logo Sign In

theprequelsrule

User Group
Members
Join date
2-Jun-2011
Last activity
22-Sep-2026
Posts
931

Post History

Post
#1692657
Topic
What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion.
Time

JadedSkywalker said:

‘When I first encountered your father,’ Ben con-
tinued, ‘he was already a great pilot. But what amazed
me was how strongly the Force was with him. I took it
upon myself to train Anakin in the ways of the Jedi. My
mistake was thinking I could be as good a teacher as
Yoda. I was not. Such was my foolish pride. The
Emperor sensed Anakin’s power, and he lured him to
the dark side.’ He paused sadly and looked directly into
Luke’s eyes, as if he were asking for the boy’s forgive-
ness. ‘My pride had terrible consequences for the gal-
axy.’

ROTJ Novelization.

Then they also talk about the quick and easy path in TESB movie. Vader took the quick and easy path and became an agent of evil. Described as easier, quicker more seductive. Luke says how will I know the good side from the bad. Yoda suggests calm reflection, and be at peace, passive. The force must be used only for knowledge and defense, never for attack. Once you start down the dark path consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

He was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force, Ben’s words in ROTJ. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true from a certain point of view.

In Episode IV Obi Wan says:

“Yes. I was once a Jedi knight, the same as your father. I understand that you’ve become quite a good pilot yourself. He was the best star pilot in the galaxy, and a cunning warrior. I understand that you’ve become quite a good pilot yourself. And he was a good friend.

Luke asks how did my father die.

And Obi Wan says. A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, 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.

All 3 OT films talk about Vader’s seduction. where is it in the prequel? other than in the midichlorian scene in the opera house about plagueis. Is it possible to learn this power. Not from a Jedi. His impatience is more than implied in Episode II Obi Wan’s, jealous he is holding me back. I promise you I’ll learn to stop people from dying, someday i’ll be the most powerful Jedi ever. Well, he was arguably the most lethal and powerful Sith Lord, I’ll give him that, JEDI hardly. He lost on Mustafar, he never won a single duel against Ben Kenobi. Not even on the Death Star. Kenobi let him cut him down. He beat Luke in TESB, because Luke was a neophyte, and not even a Padawan. He loses to him in ROTJ, because he was seduced by the light, according to the Disney trilogy and Kylo Ren.

I thought he’d be like a superhero who turns evil. Someone just, someone moral. The prequel doesn’t show that.

I had this great mythology in my head for years based on what Ben said. The JEDI were the guardians of peace and justice in the old republic for a thousand generations. and the Clone Wars was going to be this galaxy defining moment. its not even onscreen. or only the start and the end. I never wanted or ever pictured Yoda with a lightsaber. Like at all.

The opening prologue of the Alan Dean Foster novel told me an amazing tale we didn’t receive.

ANOTHER GALAXY, ANOTHER TIME.

The Old Republic was the Republic of legend, greater than distance or time. No need to note where it was or whence it came, only to know that … it was the Republic.

Once, under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the Jedi Knights, the Republic throve and grew. But as often happens when wealth and power pass beyond the admirable and attain the awesome, then appear those evil ones who have greed to match.

So it was with the Republic at its height. Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand any external attack, the Republic rotted from within though the danger was not visible from outside.

Aided and abetted by restless, power-hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic.

Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace. Soon he was controlled by the very assistants and boot-lickers he had appointed to high office, and the cries of the people for justice did not reach his ears.

Having exterminated through treachery and deception the Jedi Knights, guardians of justice in the galaxy, the Imperial governors and bureaucrats prepared to institute a reign of terror among the disheartened worlds of the galaxy. Many used the Imperial forces and the name of the increasingly isolated Emperor to further their own personal ambitions.

But a small number of systems rebelled at these new outrages. Declaring themselves opposed to the New Order they began the great battle to restore the Old Republic.

From the beginning they were vastly outnumbered by the systems held in thrall by the Emperor. In those first dark days it seemed certain the bright flame of resistance would be extinguished before it could cast the light of new truth across a galaxy of oppressed and beaten peoples …

From the First Saga

Journal of the Whills

The history of the Star Wars Universe was more interesting before Vader and Anakin Skywalker became the same person. It opened up the idea of a much earlier starting date for the Empire than we got. Maybe the Jedi had already been on the run for a generation before Vader tracked down Anakin in the Outer Rim and killed him?

Post
#1633013
Topic
A few reviews . . (film or TV)
Time

Vultural said:

Predator - 1987 - 7/10

“The demon who makes trophies of men.”
Dutch and his team of elite soldiers strike a remote base of insurgents.
Unknown to them, they are observed by an extraordinary hunter.
What follows is kill or be killed.
Testosterone overload in this Schwarzenegger actioner, along with thousands of rounds of bullets.
First and finest of a franchise that refuses to die despite derivative scripts and actors sans charisma.
Pre-CGI, this remains as fresh and exhilarating as ever.

8/10 at the least. McTiernans direction is excellent. NOT an Arnold film…but a movie that cast him well (like The Terminator). His one-liners feel somewhat out of place and forced because this was a serious movie. A Beowulf remake?

“If it bleeds…we can kill it.”

Post
#1617756
Topic
Denis Villeneuve says the Star Wars franchise “derailed” in 1983
Time

Mass Effect was my new Star Wars. It even had it’s own version of The Force with biotics. Now it sucks too, but it was great for 2.9 games

I liked The Expanse quite a bit - but maybe that is more like the new Babylon 5.

What I really want…is a a revival of Space: Above and Beyond.

Denis’s movies are always technically very proficient - but very cold. A lot like George Lucas without a good supporting production team!

Post
#1613357
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

“You should have bargained Jabba. It’s the last mistake you’ll ever make.”

I enjoy the expression on Luke’s face and satisfaction in his voice when he realizes that Jabba has pushed him into a position where he will be forced to eliminate him and his henchmen.

When forced to kill a Jedi has few, if any, regrets or remorse. Obi-wan couldn’t give two shits after cutting down the guys threatening Luke in Mos Eisley.

This is why Jedi were once (back in the 90s) cool characters.

Post
#1604709
Topic
What Do YOU Think Star Wars Should Do Next?
Time

Mocata said:

This is a huge tangent but yes the problem is they’re old and drunk and don’t have good memories outside of Star Trek trivia. Even if they did remember why bother bringing it up? Does a deleted scene even count? They don’t care any neither does anyone else. Which goes for most SW fans these days.

Bringing is neatly back on topic, why should I care? I’m never going to watch a new SW project unless it’s genuinely ‘good’, or to put it another way gets universal acclaim.

Deleted scenes don’t count. Aliens require a Queen to lay eggs. Period.

Post
#1604708
Topic
What Do YOU Think Star Wars Should Do Next?
Time

Channel72 said:

BedeHistory731 said:

Vladius said:

My original point with the RLM tangent was that the criticisms of the prequels were mostly correct. No one has really disagreed with that, just disliked the presentation.

I mean, I dislike the presentation, but the critiques are exceptionally valid. The whole bit with “the urban market” is something I’ve brought up when talking about tokenism/Hollywood racism.

But it does raise a point—if the reviews hadn’t been presented like they were, would they have been noticed to the same level?

Probably not. But then, any 90 minute review would have been novel at the time, because back then these long-form reviews were quite rare. In some interview I read ages ago, Mike Stoklasa said he initially started doing his first review (which was a Star Trek review) using his normal voice, but he decided it sounded too boring, so he invented this Plinkett character (who was based on the earlier Rich Evans version to some extent).

RLM’s review was also simply the most insightful. You have to remember what was available back then - you basically had low-effort, superficial stuff like Nostalgia Critic and some guy named “Confused Matthew”. The average Phantom Menace review was basically just somebody ranting about how Jar Jar sucks for 10 minutes.

I liked “Confused Matthew”. And I would only call it low effort because of the explosion of technical production and editing that followed TPR (The Plinkett Review). At the time it seemed just fine.

Post
#1601199
Topic
Star Wars is Surrealism, not Science Fiction (essay)
Time

Channel72 said:

I know this essay is very popular here, but I’ve always disagreed with it.

In practice, people often define science fiction as “you know, lasers and robots and space ships and shit”. Obviously, Star Wars meets this criteria. But a more useful criteria for science fiction probably entails stories that are in some way actually about how some hypothetical future technology or development affects people and society. Stuff like Contact or Blade Runner are obviously sci-fi under that definition, as are movies like the Matrix or Terminator. These movies are actually about how some new technology or future condition affects people and society. This definition is not a binary thing either - there’s obviously a “sci-fi spectrum” here, and a movie can be both sci-fi and other genres simultaneously.

Some might prefer an even stricter definition or criteria for sci-fi. Under this stricter definition, a movie’s plot or themes should not be reducible to non-science-fiction themes, i.e. the movie can’t simply use sci-fi elements as window dressing to tell a conventional, non-sci-fi story. For example, arguably something like Terminator 2 has prominent themes about motherhood, fatherhood, and determinism/fate. The movie doesn’t necessarily need science fiction elements to explore those themes. It could be reimagined as a story with the same themes and overall plot structure but with the sci-fi elements removed. For example, it could just be about a delinquent teenage orphan on the run from something while an unconventional father-like figure protects him. You don’t necessarily need killer time-traveling cyborgs to explore those themes - but they do make the movie a lot cooler. On the other hand, a movie like 2001 - A Space Odyssey is irreducibly science fiction, because the sci-fi elements are absolutely required in order to explore the themes the movie wants to explore, like space exploration, AI and the long-term evolution of the human race. But this stricter definition is pretty impractical, because few people use the term “sci-fi” in such a narrow way.

Anyway, I think Star Wars - at least A New Hope - is actually science fiction using either of these definitions (even the stricter one!). Most people are likely to describe A New Hope as a “hero’s journey” or a fantasy about a young farmboy who meets a space wizard and goes on a fantastical adventure. But the main plot is also very much about a new technological super-weapon, and how it affects society as a political game-changer, making an absolute technocratic dictatorship possible and stable over the long-term without any accompanying bureaucracy or democracy. There are also themes of “man vs. machine”, spirituality vs. technology, etc., all of which are themes that are not reducible to non-science-fiction themes.

Moreover, the “Star Wars is fantasy not sci-fi” argument is often used defensively in the context of discussions about obvious absurdities, like Han Solo walking around inside an asteroid, exposed to the vacuum of space, with no protective suit and a magical source of artificial gravity. Fans (and Irvin Kershner himself) often hand-wave away such criticisms with arguments about the artistic merits of Star Wars viewed as surrealism or expressionism. Star Wars certainly has elements of surrealism and expressionism, but the films also anchor many sequences around objective rules based on technological systems - e.g. we can’t penetrate the deflector shield so we need to blow up the shield generator.

Finally, the boundaries between sci-fi and surrealism or fantasy often strike me as arbitrary, based mostly on the experiences and expectations of the average person living today. If I complain that Han Solo shouldn’t survive in the vacuum of space, somebody might respond by telling me “Star Wars isn’t supposed to be science fiction.” J.J. Abrams said exactly that (“Star Wars is not a science lesson”) when fans complained that the bright red Starkiller beam in Force Awakens shouldn’t be visible in the sky.

But why exactly do we accept this? Probably because the average person doesn’t have the experience or mental model to develop expectations about how outer space works, so they’re okay if the movie eschews all that if it increases the drama or spectacle. Okay, well, what if there was a scene where Han Solo dives into a river, and then just starts walking around underwater for hours, with no breathing apparatus? The audience would be like “WTF? How is he not dying from lack of oxygen?” It’s doubtful anybody would respond with “Who cares! Star Wars is fantasy, not sci-fi!”. Because of course, the average person in the 21st century has the experience and mental model to develop certain expectations about water, and how humans shouldn’t be able to breathe underwater. Even pure fantasy, like Lord of the Rings, generally adheres to the audiences’ base-line expectations about physics on a human scale. Pure surrealism or expressionism, on the other hand, doesn’t even require this minimal adherence to some baseline set of expectations rooted in the common shared experiences of being human. So I’ve always felt that labeling Star Wars as surrealism, expressionism, or pure fantasy - often within the context of some defense against criticisms about physical inaccuracies - to be pretty arbitrary, based mostly on current, average experience of reality, which changes each decade as humanity collectively experiences new things and learns more about the Universe.

I don’t expect Star Wars to ever be hard sci-fi, nor do I want it to. It relies extensively on fantasy conceits like the Force, FTL travel, and space dog-fights. But that doesn’t mean we should pretend it’s entirely expressionist, as if objective, physical rules should always be a secondary concern.

I thought it was long ago agreed that Star Wars is an example of the niche genre known as Space Opera. Space Opera is it’s own thing; neither Sci-fi nor mythic fantasy, but with elements of both. The “tech” in Space Opera is the “magic” in fantasy - no need to know whence it came or how it works.

Star Wars adds in it’s own version of magic (The Force) along with the tech and the same thing applies - it doesn’t matter how it works or why it exists.

Star Wars is mostly influenced by these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman_series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(franchise)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Gordon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fighting_Devil_Dogs

Post
#1601026
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Spuffure said:

theprequelsrule said:

JadedSkywalker said:

For good mental health and harmony, I should quit Star Wars, but I don’t think I can.

I’m right there with you brother.

Well sport, I quit Star Wars back in 2018 (I just grew out of it, no other real reason), and only stayed around here because I was too lazy to make a new account on a different forum. 😛

Nice! I am in the same boat really. Not much interested in Star Wars content other than the KOTOR 2 video game which I play once every year. I suppose I am still interested in dissecting the past content still.

Post
#1600732
Topic
What Do YOU Think Star Wars Should Do Next?
Time

NFBisms said:

If I had to be earnest, I think Andor is the best Star Wars media probably ever produced? It’s perfect. So I will always be grateful for that.

But I think weirdly enough, Andor more than anything is what has allowed me to feel at peace with Star Wars? Like, I can put it to bed now. When I joke about ending it all, it’s coming from a real place of love and satisfaction. Not trying to be cynical.

The middling/bad nature of the prequels - and to a lesser extent, the sequels - has always left Star Wars an unresolved question in my mind. There’s potential here, I’d always imagined it, and I’ve always been looking for it - in books, in comics, in cartoons, the shows. I developed so much understanding of the universe along the way, to speculate about it like it was real, find interesting conceits to explore. I’ve never been fully satisfied with any one thing, and it only got harder as I got older, as I branched out and became a fan of other things.

But I always saved a place in my heart for Star Wars. So when the perfect cross section of where I am now as a film fan, and all this “language” I’ve honed over the years as a nerd came out - it was, idk, meaningful to me. I could “grow up” now, move on. Gilroy took every nerdy way I’ve thought about the Star Wars galaxy and put it into something I could genuinely enjoy as an adult. So removed from the canon being built on the other side of the franchise, so singular in its refraction of the OT story I already loved. And it was a Gilroy project through and through! As a big Michael Clayton-head, I couldn’t be more pleased.

I only came to this realization after not really feeling the subsequent releases (Mando, Ahsoka, Acolyte), but also not really feeling any kind of desire to “fix” them like I would. I wasn’t even disappointed. They just weren’t for me.

So Andor really changed the franchise for me, from an investment in its world and timeline, to a complete series of films I adore, a TV show that I love. I’ve gotten what I’ve always wanted from this whole thing and those movies aren’t going anywhere. And I think ultimately, even if it’s not Andor for you, that’s the end of the line for everyone at some point.

This was a nicely written piece. Thinking about things from this perspective I would say that KOTOR 2 is for me what Andor is for you. If the OT ultimately was about Luke’s path to becoming a Jedi then KOTOR 2 was (if you follow the “lightside”) a re-affirmation of the WORTH of the Jedi way.

Post
#1598323
Topic
Star Wars Headcanons
Time

Superweapon VII said:

Servii said:

Rogue One and Solo are in-universe holothrillers produced under the New Republic as celebrations of Rebel heroes. While the broadstrokes events are true, creative license was taken with the details for dramatic effect.

I feel that way regarding virtually every SW film and TV show.

Indeed. This idea goes back to the earliest conception of the franchise - all are tales told by C-3PO and R2-D2 (or recovered from their memory units).

The Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker.

Post
#1597091
Topic
Which Pre-Prequels Anakin you imagined and think would suit the best the Pre-PT Star Wars Universe?
Time

I like the concept of him from Star Wars 1977. He was a peer of Obi-wans (quite close in age) who was murdered by Obi-wans young pupil Darth Vader. A great starfighter and cunning warrior; Obi-wan obviously finds nothing wrong with praising martial prowess. This is because The Jedi were basically special forces rather than warrior monks. They probably banged a lot of chicks.

Post
#1596592
Topic
The <strong>Unpopular Expanded Universe Opinions</strong> Thread
Time

Servii said:

I just want to pop in say hi and express my support for Spartacus standing up to this. I want you all to know that I’d love to come back and post here regularly, but I also can’t bring myself to play along with the whole sock account charade, which has become harder and harder to ignore as more people have left the site, many of them probably for the same reason I did.

As for EU unpopular opinions, I don’t mind the idea of Palpatine preparing for the Vong invasion, in theory. Of course, if he really did know it was coming, he definitely wouldn’t have kept it a secret. He’d have used the Vong as a convenient external threat to justify more executive powers and military buildup. But I don’t agree with the idea that it paints Palpatine as a good guy. It just makes him a rival of another villain, but no less a villain himself.

I do, however, dislike how much Thrawn was made out to actually be a good guy. As the EU went on, Timothy Zahn seemed to whitewash his actions more and more, like making it so that he destroyed Outbound Flight in self defense rather than just destroying it on Palpatine’s orders. I don’t mind the idea that he was really playing some sort of galactic long game the whole time, but at the end of the day, he’s still a ruthless dictator. I don’t know. It’s a tricky balance to strike. I like the Empire of the Hand as a concept, but they almost seem too moral.

Yeah, Zahn’s work a after Vision of The Future was very “mid”, as the kids say.

Also - nice to have you back!