Spartacus01

Dagenspear said:

As far as we saw Anakin never pursued seeking to visit his mom in the movies, until he thought she was suffering. This could be an interesting thing to build around, and I think the movie doesn’t do that, and it’s a flaw in the movies that we don’t see it be brought up. This is among the kind of thing that I think for me could have filled out the story more.

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.

for both things Anakin could quit and do what he wanted. He’s not coerced. It’s suggested in AOTC that quitting is an option.

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 isn’t exactly simple.

Dagenspear said:

The Jedi didn’t get mad when Anakin wanted to have a girlfriend or rescue his mom, so I don’t think it does any of that.

I agree with you when you say that the Jedi were right about Anakin letting his emotions control him. But it’s not true that they weren’t upset about him wanting to have a girlfriend or wanting to save his mother.

Anakin had been having nightmares about his mother for a long time, and he told Obi-Wan about them. All Obi-Wan said was “Dreams pass in time.” So when it comes to his mother, it’s not like Anakin never talked to the Jedi about what was going on. He did, and they gave him bad advice.

This whole thing could’ve been solved so easily by just letting Anakin visit his mother to make sure she was okay. I mean, yeah, you shouldn’t let your emotions take over. But if you’re someone with Force abilities who starts having prophetic dreams about your mother suffering, it’s only natural to wonder if something bad is actually happening, and it’s only reasonable to check if everything’s fine. If you found out there’d been an explosion in your mom’s neighborhood, wouldn’t you call her or go see her to make sure she’s okay? It’s not even about letting your emotions control you, it’s just about having compassion for your mother.

And when it comes to Anakin having a girlfriend, the Jedi explicitly forbade romantic relationships, which is something Obi-Wan reminded Anakin of when Anakin told him that being around Padmé was intoxicating. So they didn’t approve the idea of him having a girlfriend.

Mocata said:

If anything Anakin’s stupid love taboo plot cheapens Luke’s arc

How so?

Alaina Huffman. Still stunning like 20 years ago.

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

Personally, I like the way the old EU handled it. There was a time when Jedi were totally free to get married and have families. Then, somewhere between Tales of the Jedi and the KOTOR comics, the no-marriage rule was introduced. But later on, Luke got rid of that rule when he started his own Jedi Order. I think this kind of development adds depth to the lore, and makes the Jedi feel more organic and grounded. It shows that the Order evolved over time, made mistakes, and tried to learn from them.

Children of the Jedi heavily implied that the Jedi during the Clone Wars/Great Jedi Purge were allowed to have romantic partners and children.

I feel the best way to have incorporated a forbidden romance into the PT without overturning previously established EU lore would’ve been to have made the prequel-era Jedi endogamous.

Children of the Jedi is a terrible book anyway, so who cares?

One thing I’ve always forgotten to mention in this thread is my personal head-canon about the creation of the Terran Empire in the Mirror Universe.

In my head-canon, the Tunguska event of 1908 occurred over Washington, D.C. instead of Siberia. Since the explosion destroyed the entire city and wiped out the government, the United States fell into chaos. Seeing an opportunity, the U.S. military, backed by the biggest corporations, staged a coup and suspended the Constitution in order to “restore order.” Eventually, they transformed the United States into a corporatist and hyper-militaristic dictatorship fueled by paranoia, terror, and expansionism. Over the following decades, the American Empire used its resources to wage wars against other nations until it united the entire planet. The Terran Empire was proclaimed in 1950, with Douglas MacArthur as its first Emperor.

Vladius said:

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

Personally, I like the way the old EU handled it. There was a time when Jedi were totally free to get married and have families. Then, somewhere between Tales of the Jedi and the KOTOR comics, the no-marriage rule was introduced. But later on, Luke got rid of that rule when he started his own Jedi Order. I think this kind of development adds depth to the lore, and makes the Jedi feel more organic and grounded. It shows that the Order evolved over time, made mistakes, and tried to learn from them.

JadedSkywalker said:

I was thinking about it today and I much much prefer the idea of Vader hunting down the Jedi knights. and not an order 66 killing younglings, none of that is what lines up with what Kenobi said in SW.

A Young Jedi named Darth Vader was a pupil of mine before he turned to evil. He helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights, he betrayed and murdered your father. Now the Jedi are all but extinct. Vader was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force.

Well, I don’t really see any contradiction, to be honest. Order 66 wiped out the majority of the Jedi scattered throughout the galaxy, but it was Anakin who personally slaughtered all the Jedi inside the Temple. So he did hunt them down and kill them with his own hands. And let’s not forget, after that, he was also sent across the galaxy to track down and eliminate any survivors of Order 66.

JadedSkywalker said:

EU purists who insist it was a part of George’s vision and that the prequel and the EU all fits together as one piece.

Who insist the Saga was always about the father, the son and grandchildren. And the bending over backwards and stretching things to act like EU wasn’t just a way for George to make lots of money on tie in fiction. That he was in no way beholden to, but could borrow from if he so desired.

I may agree with them on Disney SW to an extent, and even on Filoni retcons and destruction of the EU lore. But to act like the prequel was perfect and also didn’t destroy SW canon is incongruous. And its George’s vision the original must be suppressed, George as godhead in a religion, I reject that.

There was one continuity and canon I’ll admit that before Disney made the Expanded Universe legends. But Lucasfilm always put films and tv projects above video games, comic books and novels.

And George allowed Filoni to do whatever he wanted and to throw out the EU completely. It’s like there were two Star Wars universes before there were three branches, but Filoni was taken up into Disney Star Wars and EU was abandoned, made Legends aka lies, tall tales.

My philosophy with Star Wars Canon is pretty simple: I consider Canon whatever I like, and I just ignore what I don’t. I don’t care what George thought was Canon, or what Lucasfilm labeled as “C-Canon” or “G-Canon” or “Legends” or whatever. If I like the story, the characters, the way it expands the universe, then it’s Canon to me. Period. And if something feels off, ruins characters, breaks internal logic, or just rubs me the wrong way, I don’t care how official it is. I just mentally toss it out. As simple as that.

After re-watching the entire the Star Trek Saga, I’ve updated my personal Canon.

• Star Trek: Enterprise
• The Good That Men Do (novel)
• Kobayashi Maru (novel)
• The Romulan War Duology
• Rise of the Federation (novel series)
• Star Trek: The Original Series (selected episodes)
• Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
• Star Trek: The Search for Spock
• Star Trek: The Voyage Home
• Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country
• Star Trek: The Next Generation
• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
• Star Trek: Generations
• Star Trek: Voyager
• Star Trek: First Contact
• Star Trek: Insurrection

I removed Nemesis from my personal Canon because I just can’t bring myself to accept Data’s death. I also removed The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier because, after re-watching them with a critical eye, I finally understood why everyone dislikes them. Finally, I included the Enterprise novels because I hated the show’s finale, mostly due to Trip’s death. I really liked the way in which they retconned the last episode, and I love how the books continue the characters’ stories.

For me, there’s only one moment in Attack of the Clones where Anakin comes across as genuinely creepy. It’s the scene where Padmé tells him that she feels uncomfortable when he looks at her in a certain way. As she’s leaving, Anakin turns to look at her and says, “Sorry, my lady,” while giving her an almost predatory look.

That’s the only point in the whole movie where I feel like his behavior crosses the line from awkward to actually creepy. In the rest of the film, yes, he’s kind of intense and says some weird things, but it mostly just feels cringey, not threatening. However, to be fair, I don’t think that scene was written or directed to come across that way. I doubt George Lucas or Hayden Christensen meant for Anakin’s look to feel predatory. I think they were aiming for a flirtatious or maybe even a little bit teasing look, but the execution didn’t quite work.

I think a big part of why Anakin’s look feels so off comes down to Hayden’s facial features. He has very Nordic traits: blue eyes, high cheekbones, fair skin, etc. And I’ve noticed that people with that kind of facial structure can sometimes come across as unsettling or even creepy when they try to pull off charming or smug expressions. It’s not about what they’re trying to communicate; it’s just how those facial features translate certain expressions. What’s meant to look confident or seductive can easily come off as cold or unsettling instead. I’ve seen it happen plenty of times in real life too.

So I don’t think the problem is in the acting or the directing. It’s more of a visual mismatch between intention and result. The moment was probably supposed to feel playful or a bit bold, but because of how Hayden’s face registers that particular expression, it ends up giving a totally different vibe.

Superweapon VII said:

I think it’s a misreading of DE that Luke embraces the dark side in the story. Luke is attempting to understand the secrets of the dark side, both to understand why his father turned and as a means of conquering the dark side from within, but he underestimates the sheer oppressive nature of the dark side and comes dangerously close to succumbing to it, but Leia comes in at just the right moment to pull him back from falling into that abyss.

The problem is that Dark Empire basically rehashes something that already happened and was resolved at the end of Return of the Jedi. Luke already flirted with the Dark Side. He was right there on the edge, he nearly killed Vader in anger. That was his moment of temptation, and he overcame it. That was the whole point of his character arc in the Original Trilogy: he saw what his father became, he almost followed the same path, and he chose to stop and throw his weapon away. So when Dark Empire comes along and says, “He flirted with the Dark Side again, was almost about to fall, and it took Leia to bring him back,” it just undercuts everything that came before. It feels like going in circles instead of progressing the story. From a narrative standpoint, it is just not satisfying.

As a longtime UFO enthusiast, I really love Close Encounters of the Third Kind for all the nods to classic UFO lore. The way Spielberg reproduced the five observables and the electromagnetic effects of UFOs on cars and power plants, the cameo by J. Allen Hynek, the French character clearly based on Jacques Vallée… it’s all great stuff.

But honestly, when I take a step back and look at the actual story, I can’t help but see the aliens as the bad guys. Think about it: they show up, abduct people, and take them away from their lives and families for years. They abducted both the military pilots who vanished back in 1945 and the crew of that ship they found in Mongolia, holding them for who knows how long. They even took a child from his mother for entire days, and drove the main character to obsession and ruin, completely destroying his family life.

Seriously, who the heck do you think you are? This is our damn planet, not yours. You don’t just get to show up and mess with people’s lives like that. Go back to Zeta Reticuli and don’t come here again.

My biggest problem with Dark Empire is the fact that it exists.

davidt0504 said:

I really hate the Dark Empire plot. It was the one thing I was happy to have gone when Disney took over…

Too bad they repeated that same plot in The Rise of Skywalker, with the only difference being that, at least, in Dark Empire they tried to explain how the hell Palpatine managed to come back, whereas in The Rise of Skywalker they did not explain anything.

It is not exactly a radical idea, but I would still like to propose it. Essentially, I believe I have found a way to integrate the scene from Attack of the Clones in which Anakin vents his grief to Padmé after his mother’s death, without necessarily including any mention of the massacre he committed against the Tusken Raiders.

My idea is quite simple: right after Anakin says, “It is all Obi-Wan’s fault. He is jealous. He is holding me back,” the scene would be cut immediately to the moment when he collapses to the ground and sits down, with Padmé approaching and saying, “To be angry is to be human.” I believe that, with the right cut, it could come across as realistic. This way, it would be possible to preserve the most important part of the scene — namely, Anakin’s desire for omnipotence and his determination to prevent people from dying — without keeping the part where he essentially admits to Padmé that he killed children.

To achieve this, I think the scene would need to be stripped of its original score and rescored entirely. However, I am fairly confident that it is feasible. What do you think?

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I’m not going to watch that video but at the very least the title is misleading. Hell comes up in the bible as either Sheol/Hades like the Greek concept as a place for dead spirits, or Gehenna, which is named after a valley in Israel and symbolizes fiery torment and burning. It’s worth noting for all the people here who are fans of sanitized 21st century-friendly hippie Jesus that Christ talks more about hell (Gehenna) than anyone else in the bible.

Of course different Christians have different interpretations of how all this works, who goes to hell, how long it lasts, what the nature of it is, what the difference between Sheol and Gehenna is, etc. but it’s clearly right there in the text. The imagery and the concept of a place of punishment is obviously biblical.

I have not watched the video either, but I am familiar with the arguments of those who claim that the popular concept of Hell is not rooted in biblical tradition. I have always been interested in the history and study of religions, so I am aware of the various interpretations and debates concerning certain concepts and words. I presume that the author of the video — and I repeat, I am saying this without having watched it — does not deny that those terms are used in the Bible. Rather, I believe they argue that the modern Christian interpretation, which associates those terms with the concept of Hell as it is understood in modern popular culture, is not necessarily correct. To be honest, I am not even sure I can completely disagree, considering that Jews, for instance, do not believe in Hell and interpret those terms in a completely different way.

Personally, when it comes to the Old Testament, I tend to agree more with the Jews than with the Christians. After all, the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews, so I believe it makes more sense to follow their perspective when it comes to vocabulary, lexicon, and the exegesis of Hebrew texts. Of course, I am aware that Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, but there are certain points on which all Jews have always agreed. For instance, 99% of Jews have never believed in the existence of fallen angels, with the exception of a few small messianic sects that existed during the Second Temple period. So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, I prefer to follow Jewish interpretations rather than Christian ones, primarily for a matter of consistency.

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I honestly prefer either the chronological order or the machete order. I really cannot bring myself to watch the Original Trilogy first and then the Prequel Trilogy. To me, one should always end with Return of the Jedi, because the ending of Return of the Jedi is the most satisfying and fulfilling one. If you watch Revenge of the Sith as the final movie but have no desire to rewatch the Original Trilogy immediately afterwards, then you end the Saga on a depressing note. But if you watch Return of the Jedi as the final movie, you have a happy and satisfying ending and can conclude the Saga on a positive note. So again, I prefer either the chronological order or the machete order, as both orders allow you to watch Revenge of the Sith before Return of the Jedi rather than after, and I think it just makes more sense this way.

Personally, I believe that they should have the courage to touch the Old Republic, either with a series of films or with a TV show. As long as the stories are well-written and the characters are relatable, I think that fans would not despise them, even if they are not an exact copy and are not faithful to the original Old Republic stories.

Mocata said:

Yeah but everyone is two decades years older they need to mature and develop critical faculties by now.

Why should “maturing” and “developing critical faculties” coincide with having the same opinions as you on the Prequels? It seems like a rather biased reasoning on your part.

Channel72 said:

In contrast, the popularity of the OT can’t be as easily explained as entirely the result of nostalgia, because the OT films have many devoted fans among the younger generations as well, I assume.

As someone who has had the opportunity to speak with many people who were Star Wars fans during the 1980s and 1990s, I feel compelled to express my disagreement with this statement. After the release of Return of the Jedi, the Original Trilogy practically faded into obscurity. Yes, they were considered very good films, but Star Wars was essentially dead between 1983 and the release of the Special Editions in 1997. Without the Special Editions and the Prequels, Star Wars would have remained nothing more than an old trilogy of 1980s movies. Sure, many people would certainly still love it, but it would never have become the massive franchise it is today. Star Wars would have ended up like Back to the Future — a well-loved series, but not a cultural phenomenon. So yes, objectively speaking, the almost blind devotion to the Original Trilogy that many people exhibit today is primarily a product of the older generation’s nostalgia, because again, between 1983 and 1997, nobody really cared about either the Original Trilogy or Star Wars in general. Had it not been for the Special Editions and the Prequels, Star Wars would be dead right now.

NeverarGreat said:

Perhaps the prequels are uniquely suited to appealing to kids, which is why they are getting more love these days from people who grew up with them, as well as kids today who are seeing them for the first time. If that’s true, then perhaps the only cohort who can’t widely appreciate them are those who were already too old when the films premiered.

I genuinely do not understand where this reasoning comes from. I know many people who watched the Prequels as adults and still appreciated them. Sure, many people consider them inferior to the Original Trilogy, but they certainly do not dismiss them entirely, as many users on this forum tend to do. I, too, watched the Prequels for the first time when I was 18, and I had absolutely no idea that Prequel hate even existed until my sister mentioned it a couple of years later — after I had already seen the films. Even on YouTube, there are countless reaction videos of adults watching the Prequels for the first time and still being able to appreciate them. So I truly do not understand where the idea that “only children who grew up with the Prequels can appreciate them” comes from.

Personally, I do not think The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith are bad movies. I think they are fine, but I also believe they could be improved through fan editing.

I genuinely agree with about 99% of the lore and concepts introduced in the Prequels, and very little actually bothers me on a conceptual level. However, there are undeniably some scenes that feel excessively over the top, and a few others that do not really serve any meaningful purpose and could easily be removed. In my opinion, these films are fine, but they have the potential to become much better with careful and thoughtful editing. This is why I have always wanted to create my own fan edits of the Prequels. Unfortunately, although I did manage to somewhat complete a fan edit of Attack of the Clones with the help of Hal9000, I have never been able to work on edits for the other two films because I have never found anyone else willing to help me with the project.

Furthermore, I am convinced that many of the people who dislike the Prequels are influenced by a specific type of bias. A lot of fans who grew up with the Original Trilogy were disappointed simply because the Prequels did not reflect the backstory they had imagined for Darth Vader. And honestly, that is a very human and understandable reaction. I do not blame anyone for feeling that way. I have experienced the same kind of disappointment myself with other franchises, watching a film I loved and then later seeing a prequel that did not match the version of the past I had built in my head. So in the end, I think that kind of response is entirely valid on an emotional level. But I also believe it is still a form of bias, even if it is a natural and forgivable one.

There is also a similar kind of bias when it comes to specific plot points. I have seen many fans criticize elements such as the creation of the clone army, Anakin’s willingness to believe Palpatine’s lies about cheating death, or the romantic subplot between Anakin and Padmé, claiming that these things do not make sense or feel unrealistic. But personally, I have always been able to rationalize them and find a coherent logic behind those choices. Yes, some scenes are over the top, and the execution of some plot points can definitely be improved through fan-editing. But that does not mean the core ideas behind them are flawed. Many viewers, like myself, are able to accept and even appreciate these plot elements when they are not actively looking for flaws. I think some fans reject these story choices not because they truly make no sense, but because they conflict with the expectations they had developed over the years. Again, that is a very human reaction, and I do not condemn it, but it is still a bias.

In the end, I do not think the Prequels are perfect, but I do believe they are deeply misunderstood. With the right editorial touch, they can be transformed into truly great Star Wars films.

If, when we finally manage to build the first interstellar spaceship, they do not name it Enterprise, I swear I will rise from the grave and slaughter whoever decided for another name.

darklordoftech said:

Spartacus01 said:

darklordoftech said:

The BBY/ABY calendar existing in-universe.

Why do you hate it? I do not mind it.

Why would the New Republic establish a new year 0? Isn’t that something totalitarian regimes do? Why not use whatever year 0 the Valorum-era Republic used?

The New Republic did not see itself as just a continuation of the Old Republic; it saw itself as a major improvement, something new and better. The Old Republic, especially in its final years, was bloated, bureaucratic, and too weak to prevent the rise of Palpatine. So from the New Republic’s point of view, there was no reason to go back to that exact model. Therefore, creating a new calendar, with a new Year 0, was a symbolic way of saying, “This is a fresh start.” It helped to draw a clear line between what came before — the corruption of the late Republic, the dark times of the Empire — and what they hoped to build. And if you think about it, choosing their Year 0 around the time of the first real victory against the Empire makes emotional sense too. That moment was not just a military victory; it was the first time in years that people across the galaxy had real hope. From the New Republic’s perspective, that hope was the foundation of everything they were trying to build. So starting a new calendar from that moment sends a message: “This is when things began to change.”

darklordoftech said:

The BBY/ABY calendar existing in-universe.

Why do you hate it? I do not mind it.