Mithrandir

I believe the thing would be to make some TCW arc into a movie

DominicCobb said:

I'd be surprised if they're doing a Kenobi movie. They seem to be putting the PT behind them (even if Ben is an OT character, McGregor makes it closer to the PT perception wise). Besides, I get the idea that the anthology movies are the non Jedi movies (though people with special powers does fit in Trank's wheelhouse).

I would love to see a Kenobi movie though. But Boba Fett makes more sense. A fan favorite character who hasn't actually done anything on film.

 Even if I'm for the direction they're taking the saga, I don't think it's time to put the PT behind. On the contrary, it's time to make all the stand alone films possible based on the PT, while all the actors are still young and look close in age to what they portrayed between 99 and 05.

DominicCobb said:

Some details: release date is May 25, 2018. Han will be late teens/early 20s. Was originally going to be the third anthology film but the second (most likely Boba Fett) got pushed back because Josh Trank is an asshole.

source: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/13/star-wars-anthology-young-han-solo/

I think the postponed movie is about Kenobi, specially because of this statement by Kennedy

“It’s still one of the stories that we absolutely want to tell,” she says. “There is a lot of innovative technology in and around what it is we’re doing with that story, so for a lot of reasons, we were comfortable postponing that. But we’re definitely still developing it.”

Probably the "technology" in development is related to matching Ewan and Guiness

It's only speculation and hypothesis, but with new films coming soon, specially the standalone films that could fit within the timeframe of the OT, I think there are some things that could (or should) be approached, and would be nice to discuss or speculate, at least, between us the fans.

I named the thread official history, because I believe there are many plot holes regarding what the galaxy knows and supposes about the events between ROTS and ROTJ; some of them, as Vader "betraying" the Emperor have been recently brought up in reddit, but there are others that could as well be used as significant plot devices:

a) How much does the galaxy know about Jedi General Anakin Skywalker, (who in old cannon was wide known as "the hero with no fear")? Is his reputation wide known?

b) Why is Vader so secretive about his identity considering that, had Mustafar never happened, his identity would have been public? Which leads us to

c) What is all that stuff about Vader's double personality, and referring to himself in third person? Vader IS Anakin Skywalker, and he knows it in the films, he says "I am your father". When he denies being Anakin in ROTJ, it could well be a metaphor of his election of the Dark Side to Luke.

d) If Anakin Skywalker, widely known as a war figure across the galaxy officially "died" in Coruscant, how comes he is no martyr to the rebellion, or never gets even mentioned, except as a "great pilot"?

e) If the Rebels held Anakin's figure as a martyr, how would that impact on Vader?

f)If Vader's identity was known, how would that impact on Luke between the rebels

g) How comes no one outside the rebellion recognizes/associates Luke Skywalker with the other "mythical" Skywalker that freed planets in the clone wars.

h) If this happened, how would that impact on Vader?

i) Would anyone who knew Darth Vader's identity inside the Rebelion (read Ahsoka or ObiWan if at some point he joins for some mission in the new cannon) keep it a secret, if Anakin's figure was to be held in high regard for morale of the troops?

Again, the whole double identity of Anakin Skywalker/Vader wasn't in the original plans of the emperor. From what is seen in the PT, you can tell that there is never such a pronounced double identity in Dooku/Tyrannus or Sidious/Palpatine; and even if it is the suit what allows it, Skywalker/Vader is something that could really not have happened.

Then why is Anakin so secretive about it? It seems way too convenient for the plot.

Ronster said:

darth_ender said:

So perhaps a better question might have been:

If a PT really were necessary to tell a complete Star Wars tale, what would have been the best tale to tell?  What should have been left out?

There probably are already threads addressing this.

 Anakin of course.

We should have seen Darth Vader in the PT and no Anakin but only mentions of a great Jedi knight called Anakin.

A reference.

Obi-wan's story... Well did we really need to see him go in to battle with his friend on the volcano if it was already known it could just as well happened off screen. Imagine Obi-wan having to explain that the great Jedi knight was a traitor to a council and that he killed him. Would we even trust him on his word? We never saw what happened...

There was perhaps a big angle of story telling for the council perhaps being dubious about trusting Obi-wans word on the matter 

That is surely better story telling?

 It surely would have been a far better movie. What if ObiWan was exiled for killing the great Jedi Knight? Perhaps that would have been why he survived the purge? Like Ahsoka.

Phisically, since 2000's Gladiator, I always pictured Anankin as Joaquin Phoenix.

grifter said:

Still a big "meh" for me, don't really feel anything with this trailer or the last one.

It kind of looks like SW but more like "i'm watching a Dark Forces 2 cutscene in HD" SW...

Am i the only one to feel like this?

 Yeah, felt the same.

The final movie might grow on me eventually but the new "tron" aesthetic of the Empire doesn't buy me at all.

Once again, it looks like a movie based on fan-service concepts. 

From a certain point of view, like most of nowadays american cinema, it looks like the movie is hiper-underlining some concepts. What I mean is that, visually, every single shot looks so iconic that everything ends up feeling overly intentional and not casual enough. So much for the lived-in universe, which isn't just having scruffy stuff around. The big red flag on the rally shot...so now the Empire isn't inspired by Hitler's Germany...but it IS Hitler's Germany. 

OT was suggestive. Big ship catches small ship. You know who the bad guys are. PT felt different. Remember the shot that establishes the militarisation of the Republic in AOTC? Didn't it feel explicit enough? Well, add a giant flag with a nazi-like symbol and you will have bypassed the level of "explicit" into the realm of underlined.

As a designer, you only enter that path when you're out of ideas. I don't think this is the case. I believe this is more like everyone getting too exited and putting on screen everything they have been dreaming of as fanboys for the last 30 years. I can't work that way.

The movie might have some strong points and even plot wise it can be interesting. But as far as visuals, I'm already out.

Except for the shot of Han and Chewie. If the plot kills Han, then I'm out.

Too much concern about the reveal, as if it were the pivotal point of the whole saga.

Think how the prequels played out, and you'll find that if Vader spoke his truth it would have been a truthful and strong moment as in I am your father.

They could have kept the original ObiWan killed your father, and it would still be true and an "awesome WTF moment"

This meaning there might not be a point in making the effort to twist 600 minutes of PT just to preserve 1 minute of OT no matter how idolised by the pop culture that moment is.

Even if you somehow managed to make Maul survive and be Grievous, and Grievous "be" Vader, or make Dooku be Vader, or if you filmed a second apprentice to ObiWan just to make him be Vader, you would still have Anakin going down and falling, regardless of whether you cut mustafar out or not.

What's more that could be pleasing to watch as a fan edit, where you constantly are subject to the tought of "he moved the pieces that way, and took this off and put this, etc." but if you saw that movie for the first time, it might feel rather inconclussive. This is what I think is the real trouble of "fixing" the PT to match the OT when it comes to Anakin's "secret": best case scenario is a film where you have this iconical war hero, who is the protagonist of the movie and at some points dissappears but he doesn't have a funeral, nor a mention. Inconclussive. And if you add to that the fact that a black knight with heroic proportions now replaces the old cyborg that would-have-used to be the sidekick of the emperor, there's little room for secrecy.

I think it might be too much effort wasted. Darth Vader can very well be a pathetic character without diminishing him. It's us who believed he suddenly was the primal source of evil and power. And, in a big exercise of fan-service Lucas made Anakin be "the chosen one" and all sorts of things that enhightened his position within the hierarchy of the Jedi and thus the Sith.

OT is different and always was. It was sillier. There are humorous scenes with Vader in ESB, it's us who want him to be more "badass" than he is. And that has made the Star Wars experience flatter. Perhaps the problem is to believe that everything should have been darker and more serious while maybe the real thing is to make it more innocent, naive.

Have you seen how stupid does Kylo Ren look in the trailer of TFA when he makes a completely ridicolous stance just to activate his sabre? That's because Abrahams is a fanboy too. I want vilains to be bad people, not cartoons of evil.

I don't know what would be stranger, if the information being true, or Abrahams loosing his time sending phony information. At the end of the day it's just a movie, like Mark Hammill, the most centered guy ever on this saga, said.

Regarding Han, he had a price on his head in ANH. Was frozen to death in ESB. Almost died in the Sarlacc Pit. Having survived that, he will die at a fanboy's hands?

Death of the Mentor is what makes the characters grow in every movie, and the Mentor, unless something changed in Star Wars, is supposed to be Luke. If a very significant moment is made of Solo's death, then that would hollow Luke's eventual death next movie The worst thing you can make to a guy like Han Solo is to make him die of old age. Killing him is fan service, in a way. Again everyone is so convinced Han will die just because Harrison wanted him dead 35 years ago. What I fear the most is that JJ is a fanboy and might kill him just because "he needs to have a cool death".

No point in killing Han. I even doubt Harrison wants him dead now. Killing Han made sense back in ROTJ.

A death in a story isn't always meaningful, it's meaning is given by the circumstances in which it takes place. A bitter note to ROTJ made sense; killing an old man in an already dark film (they have to reinvent evil in this movie, the OT had a rather clear happy ending).

Yes, most of fans believe Harrison Ford wants Han dead in absolute terms, and that he signed on the condition of his character being killed. I think it's more sensible to think that was something Ford wanted back in 1983, and that there isn't a major reason to keep pretending it 32 years later.

CO said:

Mithrandir said:

J J's Paranoia comes from his own mindset, in which he believes that plot-twists and surprise are the most important elements of a cinematic experience.

Faust, Oedipus, The Illiad, Dante's Commedy...most of the major works of art Men have created have quite predictable endings, we can foretell what will happen, but we don't know how will it happen, and the depth of these works is set in that how. The Prequels sucked, not because we knew the story already, but because they were shittily told, in every single way, from script to visuals.

Now, Star Wars redefined the concept of plot-twist with "I am your father"... and it was cool, because it was jaw-dropping but also because it presented the opportunity to make personal for the character a struggle that was mainly political. It was fine for a 3 part movie.

Now there's a virtually unlimited number of movies, and it should be time to realise there's a lot more to tell in any story than deus-ex-machina-kind of stuff. I mean this diegetically, and non diegetically, a film is perfectly enjoyable even if you know everything that will happen.

JJ only believes in Jaw-dropping amusement. Lost proves this, and that is the source of his secrecy. It's funny he is compared with Spielberg some times.

 Interesting take as I never thought of it that way.  You are essentially saying he is more in the M Night Shalayman type movies where the twist in the movie is the foundation of the movies.

That sort of worries me a twist in a movie should be gravy, but shouldn't be the foundation of the movie.  Sure there are great movies with great twists:  Sixth Sense, Usual Suspects, Presummed Innocent, etc.  But SW movies were never about the 'twist'.  I contend that Empire Strikes Back is a great movie, regardless of the twist at the end.

 Yes, I think JJ's highlight is always the surprise factor. And while I enjoy those kind of movies, I think there's a lot of histeria about them... and to some extent about movies in a general way.

Histeria up to the point of moving a release date just because "plot leaks can make the movie predictable (and thus, spoil the whole spectacle). When did predictability and not depth and empathy become the standards by which a drama is judged?

J J's Paranoia comes from his own mindset, in which he believes that plot-twists and surprise are the most important elements of a cinematic experience.

Faust, Oedipus, The Illiad, Dante's Commedy...most of the major works of art Men have created have quite predictable endings, we can foretell what will happen, but we don't know how will it happen, and the depth of these works is set in that how. The Prequels sucked, not because we knew the story already, but because they were shittily told, in every single way, from script to visuals.

Now, Star Wars redefined the concept of plot-twist with "I am your father"... and it was cool, because it was jaw-dropping but also because it presented the opportunity to make personal for the character a struggle that was mainly political. It was fine for a 3 part movie.

Now there's a virtually unlimited number of movies, and it should be time to realise there's a lot more to tell in any story than deus-ex-machina-kind of stuff. I mean this diegetically, and non diegetically, a film is perfectly enjoyable even if you know everything that will happen.

JJ only believes in Jaw-dropping amusement. Lost proves this, and that is the source of his secrecy. It's funny he is compared with Spielberg some times.

Bingowings said:

TMBTM said:

One of the main criticisms of the PT is that Anakin is not a likable character, but I think Adywan should not try to make Anakin a likable character. 1: cause I don't see an easy way to make Hayden's Anakin a likable hero, and 2: he is fucking Darth Vader after all! We should hate him for getting progressively evil (but not for being a douche, all right! He should be as smart as possible given the source). Let's Obi-Wan be the real hero who witness the fall of his student friend. The audience should feel sorry for Obi-Wan, but not for Anakin.

In an ideal situation we wouldn't have seen much of Obi-Wan of Anakin anyway. We know how most of their story played out from watching the OT so that made watching the films in filmed order particularly boring and flat conceptually and watching them in chronological order seeing Anakin too much reveals and spoils plot revelations from future episodes.

However it is important that Anakin be a good man corrupted and that we should care about this otherwise this weakens the impact of the OT where we are supposed be glad that Anakin has defeated Vader from within so to speak by being guided by his son the OT protagonist.

I think the only way this can be done in an edit of the existing PT is by showing less Anakin and seeing his effect on the universe more. That way if survivors of battles whisper the hero's name with awe and respect we will respect him. Especially if we hear and see less Hayden. Similarly when Vader turns up he should be seen more conceptually than physically. We should see massacred Jedi and hear witnesses trembling with fear describing the mysterious dark lord.

That way by the time we have got to Jedi we know Anakin was a hero who became this terrifying warlord and became the hero again. He will earn a place in Jedi Valhalla and not just be an annoying petulant shite who got burned up after choking his pregnant wife.

I think that having the viewer like/admire Anakin might not be an ideal situation, but rather a necessary thing in order to preserve the WTF moment in ESB.

At this point one could argue wether you should have the whole arc of Anakin bended just to preserve one plot twist, no matter how iconic or important it is for the fans, or if other things are more important.

There's a chance of having a saga defined by the message of Yoda wars don't make one great instead of "OMG he's his father, it cannot be!". Yes, plot-twists are cool, but not enough to justify a six-part saga. Infact they even might be overrated; surprise and astonishment aren't by far the most important values a film/script/novel/stage play can have. (tell that to the creators of Lost).

I believe the best way to have Anakin's redemption in ROTJ be endorsed is to make us pity him in the PT, as someone trapped by the nonesensical morale of the Jedi Order and forced to be basically a blind soldier instead of a regular guy.

I agree however, that his position should be secondary. Having Anakin be "famous" within the Order and the highests layers of society just makes the whole OT full of plot-holes.

What has the Empire made of Anakin (this meaning the official story) ? If he was labeled as a Jedi traitor, then there's no reason why the rebels haven't picked him up as a symbol for their struggle. If the Empire gave Anakin the same treatment Adolph Hitler gave to Erwin Rommel, then Anakin could be a hero for both sides in the OT (that would have been very very interesting to be played in Rebels). If, in any case, Vaders identity wasn't a secret for the galaxy, then that makes a fool of Luke.

This all can be solved if instead of a "famous war hero" and "the most powerful of Jedi" Anakin just was a skilled but regular and most obedient of all Jedi.

Most of the iconocism around Vader's character was not there in the original 77 Star Wars; it was suggested by the sequels of the OT, and was definetely the rear engine that drove the prequels.

I've just seen ESB for the sake of it, and it's never implied that Darth Vader is the most powerful being in the galaxy, nor someone the rest of the bad guys look up to (As in having a diegetic fandom). There's even humourous scenes with Vader in Empire.

By what's been seen so far, looks like this ST will inherit the take on the character straight from the PT (Vader's the chosen one, Vader's a seriously very important guy in the galaxy) and potentiate it to the tenth level based on JJ's inner fanboy's desire.

We'll end up having a character who wants to be "as powerful as Vader" but will be as powerful as he, in his delusions, thinks Vader was. Then this character will probably do bigger things onscreen than Vader ever did in the OT (which isn't hard), and thus JJ will end up diminishing the character he originally intended to praise.

Everything in the OT has a nice, appropiate scale. Something tells me the force awakens will fall under the fashion of just absolutely everything in cinema today being "epic". Like making a pose for igniting a lightsabre. Or being ludicrously theatrical when saying "the dark side"; I hope we don't see the force become a licence to do whatever the director wants on screen as much as being an elve was to Peter Jackson in recent Battle of the Five Armies.

darklordoftech said:

Darth Lucas said:

I have a theory.  Everybody is talking about the hooded figure speculating he may be an ancient warrior of some kind.  What if this character turns out to be Darth Plagueis?  He actually DID manage to save himself from death and has been in some form of hibernation for years and years. The shot from the trailer is him waking up and igniting his lightsaber ready to kick some ass.  The force awakens.  As in the ultimate user of the force awakens.  Huh?  Huh???

I know it's dumb but I love speculation like this ^-^

I'd prefer someone more ancient than Plagueis. How about Darth Bane, the founder of the Sith, or a being from before the founding of the Sith?

 Remember there was a rumor this movie was going to be titled "The Ancient Fear" so yes, he could be someone from ancient days.

Bingowings said:

I predict it will be as weird as watching Into Darkness if you are a Star Trek OS fan.

It looks as like Star Wars as the prequels did only in a different way (aging on new craft never made sense at least here the beat up stuff looks old enough to be beat up).

The average public viewer will think it's the most amazing thing evar buoyed along by the media reminding people how crap the prequels were.

It might be a great movie. I might even enjoy it, but it doesn't look or feel like the OT at all. It was crap they tried to sell us.

It's all too emphatic. All too gritty. All too monumental. Even Vader has a clumsy moment in ESB;  but this movie will have the baddies be extremely bad and the good guys always be "deep" in their goodness.

They didn't get the OT at all. Yoda is just a crazy little creature who speaks truth from his heart, and thus, the greatest of all Jedi. Vader's appearances throughout the OT were mostly with zero-drama, not at least in the exaggerated way this hooded figure ignites his lightsabre. 

Hope it's an ancient weapon or something and not mere theatricality on the character. And even if it's an ancient weapon, have the bad guy be basically a collecting fan boy of the dark side might be a pronunciation from Disney about what the role of the fans is in this new era of SW. 

Still wanna know what happened to Alec Guiness and Yoda and how they're approaching it in this movie. Maybe Gollum's the key.

PS: Yes the X wing shot on the lake, and cockpit shot are absolutely delightful.

Forgot to mention that camera angles are not very star warsy, neither is the shot of Boyega appearing out of nowhere (hope it is a resource used for the trailer and not used in the actual film)

No old characters from OT. That's bad, even if they will appear in the complete movie, it's showing some vocation of the film to establish a different world.

I only hope yoda, and ObiWan's name are at least mentioned in the movie. As well as Anakin Skywalker, we still have to know how the galaxy adresses what happened to him. (if he "officially" was a Jedi traitor killed by Vader, why wasn't he the heroic symbol of the rebellion?, like Harvey Dent in Nolan's TDKR... or maybe he got the same treatment the nazis gave to Rommel, and he could be a hero both for the Empire and the Rebellion, now that would have been interesting)

Instead I think we might have another Disney movie. "Cool" to see. Din't you see the stupid pose the bad guy makes when he ignites his weird lightsaber? like he has to make an effort to hold it? That theatricality is what is "cool" today, even if it has nothing to do with SW! (who imagines Vader being phisycally disturbe by an asset like a lightsaber?)

Really disappointed by the trailer.

Teal and Orange look

Hand-camera shot inside the shuttle (stormtroopers shot)

Nothing looks as used as in the OT

Stupid lightsaber for the bad guy.

Not in a PT level, but movie will suck, and won't have anything to do with OT.

I don't even think the name Obi Wan Kenobi will be adressed here. Nor Yoda. Which would be a problem. How do establish when and why did the force ghosts stop appearing?

Joachim Phoenix was the perfect choice for Anakin; estoic, heroic, roman like. Mel Gibson resembles Alec Guinness way more than Ewan. 

The leading duo of Signs actually depict better what the relationship between Anakin and ObiWan should have been than the whole PT

Not trolling here.

Wish I was.

I agree on the Republic, not a very interesting take on the trilogy. I think that a trilogy that states that things can get even "worse" in terms of organisation/anarchy after the fall of the Empire could be a mature new insight to the general situation of the star wars universe.

Surely democracy is better than any dictatorship, but since Thomas Hobbes it can be argued than a strong central administration could be better than having no government or administration at all; if the trilogy has such an approach, a "feudal" galaxy, full of local gangsters and tribal leaders feels plausible for the "taste" of the fans feeling like star wars (at least if the taste of the fans can be asimilated to those 4 points to make a great star wars movie that hangs around the internet), while making room for new stories, in a Universe that instead of solving the social issues created by the Empire, suffers from its consequences in a worse way, just as the early middle ages were an intensification of some processes that started during the late antiquity.

Or even the local oligarchies formed in 1990s Russia, when communist-party leaders migrated to capitalism and became multimillonaires in economic control of the regions they ruled before.

Republic - Empire - Middle Ages. Could be.

If all those rumors are true, it looks like instead of a glorious restoration of the Republic in the galaxy, the general treatment follows something of the history of western civilization, this trilogy being the Middle Ages of the star wars universe.

A disorganized "federative" (feudal) system where the [Western roman empire] Empire was beaten by the rebels, and a fully alive Empire in the remnant rim [Eastern roman empire]. All glimpse of old "pagan" religions, both Sith and Jedi, banned and replaced by something new; technological stasis in the upper social spheres, while involution in the lower ones, the everlasting issue of the limit between the Empire and this "federation"...etc. Crusades? Qu Ran rising?

Just a thought tho; I'm not sure if that's a treatment i would be interested to watch, but why else would the characters be amazed at a lightsaber, Luke a fugitive, the Empire fully alive and well (chrome troopers are quite a luxury).

Well; it looks as if the gap between III and IV was the only place available to set the ground for VII; and to a certain point, I agree.

Rebels is set in a strategic time-lapse, which is the most unknown of the current cannon, yet undeniably still within the Star wars world we know.

If they went further back, that would be the PT realm; and start off a copletely new story was near impossible without an anchorage on what happened before; Phantom Menace syndrome.

And while I dig the new stormtrooper design as well, I like it per se; but a part of me was hoping to see the same designs from the OT; or at least to see the change HAPPEN on screen, and not just start from scratch with brand new designs.

Old tech endures and even coexists with newer gadgets in this universe. That's the principle because we saw a piece of junk in the OT. And that's why also, even if the designs aren't the best, I always digged to see some "old" PT ships in the SEs and particularly in the battle of Endor.

Don't rule out the OOT + GL's Vision + 2014 SE, being the latter a training ground (or at least incorporating some shots) for the re-opened practical FX unit.

So this edition could be to ST what the 97 SE was to PT. And in a sad way, a pronunciation against Adywan's work, since it would be mostly the same scope.

Or maybe i'm flying too high.

darklordoftech said:

The sad thing about this show is that the clones in TCW look more like Stormtroopers than the Stormtroopers in this.

 The only stormtroopers with hero proportions are the ones in ROTJ. I'd say that AOTC clonetroopers have more or less the proportions of ANH and ESB stormtroopers, but ROTS clones definetely establish a leap backwards when put next to ANH stormies.

Still, inflexibility and workholism are not virtues. Vader's severity hasn't proved to be better than the Rebel's guerrillas.

And Luke didn't make more mess going to Bespin than what would have happened had he let his friends die.

Luke proves the force isn't about "letting go". And "letting go" is what ultimately would have driven Anakin to becoming Vader.

Bingowings said:

The only way to make this Anakin redeemable in my view is to have him suffering from mental illness due to badly managed grief and by the time he knows what he has done he has already lost everything he loves.

Make him a tragic enough figure and you can even forgive him killing children.

Lucas set up an order where anakin fell because he was too human. GL wanted the jedi order to be morally more than humans, he didn't want them to commit to anybody, nor to help or show compassion, not even to marry. 

While the Jedi keep this rigid behaviour,  the galaxy is in order. But then comes Anakin, who acts like a normal person, chooses his wife over his duty, and so he falls (and the republic falls) because of their forbidden love. Cleary it is wrong for him to be and act just as a common folk would.That's his tragedy, he was forced to be more than what he was and the Jedi have misunderstood the prophecy all along (if in these edits there even is a prophecy)

Now take LOTR. The ultimate success in Frodo's mission comes from love under the form of pity, because he spared Gollum's life, because Faramir let Frodo go when he wasn't supposed to, etc. In a general way, we are culturally trained) to identify ourselves with characters that show human scale while heroes are determined, heroes have goals of grandeur and stay on their path. Characters we all like with are the ones that are set in a path that wasn't theirs, and solve things the best they can (Han solo, anyone?)

I'd pity Anakin and support his redemption if he obbeyed the Council and let his mother die by staying in Naboo . I'd understand his fall if after being constantly forced to pospone his individual interests for the "greater good" he found mace windu trying to kill Palpatine, thus showing that the Jedi don't always act as the rules say.

I believe I'd love an arc where the true responsible for Anakin's fall is the military morale of the Jedi Order and not Palpatine. I'd want to give more meaning to Yoda's pacifism, perhaps he's learnt something based on what happened.

Besides, the "perfect soldier" Anakin is a more similar persona to Vader than whiny Anakin is, and I totally see and comprehend Padme, the young rebel woman trapped by the formality of monarchy, confined in his own planet in AOTC, fall in love with the caring son confined by his vow and his duty.

It's key to my understanding of how to improve the movies that Anakin should never go to Tattoine, except at the end of the movie, when it's too late, and he cries, and bitches about Obiwan with all the right in the world. And Padme says it's right to be angry.

We just see shmi's body, no need of the Tuskens, and same effect