Saga Why do people hate the prequels?

I found an article called Alternate star wars prequels first draft. It is a fanfic summary of a different version of the prequels. Is it good or no? I think it's ok. I didn't like the part with obi wan being anakin/vader's father though. I also didn't like how they changed anakin's motives for turning to the darkside.

 

I'm not so sure I liked Anakin turning to the darkside to save Padme from dying in childbirth. Remember, the children she was carrying were Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia! Darth Vader became evil to save his wife. Their very existence is the reason he turned evil? That sounds kind of cool and messed up, and just strange at the same time. I can't decide. It could go either way. Who liked how Lucas changed Anakin's motives, to a more desperate person?

 

I agree. I read one website where someone said that Vader should have been motivated by power, or something like that. That was nowhere near as interesting as him wanting to save Padme from a force vision of her death.

 

So he turned to the darkside because the Jedi wouldn't allow their relationship and had a celibacy rule? That sounds like a bad reason for anakin to turn to the darkside. It wasn't in the movies.

How was the Galactic Empire/Sith empire a bad form of government? Other than getting rid of the republic, which I don't find that convincing, how was the Sith ruling the galaxy bad? Why was Padme and obi wan kenobi so opposed to Palpatine ruling the galaxy and anakin joining him in ROTS? They got all emotional on him.

 

I don't think Anakin should have wanted power because it was cool...he should have learned through war and the glory that his abilities bestowed upon him, away from any guidance by a certain Mr. Kenobi (they are stationed for a good portion of the CW on opposite ends of the galaxy) that he liked wielding power, especially after war hardned him and turned him cynical against the majority. An Anakin that makes this decent and then comes back and with an inflated ego expects everyone to bow to his wishes...but they don't, would have been far more interesting IMO...or at least been a more believable arc to go from hero to mega-villain. As it is, I get that the rock and hard place dilemma he faces in the actual PT is interesting but unfortunately it only works for me in theory. As executed, it is weak soup and doesn't work. It probably has a lot to do with lack of chemistry and direction/acting that I don't buy the desperation 90% of the time, but also the actual plot points just feel flimsy too. A dream...anger at being asked to spy...in two directions (by Palps and by the Jedi), being lied to by his mentor more blatantly than the Jedi from what I saw, killing a Jedi Master then being told the "potion" he so desperately wanted wasn't actually in the grasp of his lying Sith mentor and they'd get to work on it right after he slaughtered what we can expect were at least 100s of children? I'm sorry, but nobody is this dumb. Nobody. And if he is, he is far from deserving of any sympathy. At least as executed. I'm not even sure how to fix it, what sort of betrayal Anakin truly needed to suffer in order to go as far as he did against the Jedi. I think perhaps a combination of what I proposed above along with this could have worked. We just needed, IMHO, an Anakin who was much more believably getting his ego fed with his growing sense of power BEFORE the desperate situation arrived. Some will say, oh but we did! In AOTC Anakin complains about how Kenobi holds him back. But that's all we got: Anakin saying this. We didn't see any real good example of it that would have got him feeling this way. In ROTS, Anakin seems like he's got a lot of respect for and from Kenobi for the most part too. So no, for me, the my wife will die so I will slaughter hundreds, especially from a guy who wanted to go save clone pilots at the start of the same film, just doesn't add up to me. He didn't fall that far in the span of that film.

 

A quote.

Nice one.

But occasionally we do get folks around here who think totalitarian dictatorships are better. Freedom, who needs it?
How was the Sith ruling the galaxy evil? Palpatine was not tolitarian. What did Palps do that was so bad? There were some, presumably bad things the Empire/Sith (or sith ruling the galaxy, more specifically) did, but what were they?d Palpatine himself said that the Sith once ruled the galaxy implying they did in the past, and Mace windu said that their opression won't return. The movies hinted that the sith ruled the galaxy 1000 years before the events of the prequels. How were they oppressive?

The Death Star was a creation of the genosians, and count dooku told Palps/Sidious about it. It was only a part of the story and the Sith control of the galaxy until Episode 4. Mace windu, the jedi, obi wan, and padme, all were against Sidious ruling the galaxy, and yet they had no idea about the Death Star. It wasn't in the plot until later on, it was an invention of the Genosians who worked for the sith lord dooku. The Sith empire, the one in the star wars movies, implied, but not shown, ruled the galaxy a long time ago in the story, before the originals, and even way better the storyline of the prequels. It was part of ancient SW history. How was the empire that the Sith ruled, before the prequels, evil? The movies never told us what they did to the galaxy that was oppressive.

There were other things the Empire, ruled by Vader and Palpatine, did that were evil, but the movies never tell us. It's a huge plot hole.

 

In the EU none of the Sith Empires ever ruled the whole of the galaxy- they all ruled varying-sized chunks.

The one "1000 years before" was actually fairly short-lived- a fallen Jedi called Kaan conquered a small, squabbling Sith Empire, then led them as their Sith leader, conquering half of the Republic. That Empire was the remnant of a larger one founded 1000 years before that, which had spent most of that time battling the Republic. The one in the MMO The Old Republic was more than 1000 years before that, and so on.

The Sith have been ruling (Brutally) empires over and over- leading them to attack the Republic, overextending, and collapsing under counterattack by the Jedi. Its an ongoing trend- which is why the Jedi despise the Sith so much- experience of the misery the Sith keep causing.

 

How was that Sith empire, the one what Mace windu talked about, and the reason that Padme was upset that the Sith took over- opressive? The Jedi just didn't want the Sith to rule because they have different views on the Force. They should just tolerate each other? How did the Sith cause misery? How was that tyranny at all?

 

They caused misery by practicing slavery, and invading the Republic, again, and again, and again.

"Different views on the Force" has little to do with it- the Jedi know from hard earned experience what the Sith keep doing.

Now the movies don't show it- but the EU does.

In the RoTS novel Padme and several other Senators complain about how oppressive the Republic's already gotten, how Palpatine's put military governors in place to control the sectors- how he's "become a dictator". Then, he declares "The First Galactic Empire"

As to why Lucas "tells" in the opening crawls of the first movies that the Empire is evil, instead of "showing" it in depth- there's only so long you can make the movie. And they were aimed at children- in Britain they had U certification.

 

What does this quote mean? I don't get it.

And they were aimed at children- in Britain they had U certification.
So, if Anakin turned to the darkside but still helped out the Republic and the Jedi to defeat Palpatine, would they accept him? Obi wan and padme were upset that Anakin became a sith and used the darkside of the force, shocked even, even before she knew that he helped out Palpatine. Palpatine and Vader offered Luke a chance to save the rebellion if he would turn to the darkside, but he didn't, because a Jedi is against the darkside as part of their philosophy. Would Mace windu sit down and have a talk with palpatine, saying that they know he's a sith, but they expect him to be a fair ruler, and would accept him if he didn't do evil things? Also, why didn't Luke turn to the darkside? If luke joined Vader, would Vader have been a tyrant like Palpatine, or would Luke have mellowed him down, making him more kind?

So, were the Sith a political group, a cult, or what? I don't get it.

Good point. Movies are short and focused on plot points. Hiding from the empire, winning the battle at endor, defeating the empire's space station, and stuff like that are major plot points in the originals. They don't have time to explain why the Empire is evil to the audience, you just assume it.

Is the ROTS novel canon? Did the sith have the death star in the past, too?

How/who did the empire/sith practice slavery on a large scale? Was that ever mentioned, or even hinted at, in any of the 6 films, that the Sith Lord wanted to enslave a lot of people? And for what would sidious enslave them for? I don't believe that.

 

Where's your evidence that the Sith Empire wasn't evil? I'll take the maker's word for it over any "reasoning" I've been presented so far. No, the evil was not "blatant and in your face" obvious, but it was obvious through nuances and dialogue and reading between the lines....

 

Meaning there's only so much evil you can show on screen in a "kid's movie".

As it is, we see Vader torture (by choking) then murder (by breaking the neck of) a prisoner, we see what's pretty obviously a torture droid- we see Jawas & the Larses have been slain by stormtroopers- and that's in the first half of the movie alone.

 

What does a U certification mean, exactly? Also, here's my response to the evil nature of the Galactic Empire.

Also, about the prisoner, who i think is Antilles, he was a rebel and a traitor. Very cruel of Vader too do that to someone, even if it's your enemy. Darth vader couldn't even show mercy to an enemy, which shows a lot. Antilles was helpless at that point. Same thing with owen lars and beru lars. Sure, they may have helped out the rebellion by helping, albiet unwillingly, to hide the droids that had information about the Death Star, but they were totally innocent and helpless against the empire. There's no way what the empire did wasn't evil. They were messed up, morally.

However, just because the Empire did evil things, does not justify the rebel's quest to overthrow them. Because, look back at it from Revenge of the Sith. The Jedi and some senators-including padme and bail organa want to stop Palpatine from taking over, because Palpatine created a tyrannical government.

However, that would make the rebel's cause a self fullfilling prophecy. They try to overthrow the Empire/Palpatine on the basis of them being evil, but unwillingly cause the empire to do evil things in retalation to them. If the rebels didn't do anything, the empire wouldn't do those bad things in retaliation. Both sides were wrong. If the rebels left the empire alone, none of the bad things the empire thing would have happened, and by that, I mean the Lars and the jawas, and Antilles.

 

U is "Suitable for children of any age".

The principle behind most rebellions is "Standing by and doing nothing, is far worse than stopping the tyranny- even if there's a lot of suffering along the way".

"Leaving the empire alone" simply wasn't possibly for the rebels, psychologically speaking.

 

How is star wars a kid's movie? The title itself proves it's not! It's about war! All the space battles and fights, the destruction of the 2 death stars, the spaceship fights in a new hope and jedi, everything else that happens? All the politics, too?

It's definitley not suitable for all ages. In my opinion, star wars movies should be pg13.

 

Star wars is pg or pg13. It's definitley not G-suited for all ages. It should definitley be pg13. Why do people think it's a kid's movie?

 

Only ROTS is PG-13, the rest are PG - making Star Wars in general a kid's film.

 

The Original Trilogy were released in Europe on VHS under a U certificate (rather than PG) at least once.

 

in my POV however, it seemed he was tricked into it out of guilt: he marries under secrecy. He has dreams over his wife dying during labor and worries over it. And for some reason, Palpatine talks to him in the Opera about having the power to bring someone back to life after they've died. How and why would Palpatine talk to Ani about this issue in the Opera? Why would Palp risk revealing who his true identity was to Ani right there and then? Would he (Palp) have known this relationship about Ani & Padme and was using it to lure Ani further away from the Jedi code by offering something (regenerate life) that the Jedi couldn't? There was little in AOTC that suggested Ani was seeking the dark side when he was intent on capturing Dooku in order to stop the war and save the Republic. ROTS only revealed this temptation as his worry over Padme lingered on and was torn over the decision that weighed on his conscience--to save Padme, I need Palp alive so he can teach me that power--or risk losing him to the Jedi knowing he's a Sith, whom he was after since joining the Order. After he finally discovered who Palpatine really was in his senate office, he ignites his saber and tells Palp to stay put as he goes out to seek the Masters. He could've turned right there and say "F-the Jedi, I want that dark side power. Padme means more to me than the Jedi, so if you can help me save her, I'll help you from being arrested." But he didn't. He was conflicted if anything.

 

And that is why the final version of the turn is better than the original version of the turn.