatorships and how fear, greed, and refusing to let go leads to the dark side. That’s it.

Did G. Lucas ever intend to portray the Jedi as a flawed institution in the prequels? Or was it added later in the EU?

yotsuya said:

It is layering. A interesting story for children and also an interesting story for adults. Children see only the glorious Jedi and adults see the cracks and flaws and how the Jedi fail Anakin which leads to his fall. Children seen someone giving in to anger and hate and turning bad. A very good moral lesson. Adults see lopsided teachings, an evil mentor grooming Anakin for an evil future, and a dogmatic religious order out of step with the times. Kids see a story about what not to do and Adults see a story about what not to do - both aimed at their age group. Brilliant story telling. If only the dialog and directing was so brilliant.

George Lucas has said over and over that the films are made specifically for 12 year olds. Over and over. Why would he incorporate something that’s apparently so essential for the story that would go over their heads? Especially when 12 year olds are supposed to be the main audience? He literally says that the optimal age to watch Star Wars is when your 12. How does it make any sense that essential parts of his films would not be able to be digested by children? Because the answer is that it’s not. That’s something you made up. Why would he make the films so that Yoda is obviously meant to be the all-wise mentor figure and the Jedi the good guys? Because he wants children to use the Jedi as a moral basis. He wants children to learn Jedi teachings, AKA his own philosophy.

Also Palpatine grooming Anakin is so obvious children would be able to see it. That’s not something only an adult would be able to see. That’s why you will see adults complain how about obvious Palpatine’s manipulation is. “Why is Anakin so stupid, why can’t he see he’s being manipulated?”, “Why’s Palpatine so obviously evil?” The answer is he’s making it obvious so that children can pick up on it.

The reason people project these alternative meanings on the prequels is because they’re films for children, and therefore will make it more complex then it actually is in a desperate attempt to make the films appeal to them more. Not that the prequels aren’t complex, but the fact is, “The Jedi are good, the Sith are bad” is a still a bit too black and white for some adults. So they have to make it “You see, Jedi ideology is actually somewhat wrong, they say you can’t ever be afraid or attached to anybody, what assholes!” when that’s not what Jedi ideology is. But people wanna cling on because the idea that the Jedi are morally perfect is boring to them. Adults project flaws onto the Jedi because they can’t relate to morally perfect characters like children can.

Did G. Lucas ever intend to portray the Jedi as a flawed institution in the prequels? Or was it added later in the EU?

yotsuya said:

You seem to have ignored all the OT things I pointed out.

No, I acknowledged them all, I just didn’t quote everything. You’re the one not reading or digesting what I said.

It is not just my head canon. It is there in the films.

No, it’s not.

I don’t agree that Filoni made it up. It is well documented how much he worked with Lucas directly. If he says that is what Lucas told him, I believe him.

George Lucas didn’t tell him that. Dave never even said George Lucas told him that.

I’m gonna link this again as you obviously didn’t read it. It proves that those things that Dave Filoni says was not George Lucas intentions.

And he’s another post about how Dave Filoni differs in his view of the Prequels from George Lucas in many ways.

There is an entire thread on this site about Lucas being an unreliable narrator because he continually changes things. The various edits to the OT and PT films aren’t the only thing he changes. After the OT was complete, he liked to claim that Vader was always intended to be Luke and Leia’s father when that is very obviously not the case. The films and the previous drafts of the scripts prove otherwise.

Bruh. George was saying this stuff about the Jedi AS THE PREQUELS WERE COMING OUT. He said it when The Phantom Menace came out, when Attack of the Clones came out, and when Revenge of the Sith came out. It’s even in the audio commentary. And if you ask him now, he’ll say the same shit. There’s no retconning going on here.

To be honest, I really don’t stop to consider anything Lucas says that seems to conflict with the movies. And that tends to be quite a lot of what he says. So as far as I’m concerned, if you are listening to Lucas over the films themselves that is a non-canon head canon. The films disagree with him on a number of levels and what Filoni shared of his conversations with Lucas better agrees with the films than his own comments do. I referred to Filoni because what he has shared of his conversations with Lucas agrees with what I got out of the films long before he had done a single episode of Clone Wars. His comments add layers to the PT that agree with my own previous observations. Same with Luke’s comments in the ST. The only EU book I have read since the mid 90’s has been the Millennium Falcon book. I have largely ignored the EU so none of my observations have anything to do with the EU. It is only the the Saga films themselves. From the films I see the flaws in the Jedi. They are less than what they were. I think George often speaks of the Jedi at their height, not the Jedi just before their fall.

No, what you’re doing is refusing to re-interpret the films under the lens that George Lucas wanted you to interpret them in. You’re so attached to your head canon you refuse to see it any other way.

The films very much established that younglings are recruited before any bad habits can set in.

Yeah, the Jedi are taught not to repress their fears, taught to love things but not become attached to things, and are taught to let go. From birth. These are healthy things. If a Jedi doesn’t learn to let go of their fear, they will give into it and that will lead to the dark side.

With Anakin they try the normal youngling training and it fails. Fear is part of who Anakin is already and the teachings about fear fail.

Because Anakin refuses to follow the teachings. It’s not the training that fails. Otherwise why do all the other Jedi not have these problems? If Jedi are just bottled up emotions ready to explode, why don’t more fall to the dark side? The ones that do fall are the ones that refuse to follow the Jedi teachings, that let fear and greed consume them (Anakin and Dooku).

He needed teachings about anger and hate, not fear.

He needed teachings about all of those.

In The Phantom Menace, Anakin doesn’t need to be taught about anger and hatred because he doesn’t have it yet. He’s just a sweet, kind kid. But he is repressing his fears, and that needs to be dealt with. He will become angry and hateful if he continues on this path of bottling his fears.

The implication of his age and the various comments is that he is too old and the normal Jedi teachings don’t work.

He’s too old because he’s already old enough that he’s fallen into the habit of repressing his fears. Anakin keeps refusing that admit that he’s afraid. If you drag someone to therapy and they keep refusing to do the therapy and refuse to admit that anything’s wrong, nothing’s ever gonna get done.

Not ONCE does George Lucas blame the teachings on Anakin’s turn to the dark side. He blames Anakin for not applying the teachings.

“The fact that everything must change and that things come and go throughout life and that he can’t hold onto things is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn’t willing to accept emotionally, and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he’d have been taken in his first year and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn’t have this particular connection as strong as it is and he’d have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them.”

“Anakin wants to be a Jedi, but he cannot let go of the people he loves in order to move forward in his life. The Jedi believe that you don’t hold on to things, that you let things pass through you, and if you can control your greed, you can resolve the conflict not only in yourself but in the world around you, because you accept the natural course of things. Anakin’s inability to follow this basic guideline is at the core of his turn to the Dark Side.

Fast forward to Obi-wan and Yoda dealing with Luke, they have adjusted their teachings to account for his age where they had not for Anakin.

No. Yoda says that fear is one of the things Luke needs to be wary of.

“Anger, fear, aggression, the dark side are they.” He also repeats this in Return of the Jedi.

Also, when they’re trying to stop Luke from recklessly leaving to save people he isn’t ready to save, they’re teaching him to not give into his fear.

Also, LUCAS HIMSELF literally says, “The key to the dark side is fear.” IT’S RIGHT HERE. READ.

This is HIS OWN PHILOSOPHY. Unless you wanna make up some bullshit that his philosophy changed between the trilogies (which again, is proven wrong by Yoda warning Luke against fear), there’s no change. The Jedi aren’t “adjusting their teachings”. It stays the same.

HE EVEN SAYS THAT IT’S LITERALLY CORE TO STAR WARS. He just told you to your face that you misinterpreted the whole point of the Star Wars saga. And you’re still in denial XD

From a writing perspective with the PT being written later, that has to be a deliberate choice on Lucas’s part. He pulls the PT Jedi back to teaching to avoid fear. Anakin had fear, but Luke has anger. And yet Anakin fell and Luke did not? What is one key difference? What they were taught. You can see that Lucas analyzed what the failing with Anakin was and came up with something that Obi-wan and Yoda had fixed to teach Luke. You can see the difference in teachings in the PT and OT. The only reason for that is to show that the PT Jedi failed Anakin due to failures of their teachings. They could not adapt to Anakin’s age or inherent fear. Obi-wan and Yoda wanted to make sure that did not happen with Luke and trained Luke so that when Palpatine and Vader goaded him far enough, that he could come back from it.

If you read quotes from George Lucas he never differentiates the OT and Prequel Jedi. They’re just Jedi. And Luke is following the standard Jedi path, not a new one. This is your head canon.

In the films themselves we don’t see that in great detail.

That’s the crux. You’re filling in things in a way that Lucas doesn’t intend for you to because he writes things in a straightforward and blunt manner that doesn’t tackle all of the intricacies.

This goes along with Yoda’s advice in TLJ - to learn from your mistakes. That dialog just puts to words what we already saw Yoda do. So it there was a mistake, that means the PT Jedi did something wrong. They failed in training Anakin. They failed detecting Palpatine and his influence. They failed in a number of ways and Obi-wan and Yoda train Luke differently in several key ways.

And yet George Lucas goes on and on about how Anakin’s fall was not the Jedi’s fault. So no, Yoda did not fail Anakin. Yoda saying “The greatest teacher, failure is” is just talking about The Clone Wars and not seeing Palpatine. Not Anakin.

The PT Jedi ways work for younglings, but they fail for those who are older. It makes you wonder how many older force sensitive beings the Jedi decide not to train. Their numbers are greatly reduced and they could use the additional recruits. But if they don’t know how to train someone older who has issues then it makes sense.

They do know how to. It’s the same way you teach a youngling. The reason they train them so young because learning it when you’re young is way easier. But in the end, Luke went through the same teachings and it worked. Anakin just refused to follow the teachings. The difference between Luke and Anakin isn’t the teachings, it’s the fact that Anakin refused to apply them to himself and while Luke accepted them and overcame his flaws. When Anakin was given a choice to give into his fear, greed and hate or to let go and overcome it, he does it at every turn. He gives into his thirst for revenge against the Tuskens and Dooku and gives into his fear of losing Padme. Luke overcomes his fear that his friends will die and his anger towards Darth Vader and chooses to have compassion for his father instead.

Luke is headstrong and does many things his own way, but in that moment when he looks at Vader’s severed mechanical arm and his own mechanical hand, those lessons from Yoda and Obi-wan dominate the emotions running through him. Their revised teachings worked.

Luke’s arc in Return of the Jedi is to OVERCOME his headstrong methods. Him throwing away the lightsaber is REJECTING the dark side, REJECTING his anger and being calm and rational. His rampage against Vader wasn’t a good thing, it was a flaw he needed to overcome, and he did. And that’s the only example of Luke being reckless in ROTJ. In the plan to save Han Solo and when he faces Vader to try and turn him, he’s completely calm, calculating, and rational. Look at him when he’s talking to Jabba the Hutt and Darth Vader. He’s literally stiff as a rock. In fact, the scene in which he’s talking to Jabba in ROTJ mirrors Qui-Gon’s conversation with Boss Nass in The Phantom Menace. Because both scenes are of a Jedi rationally trying to peacefully negotiate and the other refusing to listen.

If the PT Jedi were right, there would be no need to show a difference in training. That there is a difference between the PT and OT is how you can tell that this is something deliberate that Lucas did. That is how you can tell what he told Filoni is accurate.

Then why did Lucas give the Prequel Jedi his own philosophy? Like actually?

That is how you can tell a lot of his interviews were BS.

Conspiracy theory bullshit. “He was lying to cover something up!”, you can say that about anything. “NASA said the Earth is round, here is the proof” “They’re lying to cover up Flat Earth!” Same shit. If you have to resort to conspiracy theory nonsense that everything Lucas says is to cover something up then you know you lost.

As it’s not JUST in interviews. It’s in the audio commentary, in “The Making of…” books, in The Star Wars Archives by Paul Duncan, in lectures he gives at Universities (once again proving that Jedi philosophy is also HIS philosophy), literally anywhere you can see George Lucas talk about Star Wars. He comments about this so much that literally the only thing short of it is actually talking to him in person. And honestly, I would literally pay money for you to meet George Lucas just to see his face as you go on your rant about how every time he’s elaborated on the meaning of the Prequels and his own philosophy was actually a conspiracy to cover up the truth of his films and his philosophy and you are one of the enlightened ones that truly understand. Like actually. His face would be priceless.

The PT celebrated Jedi and Lucas wanted to publicly encourage that.

Why would he want people to celebrate people he intentionally portrayed as corrupt? He certainly didn’t want people to celebrate the Sith or the state of the Senate in the prequels. He outright has called Darth Vader “pathetic” twice (which like, I’m a Darth Vader fanboy, he’s my favorite character, but he’s right. He might be the most powerful force user and a badass, but the man lives a sad life, he’s constantly suffering). You know, the most worshipped character in all of Star Wars. If he’s spewing bullshit to appeal to the fans why does he continue to defend fucking Jar Jar Binks? The most hated character of all time? This literally doesn’t make any sense.

Tell me, how does it make any sense that Lucas literally gave the Jedi his own values and philosophy, which I’ve proven over and over, if the Jedi are meant to be flawed? Actually, I want to know? The answer is it doesn’t make sense. Because he’s not just talking about what the Jedi are teaching, he’s literally talking to you as himself. He’s giving you lessons that are exactly the same as Yoda’s.

But sure, bring up the same shit I’ve debunked over and over and rationalize with conspiracy theory nonsense. Or maybe just admit that it’s your head canon.

Anakin/Vader and mortality

yotsuya said:

My point has been that starting the path to the dark side at fear is inaccurate.

No. If you leave your fear unchecked, eventually you’ll get angry at it. Then you’ll hate it. And once you let that hate consume you, it’ll lead to suffering.

Basic example: a kid has abusive parents. This leads him to fear them. If he doesn’t confront this fear and get out of the situation somehow, then he starts to get angry at them because of this. He gets angry because of his powerlessness and the fact that he has to keep dealing with it. He then hates them, and if he lets his hate consume him, it leads to suffering.

This is literally shown step by step in the prequels. You know all those cheesy edits that show Anakin at different stages of his life with the words “Fear. Anger. Hate. Suffering”? Yeah.

The path may begin at fear, but through proper teaching that path can be trod without falling to the dark side.

It’s almost like that’s the point. You can overcome fear. You can overcome anger. You can overcome hate. But if you let yourself get consumed by any of them, you’re on the path to the dark side.

Anakin/Vader and mortality

Darth Malgus said:

You know, the more I read this discussion, the more I realize that this is not a discussion about the Jedi teachings and theology, but simply a confrontation between two philosophies and two different ways of understanding life.

On one hand, there are those who are in favor of Romanticism, expressing their passions and having selfish feelings, but without letting these things take over and balancing them with altruism. On the other hand, there are those who are completely opposed to passion and selfishness and profess absolute altruism, instead of a form of altruism that Is balanced with selfishness. It’s for this reason that Anakin’s story and tragedy have a different meaning depending on the person who talks about them.

Our contrasts have actually nothing to do with Star Wars, they’re simply a reflection of what we think and what our philosophy of life is. So if anything, if we have to discuss these things, I think we should do it in the appropriate sections, where we can discuss about personal things, philosophy and stuff like that. Because again, this discussion about the Jedi is nothing more than a transposition of what we think and what our philosophy of life is. So I think we should bring the discussion back to the objective reality of things, without necessarily having to involve Star Wars.

I’m just talking about Lucas’ intentions in all this. I am a very passionate person (more then most, I think) and I don’t think having selfish desires is inherently a bad thing at all, especially when it comes to romantic relationships. Hell, I have Peter and MJ from the MCU in my pfp lmao.

I don’t think Lucas does either though. He’s married. He has kids. He’s a passionate guy. We’re talking Mr. “I want to make the film I want to make and I refuse to back down the studios”. The Jedi are allowed to leave if they want to pursue their selfish desires. But as Lucas says, “A Jedi can’t be selfish”. Being a Jedi is a commitment, a way of life. It’s something that a Jedi has to do. The Jedi’s is based on his philosophy somewhat (especially when it comes to unchecked fear being the root of evil and letting go of things), but at the same time they’re an Order that needs to have rules. If Lucas doesn’t think anybody should get married then he shouldn’t have gotten married. But he did. Twice. He got married again in 2013 after making the prequels. It’s obvious that’s not him saying, “You can’t get married, ever! Bad!” He’s saying that a Jedi can’t get married because of commitment. If you want to get married, you need to leave the Order.

yotsuya said:

Well, you kind of made my point there. Yoda said that fear leads to anger which leads to hate which leads to suffering. At what point are you doomed to the dark side? It isn’t just fear. The entire teaching is based on stopping at fear. It is established in The Phantom Menace than Anakin has fear. The council does not want to teach him based on that. He has not given in to his anger, which we see when Palpatine is testing his chosen apprentices. The movies establish that the jump from anger to hate is where you get trapped. The Jedi are stopping at fear to avoid anger and hate. They are avoiding the path to the dark side by cutting it off at fear. Conquering your fear is a good teaching. But it was not the point that Anakin needed.

Yeah, the point is that they need to conquer their fear and confront it instead of bottling it up and leaving it unattended. If you don’t confront your fear, it’ll consume you. And anger and hate is what it’ll lead to. Conquering fear is not a bad thing for Anakin. It’s what he needs to do to live a healthy life. And as I’ve said, the reason they reject him is because he is bottling up his fear. He won’t conquer it because he won’t acknowledge that it exists.

Also the Jedi did not change their opinion on fear by ESB. Yoda even lists fear as one of the things that leads to the dark side. “Anger, fear, aggression, the dark side are they”.