Vaderisnothayden

Octorox said:

No, I'm not talking about Jumper. I just saw "Shattered Glass" a docudrama about Stephen Glass, a fraudulent journalist who worked as a writer for The New Republic magazine. I have to say that I no longer think Hayden is a terrible actor. He certainly has his niche and is by no means "versatile" but I was surprised that he was able to evoke so much sympathy and emotional scenes seemed pretty real. The delivery of some lines felt eerily reminiscent of Star Wars but overall the performance wasn't bad. I think Hayden was either miscast or misdirected or both as Anakin but he's not all that terrible of actor if put in the right role. 

I agree that not all of Hayden's performances are as bad as his prequel ones, but I think you're being too enthusiastic. I've seen many performances of his and I've never seen one in which he didn't make the character come off lame. When the character is supposed to be lame (such as in Shattered Glass) he can get away with it, but I wouldn't call those great performances. I didn't I felt any particular sympathy for his character in Shattered Glass, though it was a better performance than his prequel performances. His best performance is probably in Life as a House, in which he had to play a sulky teen. As you can guess, Hayden can do sulky teen well enough, but that's not to say it was a masterpiece of acting. If you give him a character who's supposed to be a lame twerp he can do it well enough, but I wouldn't call any of his work particularly special. Whereas if you give him a character to play who's not a lame twerp he fucks it up, though usually not as badly as in the prequels. In no role have I seen him do anything of special depth or strength.

CO said:

Hayden was actually pretty good in Shattered Glass, but he just can't pull off anything dramatically, especially in key scenes in a movie.  He is so bad in the PT, especially in ROTS when he is arguing with Obiwan on Mustafar, that scene is laughable.

The ranting in Mustafar has to be some of lamest stuff ever. And "You underestimate my POWER!!" which has me in stiches laughing it's so bad.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he was good in Shattered Glass, but his performance there worked far better than his prequel performances.  He certainy is good at making a character come off lame, which worked well in the scenes in which Stephen Glass gets all emo and whines and pleads and argues. He made the guy so pathetic. And he made Anakin that way too, which didn't work so well.

If you want to see early Hayden, rent the TV series Higher Ground, where he plays a troubled teen who is sent to a reform school.  He does the same exact whiney crap in that show, and is just as bad as he was in the PT.

 That sounds disturbing. lol

But the big budget movie roles go to the 'good looking' actors who can't act for shit like the guy in Indy IV and Transformers, can't think of his name, but he sucks. 

I would disagree rather strongly about Shia LeBeouf. He's no empty pretty boy. He's a good actor who makes his characters very human. He was one of the good points of both those films. His brings a lot of personality to his roles.

skyjedi2005 said:

Don't forget Samuel L. Jackson was in Jumper too. Remember when he had street cred after being in Pulp Fiction?

Look at his awful perfromances in the prequels, jumper, etc. 

I don't think he was bad in Jumper, but his prequel performances were awful and Mace Windu is one of the most annoying characters in those films.

Jumper was one of the worst films i have literally ever seen. and Awake was not any better. 

I think Awake was even worse than Jumper. It was such a fucking lame film. And did you notice how the main character did fuck all to save himself? It was all other people. All he did was run around being lame.

But the Prequels could not be cast this way because anakin was a kid in episode 1,

I think if Lucas had kept to his original backstory the character would have been an adult from the first film. But it wouldn't have been Hayden if Lucas had kept true to the original vision of Anakin.

Else they would have had Hayden in all three,lol.  2 is more than enough, never mind putting him into Return of the Jedi.

Hayden in ROTJ is right up there with the revision of the Han-Greedo scene as one of the worst things ever done to a film.

Besides they were Looking for that sullen, whiny quality which Hayden has in spades

I very much doubt Lucas originally envisioned Anakin like that, so that later version of him represents destructive revisionism.

C3PX said:

Yeah, I am a huge Dark Forces fan. I wasn't really happy when they turned Kyle into a Jedi, I really liked the mercenary for hire thing, but what is done is done, and Jedi Outcast is one of the best Star Wars games I have ever played.

The Stormtrooper conversations really added to the game, almost made me feel bad to kill them at times. And the force powers were a lot of fun to use, you never feel immortal like you do in The Force Unleashed (which was annoying, turn the difficulty up to high, you can die well enough, but you will hack at a Jawa with your lightsaver for ten minutes just to kill him, turn the difficulty down a bit, and the Jawa dies in a couple of swings, but you are damn near invincible. Either way, not a lot of fun). 

I like the character of Kyle Katarn and I like that they made him a Jedi and more of a badass Jedi than some others.

canofhumdingers said:

That's fine.  I agree that constructive criticism is a good thing, but much of what you've posted is more like cynicism.  I mean, this:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Shadows of the Empire really pissed me off.

The Yuzhaan Pong invasion was a stupid idea. 

is not constructive in any way.  It's just negative.  This thread was intended to celebrate the things we like & enjoy which can be refreshing.  Constructive criticism is not bad, it's just not what this thread is about & that's why people (myself included) don't really like what you're posting in this thread.  It's not that we want to single you out, argue, or that we even disagree with it all (i agree with many of your points).  It's just that this is not the thread for it. 

Sometimes it's fun and enjoyable to just think about and discuss the things that make you happy or you enjoy without getting bogged down with all the things you'd have done differently or would like to change.  It's nice to just feel satisfied.

 

And what if you're not satisfied? Then your opinion's not good enough to be heard? And if you look around I wasn't the only person who posted "negative" things on this thread.

What I don't get is why it's so terrible and offensive for somebody to say they didn't like something. It really shouldn't bother you so much. It's just an opinion. Not everybody can like everything, nor should they have to pretend they do.

Why is it refreshing to outlaw criticism from a thread? That doesn't sound refreshing to me at all. It sounds more like censorship.

And why's it not constructive for people to put out their views on what they don't like? I would think it's a good thing for people to communicate on what they feel about stuff. Communication is good. Censorship is negative.

And really you shouldn't get bogged down in what the topic of this thread was supposed to be. Threads on this board start out as one thing and end up as another. Conversation drifts. It's no harm. It's part of the way this site is more laid back than some other sites. If you want to discuss what you like about the EU, you can do it here and really you can probably bring it up on a whole lot of other threads on this board to and probably start a whole conversation there if people feel like it. This thread was about the EU. I discussed the EU, including what I like about it.

Personally I have trouble discussing what I like about the EU without bringing up what I dislike, because it's all interconnected. Maybe if I didn't love Star Wars and care about it, I might be able to ignore what I don't like about the EU, but that's not me.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

 

Xizor is a Mary Sue because the story goes "Look at our cool villain, look he's so cool he can rival Darth Vader and get fresh with Leia."

 

 So... you'd be more compelled by a villain who isn't cool, doesn't try to challenge the status quo, and leaves the heroes alone? (and in case you forgot, he was pwned by his Darthness and Leia kicked him in the nuts)

An EU villain got stuffed right into the OT story and they designed it so it was basically "Look how cool our villain is!" With him taking liberties with the film characters. It was fucking annoying. Don't forget, this story was pushing the implausible idea that the emperor would treat an alien crimelord as being on a level with Vader. It all felt so fan-fictiony. The whole thing felt like a fan pushing their own favorite fan-character villain into the OT storyline. It was really pushing it.

And as regards coolness of villains, I do have an issue with Star Wars villains being overly done up as "cool", because the OT didn't do that and the PT did. It's more tolerable when it's just EU, but Shadows was pushed as more than that. It was full of characters who were supposed to be terribly coool, which is one of the reasons it came off like fan fiction instead of part of the OT storyline.

As for leaving the heroes alone, obviously villains are supposed to bother the heroes, but they don't have to use mind-altering sexual attraction effects on them. I hate that sort of thing. And it's such a fan thing to have their pet villain try that on Leia.

And he can try to challenge the status quo all he likes, but putting him on the level of Darth Vader is pushing it.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

That's the OT. The OT has a right to be revisionist.

Why is that exactly? In fact, I find both those things I mentioned as very irritating retcons. If George could retcon the snot out of his movies back then, why isn't he allowed to do it now?

I already went into the answer to that in detail (see my last post).

But to elaborate on that further... look at the context of his retcons and revisionism:

In the OT you have retconning as part of the ongoing process of creating the OT, which is the great work of Star Wars. The retcons leave some bits that don't look great (some of Ben's lines look a bit funny, for example) but it's done as part of films that work. All three original Star Wars films keep up some form of the same spirit and mentality and they work and work as a unit and they do not betray what went before.

Whereas with the prequels the revisionism is part of a project that totally betrayed the spirit and mentality of the great stuff that went before. Films that failed. And Lucas had already stabbed the OT in the back by mutilating it in the SE, which took from the validity of everything he did after that point. The prequel revisionism comes after Lucas had already tried to make Han shoot second, which goes beyond retcon into full on giving Star Wars the finger. And the prequel revisionism is very much part of that reenvisioning of Star Wars that led to soulless crap films that betrayed and screwed up Star Wars.

Whereas the OT retcons enhanced the films in certain ways -neatly wrapping up the love triangle, giving Leia more significance, creating a deeper bond between Luke and Leia and giving Darth Vader a whole new dimension. 

The lack of quality of the prequels and the way they betrayed Star Wars is very relevant when judging the validity of their revisionism.

And there's no getting away from Lucas's big break from Star Wars. Lucas took some breaks in between making the OT films, but he didn't leave Star Wars behind for years in between those films and come back with a different attitude. With the SE and the PT, he left Star Wars behind and came back without the magic that had made Star Wars work. And without that magic that was what was needed to make it work, he didn't have the license to fuck with the OT's stuff. If he'd done mediocre prequel films that were at least loyal to his OT-era vision then I would have found them significantly less annoying. But he did one mediocre revisionist film and two awful revisionist films.

And now every last Sith is called Darth something or other. Darth Toilet Seat.

At the end of the day, it is still just EU. Not sure why you felt obligated to do so. All the other EU books are being pushed as THE story after the trilogy, before the sags, and all the spaces inbetween. Do you read each one of those? The Force Unleashed is THE story between the trilogies, doesn't mean you HAVE to read the tripe.

Shadows was pushed as more than all those other EU stories.

Being a fan of something is suppose to be because you enjoy it. I cannot imagine turning what is suppose to be pleasure into a chore, and somehow feeling obligated to throw my money at something I don't want, and to waste my precious time reading something I don't like.

If you care about something, you can care about where it is taken and what's done with it. Then you may investigate areas of its development you don't particularly enjoy because the core thing matters to you. 

Sometimes you come off sounding like you are a victim of Lucas and his evil greedy plots, I don't mean to sound like a Lucas apologist by any means, but you must realize, you are only a victim of yourself.

I would disagree. I didn't mutilate the OT or destroy the saga with the PT. Nor did I push Shadows as important and I didn't make it a load of fan fictiony crap. 

Well, I'm sure someone like Anchorhead would probably disagree and say that only the original Star Wars is the "main Star Wars material" and the sequels took liberties with the story that it shouldn't have.  I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the prequels were right.  I'm just saying that there are other viewpoints out there.  Our generally collective viewpoint about the OT is just a viewpoint, and there's nothing really that makes our point of view more valid than anyone else's.  I believe that our viewpoint is better than the viewpoint of the PT gushers, but that doesn't make it so.  And I love the OT, but I can see the flaws it has, particularly the ones created through the revisionism that the sequels laid into it.  Do I accept them and like them?  Yes.  And to a much lesser extent I enjoy the prequels, but I acknowledge the flaws and continuity holes in all of them.  I can't give the OT a pass just because I prefer it and because its revisionism (mainly) got through much more successfully.

I think you can. The OT's later revisionism came as part of the same extended period of creative activity that started with the making of the first film. As long as that period continued, fucking around with the story was more justifiable than it was after Lucas had left the stuff for a long while and then returned with a different attitude. In effect, it was all a work in progress as long as it wasn't allowed to sit for long without being worked on. Whereas it was not so much a work in progress after it had been dropped for a while. I'm sure Lucas considered it a work in progress later on, but the intervening years gave it a status as a finished work of sorts, despite the potential for more films. And in the intervening years Lucas clearly broke with the Star Wars mentality he'd been in during the OT creative years, because when he returned he created work of a totally different mentality. This break in mentality, contrasting with the way the old films had much in common in mentality, underlines the validity of the idea of the idea of one creative period with one ongoing work, with revision justifiable within that period but not justifiable in a separate later creative period.

Furthermore, the very fact that the OT's revisionism resulted in a trilogy that works well is a point in favor of its revisionism, unlike the PT and SE's revisionism, which was destructive.

The later two OT films are far less easily divided off from the first film than the PT is from the OT. There was this long gap in time between the OT and the PT and when Lucas returned and made the OT he made films with a drastically different mentality from the OT. There are mentality differences between the OT films but not huge ones. Nor were there any many-year breaks between the making of the OT films. The PT and the SE were made after a long break and in a drastically different mentality. As such, they can be divided off from the OT to a degree far more than any OT film can be separated from the others.

Also, ROTJ far more completes the story than the first film. And while there were supposed to be other trilogies of films, the OT clearly establishes itself as one complete story within itself, despite its links to other potential trilogies. The OT does not NEED a PT to complete it. Sure, you're left curious about the backstory, but it's not necessary. But the first film very much leaves the story open and unfinished. Darth Vader not being killed off just shouts the need for a sequel. As does the unresolved romantic stuff and the beginnings of Luke's Jedi training. The unresolved rebel-imperial war could be left open at the end of a sort-of finished story, but the openness of it does further add to the picture of the first film being very much an unfinished story. But by the time of ROTJ's end we have a finished story. A sequel trilogy was never needed and the prequel trilogy, while always tempting, was never essential. The OT stands as one whole and stands well by itself.

So yes we can give the OT revisionism a pass while not giving a pass to the PT and SE revisionism.

But if somebody wants to take the first film by itself that's their prerogative. However, I think the OT-only approach is more valid. And both are more valid than any approach that acknowledges the PT or the SE.

Yousa in big doodoo now.

TheBoost said:

I'm confused at your objection that it was pushed as THE storyline. Isn't all EU "THE' storyline either between, after, or before the real stories of the movie?

Shadows was made a special fuss of, treated as more than just ordinary EU.

I don't see how Xixor is a 'Mary Sue.' He's the villain, does villainous things to forward the plot, is clearly and repeatedly thwarted by the heroes and then pwned by the other villains.

Xizor is a Mary Sue because the story goes "Look at our cool villain, look he's so cool he can rival Darth Vader and get fresh with Leia."

C3PX said:

As for not having time for silly revisionist nonsense in Star Wars, I suppose this includes the extremely revisionist Empire Strikes Back, where the main villain and the father of the hero were merged into one character, or the even more revisionist Return of the Jedi where "the other" Yoda talked about turns out to be Luke's former love interest, who also happens to be his sister. Do you even realize what revisionist bullcrap two thirds of the OT are?

That's the OT. The OT has a right to be revisionist. Other stuff, coming along years later, does not. The OT was made in basically one long creative period  from the mid 70s down to 1983. It is also the main Star Wars material. Other stuff that is secondary material and/or comes along much later (years after the original Star Wars creative period was over) does not  have the same license to take liberties with the story.

Don't tell me you're happy with the way the prequels reinvented the Star Wars story. Or the way the special edition tried to rewrite the story of the OT (Han shooting second). I think it's easy to see how that sort of revisionism is different from the valid sort that went on during the creation of the OT.

Similarly, while the OT might have the right to be revisionist as regards stuff from the OT, I don't think it's necessarily the case that spinoff material has that right. Spinoff material is subordinate. It should respect what was done in the original material and try to stay true to it.

First off, I am sorry to hear someone force fed you SOTE, that must have sucked. Personally, I read it of my own free will, which I am sure contributed to my enjoyment of it.

I didn't. I read it because I felt I HAD to because it was being pushed as THE story of what went on between the films.

C3PX said:

DarkFather said:

Well, go make an EU criticism thread then. No use in hijacking TheBoost's thread that is about the positive.

 

Exactly. It is a pretty crappy thing to go turning everyone elses threads into negativity threads. This is something I am plenty guilty of myself. Some people here just want to talk about SW without having to constantly hear how much we all hate 99.9% of all things Star Wars.

Just because places like TFN have become gushers central, doesn't mean we have to go a million miles in the opposite direction and become basher central.

And while a little "so called" negativity is not a bad thing, it has a problem of becoming habitual. You ever notice that some people just complain about everything? They almost seem to get into a habit of it and can never stop. It is sad. I wouldn't want to be the guy that looks at everything and see sunshine and flowers, but I also don't want to be the guy that looks at everything and finds mold and maggots.

See, I don't agree with this attitude about "negativity". So-called negativity isn't this big boogeyman everybody has to be scared of. It's not this terrible thing. Much of what gets called negativity is criticism. Criticism is not a negative. In fact, it's a positive. It's an important part of discussion. It's constructive. You can't have mature discussion of something unless you allow criticism. It's a not a bad thing to bring criticism into a discussion. It's a worthy contribution.

And if somebody doesn't like something they should be allowed to say so. Does everybody need to like everything? What's so terrible about somebody not liking something? We shouldn't need everybody to like all the things we like. If somebody doesn't like something and says so, it does no harm to anybody.

This "negativity" is harmless. We need to be a little more tolerant of people not always sharing our feelings about everything. Just because we like something doesn't mean it's a bad thing for someone to come and admit that they don't like it. Just because someone makes a considered criticism of something doesn't mean they've crapped on your carpet.

And if you don't like some view of somebody's about something, you don't have to agree with it, just like they don't have to agree with yours. You can choose to disagree or just ignore whatever posted views you don't like. Meanwhile, everybody gets to post their view.

The funny thing is Lucas did those ewok movies himself so they'd be quality and they turned out mostly crap. Though fans have inexplicably tolerant toward them. Wilfred Brimley was very good in the second one though.

There was a whole ewok industry in the mid to lateish 80s. There wasn't just the show and the tv movies. There was a series of painful books with all sorts of silly cutesey stuff of the sort that turned up in the show. The sort of crap that was in the show started in books in 1984. The ewok show was basically care bears in space. Excruciating.

skyjedi2005 said:

Hey those old tv ewoks movies may have been cheaply done but at least the creatures were done with puppets and stop motion and not frickin ugly ass cgi.

Can you imagine if Lucas revisisted the ewok tv movies and added cgi that ruined them or put Jar Jar in there.

Jar Jar would fit in fine in the ewok movies. They were his level. But back then Lucas wasn't pushing that sort of stuff as serious Star Wars.

DarkFather said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Most Star Wars fans are over on TFN gushing. Some "negativity" is refreshing. 

 

Yeah, but how much negativity?

As much as we feel like. There's nothing wrong with negativity (so-called) when there's a good reason for it. And the EU gives us plenty good reason. A lot of us would feel better from getting to scratch that itch.

How much text is in the liner notes and what sort of stuff is it about?

Also, do pre-97 soundtrack releases have stuff like that?

C3PX said:

I also don't see what is so wrong with the story making everything from ROTJ "come together in a nice little bow". Leia had to get the detonator and the bounty hunter armor from someplace, what is so wrong about the story explaining where she got it from.

In ROTJ it looked like the bounty hunter disguise was a cool thing the main characters had come up with. Shadows takes that away from them and makes it somebody else's idea.

Shadows is full of bogus stuff that doesn't fit in and doesn't fit the films and a lot of bullshit "explanation" for how things got the way they did in ROTJ. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't pushed as THE story of what happened between ESB and ROTJ, but it was and as such you're effectively force-fed this third rate fan fiction as a rightful part of the Star Wars saga. Lucas liked it, which is a bad sign. And he stuffed Bash Fender's bleedin ship into the SE. Expanded universe doesn't belong in the OT.

Xizor was a Mary Sue, as was Bash Fender and Jix, and they flogged Boba Fett but good in the comic, which just creeps me out. And the comic even had Jabba talking in basic, which doesn't fit him at all.

Shadows really annoys me. It's got to be one of the most annoying things in the expanded universe. It's not as bad as the prequels but it's in that direction. I don't have much time for silly revisionist nonense in Star Wars, whether it comes from Lucas or from the EU.

Xizor was a pain in the butt. As was Shadows of Empire. The Thrawn trilogy was ok, but Thrawn was a bit annoying.

Most Star Wars fans are over on TFN gushing. Some "negativity" is refreshing. 

There should be no need for Lucas apologism. If the pequels were done right there would be no need.

I think they still expect us to buy that Leia's memory of her mother was from when she was born and that when she said her mother died when she was young she meant at her birth. Wouldn't it have been simpler if Lucas had written the prequels with some respect for the story of the old films?

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Some time I'd like a thread about what we don't like in the EU. That would be fun. I'd get to go on about all the annoying Boba Fett worship that goes on in the EU.

What would be the purpose of such a thread? Even in this thread, 4/5 of your post is about what you don't like. 

Jeez, what's the purpose of this thread? There's as much reason to discuss what we don't like as discuss what we do like.

C3PX said:

Two stories in the Tales of the Jedi that particularly stood out to me were the stories of Boba Fett and IG-88. I liked how the writer made Fett into a sort of Rorschach (now that most people here knows who that is) like character, with a strong sense of justice and who feels he has the right to bring judgment and violent death on those he finds unjust, only he does it for money, refusing to take jobs on people he finds inocent or not worthy of such a punishment, and taking great joy in eliminating the true scum of the galaxy. The first chapter describes Fett as an ugly young man, a soldier in the military, now in prison for having murdered his commanding officer, when ask if he regrets it, he replies with a very stern "no" because the guy deserved death. Makes Fett to be kind of a psychotic, but I liked that spin on his character.

Boba Fett revisionism really annoys the fuck out of me. As far as I'm concerned, Boba Fett is just bounty hunter scum. Evil creep who got offed in ROTJ.

Not without silly retcon. And it ony changed as part the invalid prequel revisionism.

Some time I'd like a thread about what we don't like in the EU. That would be fun. I'd get to go on about all the annoying Boba Fett worship that goes on in the EU.

Anyway, the Kotor and Legacy comics are good. Liam Neeson's performance in TPM is good (the PT is EU by any proper standard). The old Marvel comics have a place in my heart. Despite the odd giant rabbit, they were much more true to the Star wars spirit than the later EU stuff.

Oh yeah, one thing I hate in the EU is this whole crap that the imperials have a perspective worth paying attention to and that they're kind of altruistic and principled and care about the citiizens of the empire. That keeps popping up in the EU. Total revisionist crap. Star Wars is not supposed to be Battlestar Galactica. The bad guys are the bad guys. They even have the rebels doing suicide attacks on civilians. Wtf? I hate it when the EU does some revisionist take on some classic Star Wars thing. And the EU is sometimes even worse than Lucas in making the Jedi into idiots. It's the EU that came up with the Jedi code saying "There is no emotion" and "there is no passion".

I hate how Brian Daley does the character of Han. He makes him more ruthless than he was in the films. Like Han wanting to leave the others behind on the Death Star. The radio dramas have plenty annoying bullshit stuffed into the story (not just about Han). And I'm including Daley's portrayal of Han in the Han books too. I think the life debt thing started off there too and some people have pointed out how that doesn't work well.

Most of the EU I'm a bit suspicious of. The 90s onwards EU was founded on a revisionist take on Star Wars. It doesn't seem terribly real to me.

Bringing the Emperor back to life was annoying. He should have stayed dead and it stretched plausibilty. Once you start resurrecting characters you lose something.

Tales of the Jedi had a good storyline but the execution wasn't all that great.

The Republic comics did some ok stuff, but the bulshittiness of the prequel era brings them down.

Zahn's trilogy books were ok.

Boba Fett should have stayed dead. In fact, he did stay dead -the EU's resurrection of him is just a pack of lies. Stupid overrated wanker.

Shadows of the Empire really pissed me off.

The Yuzhaan Pong invasion was a stupid idea.

They keep churning out all these endless books. Endless "novels" and "Essential Guides" which aren't essential and cross sections and worlds of and all that. Not to mention a multi volume encylopedia. It looks very money-grubbing.

There's this one shot comic called A Valentine Story or something like that which has really good character portrayal of Han and Leia, with good interaction. It's in the Heart of the Rebellion trade paperback. Most EU is not terribly good at getting the film characters well.

Obi Wan was supposed to be in his 70s in the OT.

Anakin in the show is better than Hayden's version but he still doesn't fit well with the character of Darth Vader in the OT or the portrayal of Anakin at the end of the OT.

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Octorox said:

Blackjack said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheDoctor1987 said:

I for one love the Prequel Trilogy for what it is and have no complaints with it well besides that dreaded character Jar Jar Binks lol. Its not the Original Trilogy nor was it intended to be the Original Trilogy but what it was suppost to be was the back story the story that every Star Wars fan wanted to see for years and it 1999 we got it with The Phantom Menace with the story of Anakin Skywalker. I think people should let this topic rest because the Prequels are great movies and people just need to let it have its legacy in the Star Wars Saga. 

 

The prequels are NOT the backstory that everybody waited to see. Before that original backstory became the prequels it went through significant changes and got a whole lot of stuff added that was invented probably in the 90s. For example, Anakin was supposed to be in his thirties or forties when he turned to the dark side, which would have made him a very different sort of character. He was probably originally an adult when he met Kenobi, so no little kid running around. There was no Jar Jar and no Qui Gon. Probably no Jango either I'd guess. Dooku wasn't invented, or Grievous or probably Maul. It would have been a different sort of story. A lot of things would have been done differently if the prequels had been made faithful to the backstory Lucas had when he made the OT. The prequels are not the old backstory, they are a revisionist take on that story, which changes the nature of it and makes it something very much at odds with the OT.

The "legacy" of the prequels is Star Wars being rubbed in shit and losing respect. That's their legacy. We don't need to accept that. The prequel trilogy is not a rightful part of the saga and deserves to be rejected. Great movies my ass.

exactly. I can only imagine how much better the original backstory would have been. the big one is that "Mrs. Skywalker" (since she probably was not named Padme at that point) survives anakin's turn, and Anakin didn't even know she was pregnent before he "left". Imagine the drama that could have come out of that.

and since Padme and Anakin would then be closer in age, their relationship would have been much easier to swallow because then Anakin more or less wouldn't be falling in love with his babysitter. (the romance would be handled better, too if anyone other than lucas were to do the writing)

 

 

I'm sorry but how do you guys know that this was the original OT backstory? Did you just assume it? I heard none of this in the OT. 

 

No I didn't just assume it. I picked up the info from various sources. See the Annotated Screnplays for Anakin's age, for example.

 

The screenplay is not the movie. Stuff gets written or even shot and not included all the time. There was likely a reason for not putting it in the movie.

That's hardly relevant. We're not talking about whether it's in the movie we're talking about whether it's in the original backstory. And the information I'm talking about certainly does demonstrate that it was part of how Lucas saw the Star Wars backstory back then.

It's pointless to demand that something be in the movies to be counted as part of the original backstory, seeing as the original backstory was mainly not made into movies back then. If we got Lucas's original notebooks that outlined the original backstory, would you count it as not part of the original backstory just because it wasn't in the movies?

If we want to find out what was in the original story we look for pieces of info that indicate what Lucas's vision of it was back at the time of the OT.  Of course that requires us to look at info that's not stuff in the movies. But just not being in the movies doesn't make it not real or not relevant or not indicative of what Lucas had in mind back in 1983.

Now, the fact is that Anakin was intended to be in his 60s at the end of ROTJ, which puts him at about his 40s when turned. This age was Lucas's intention in the film. And they fulfilled this by getting an actor who could pass for 60s but was in fact 77. He certainly wasn't meant to be 46, which is what the prequels story makes Anakin in ROTJ. Are you going to require that Luke say in ROTJ "Oh dad, you look 60s, I thought you were 46" before you believe it or consider it relevant? 

Much of the other stuff I said about the backstory is drawn from accounts that say various particular elements in the prequels were invented later, in the 90s or later. That information is not less relevant just because it wasn't spelled out in the movies. We don't need to have "I was invented for AOTC" written on the back of Dooku's cape in the movie for us to know that he was -all we need is accounts of the making of AOTC.

As regards Anakin's age, it may not have been SAID in the film, but it certainly did get into the film, because we have this old actor playing Anakin. Any attempt to claim that well Anakin was 46 but prematurely aged is just obvious retcon. If they wanted a 46 year old Anakin they would have gotten an actor of compatible age. Nobody can reasonably look at the 77 year old on the screen and think there isn't something a bit funny with the idea of him being just 23 all of 23 years before like the present offical story says he was. Anakin was intended to be an old man in ROTJ and they put that in the film by making him an old man on the screen. Which puts him in his 30s or 40s at the time of his turn to the dark side.

And re the last bit, Luke and Leia's "kind" (see ROTJ) mother wouldn't likely have been hanging around with Anakin long after he turned dark, so the conception of the children would have been before Anakin turned or not long after he turned. We're also told (in ROTJ) that the children were hidden from Anakin when they were born, indicating Anakin had turned dark by the time they were born. This all places Anakin's turn sometime around the time of Luke's birth. All of that is consistent with the prequels version of the story. Luke is meant to be about 18-20 in the first film and ROTJ is a few years later (and the present version of the story has him 19 in ANH and 23 in ROTJ). That puts Anakin's turn at about 23 or so years before ROTJ. Which makes him 30s or 40s when he turned.

Octorox said:

Blackjack said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheDoctor1987 said:

I for one love the Prequel Trilogy for what it is and have no complaints with it well besides that dreaded character Jar Jar Binks lol. Its not the Original Trilogy nor was it intended to be the Original Trilogy but what it was suppost to be was the back story the story that every Star Wars fan wanted to see for years and it 1999 we got it with The Phantom Menace with the story of Anakin Skywalker. I think people should let this topic rest because the Prequels are great movies and people just need to let it have its legacy in the Star Wars Saga. 

 

The prequels are NOT the backstory that everybody waited to see. Before that original backstory became the prequels it went through significant changes and got a whole lot of stuff added that was invented probably in the 90s. For example, Anakin was supposed to be in his thirties or forties when he turned to the dark side, which would have made him a very different sort of character. He was probably originally an adult when he met Kenobi, so no little kid running around. There was no Jar Jar and no Qui Gon. Probably no Jango either I'd guess. Dooku wasn't invented, or Grievous or probably Maul. It would have been a different sort of story. A lot of things would have been done differently if the prequels had been made faithful to the backstory Lucas had when he made the OT. The prequels are not the old backstory, they are a revisionist take on that story, which changes the nature of it and makes it something very much at odds with the OT.

The "legacy" of the prequels is Star Wars being rubbed in shit and losing respect. That's their legacy. We don't need to accept that. The prequel trilogy is not a rightful part of the saga and deserves to be rejected. Great movies my ass.

exactly. I can only imagine how much better the original backstory would have been. the big one is that "Mrs. Skywalker" (since she probably was not named Padme at that point) survives anakin's turn, and Anakin didn't even know she was pregnent before he "left". Imagine the drama that could have come out of that.

and since Padme and Anakin would then be closer in age, their relationship would have been much easier to swallow because then Anakin more or less wouldn't be falling in love with his babysitter. (the romance would be handled better, too if anyone other than lucas were to do the writing)

 

 

I'm sorry but how do you guys know that this was the original OT backstory? Did you just assume it? I heard none of this in the OT. 

 

No I didn't just assume it. I picked up the info from various sources. See the Annotated Screnplays for Anakin's age, for example.