personally the prequels are works of art,a greek tragedy if you will......

i think people don't like the prequels because they wanna see anakin go all vader.
they just don't realize the prequels are about how good of a man anakin was and why it was so tragic when he turned into vader..

the prequels are about obi-wan..about him haveing a great and wise teacher(qui-gon)and OB1 trying his best to be qui-gon and failing in every way eventually causeing anakin to become vader.

it's about padme' and her struggle to maintain order when everything else is going to hell.it's about forbidden love with a man who is not allowed to love.

it's about jar jar,a creature who tries to be helpful but fails in every attempt.

it's about yoda.who is slowly realizeing that the force has failed him..he has become so powerful he has overlooked evil sneaking into his world.

and finally it is about palpatine.a man who craves power and manipulates every around him to get it.

that is the why prequels are better..they have thier flaws..but are truly great.

 

GL lost the plot of SW in the PT.

The essential story of SW is the rise of the Empire. When the PT came out, GL shifted the focus of the story to that of Anakin Skywalker and that, IMO, ruined SW.

 

Wow, I agree totally with the topic poster. Excellent summation, I love it.

 

Ternian: The OT focuses primarily on Luke and the PT on Anakin. The rise and fall of the Empire is also in high focus, but it always comes second.
In fact, there´s more about the rise of the Empire in the PT than there was in the OT(since then, the Empire already exists), so you should love the PT!

BTW, gtastarwars, I agree with EBB. Great summation!

 

I love the PT aswell and I couldn't disagree with gtastarwars at all.

 

I'd have to agree.
And the prequels spend plenty of time discussing the Empire. Virtually every scene is showing how it was formed and how the galaxy went from peace to conflict.

 

Yay! People other than me get it! Wonderful character analysis'! People also don't understand, this is a PREQUIL, it shows the events leading up to the rise of the empire, obviously, it can't rise in the first movie.

 

Absolutely right.
The upheavals in the galaxy are the backdrop to more personal events in the lives of the Skywalkers, not the focus.

 

I agree with everyone.

Speaking of Greek Tragedy, a similar vein are Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. You already know how they end, but still thoroughly enjoy the outworking of events. Not unlike the PT.

 

absolutely superb analysis. that's why i love this new forum

 

Yes, the PT is a work of art.

No, it is not Greek tragedy.

It is American tragedy that borrows from many traditions. But I am pretty sure Lucas has a well-worn copy of Aristotle's "Poetics" on his writing desk.

 

Great take I says

People agree, good analysis

 

Star Wars, as a whole, is America's tragedy. I honestly believe that in centuries to come, the story of Star Wars will be remembered, it has had just as much affect on modern society as many of the ancient writings and myths.

It's kind of neat to think that these are the myths of OUR time, even though Star Wars is based on other myths. It is formed together to create a myth for our century.

 

Star Wars is THE modern myth!

 

yes the prequels certainly are a tragedy.

 

Well, Vaderbait, you are on to something.

The Greek tragedies and comedies were referencing, retelling and remaking stories that were already well-known to the Greeks, but updating them to fit in with their view of the world at that time. It is interesting to note that there are versions of the same story that conflict with other accounts, even to an "Elseworlds" or alternate-ending degree.

So it makes sense that "Star Wars" would continue this tradition by recycling bits and pieces of very old stories with just enough of a contemporary gloss for our tastes.

 

The OT focuses primarily on Luke and the PT on Anakin. The rise and fall of the Empire is also in high focus, but it always comes second.

I disagree strongly. The title of the movie is STAR WARS. The movies are about the rise and fall of the Empire primarily - without that there is no SW.

I really don't think anyone cared about Luke when ANH first came out. The focus was more on goodies Vs. baddies. The focus in the PT is Anakin's story and its painfully obvious, and unfortunately lets down the movies because you have to like Anakin to like the movies.

 

Ternian, I must strongly disagree with you. Stories must always be about their characters, first and foremost. Otherwise all you have is some kind of make-believe history. If Star Wars were simply a 2-hour discussion about how the Galactic Republic became corrupt and turned into an Empire, I think the movie wouldn't be very good. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on a lot of this - I love the political aspects of the saga, and they do provide a very important backdrop. But without the conflict between characters, there would be no interesting story, no human element.

 

So Luke Skywalker didn´t become the number one film-hero of the late 1970´s? I´ll have to disagree there....

 

People agree, Luke was #1 for the 70's

 

I think you're missing the point. Although the characters definitely drive the Saga but the main story IS the Rise/Fall of the Empire. What makes the story interesting is the Skywalker's role in it - but that is not the story.

GL changed the focus of the Saga for the PT to Anakin: the PT being Anakin's story. And it is clearly not working.The audience doesn't care about the Empire/Republic or Padme anymore, they just want to know what happened to Anakin: and I think that sucks because you then have to like Anakin in order to like the PT.

It's classic story telling that the main character is boring. It is the surrounding characters that make the main character interesting.

Luke IS a boring character. He is just as whiny and uninteresting as Anakin is in TPM. However, Luke has some fairly colourful companions that make him interesting. ie. The Princess, the Pirate, The Wizard, the Storyteller etc. In ANH these character styles are easily recognisable and they make Luke interesting. In the PT, the lines become a little blurrier.

The characters may drive the story, but they aren't THE story.

 

Ternian

I understand your argument, but consider this. What is a good v. evil story without main characters? For a film to be successful, people have to understand and/or love the characters. Generally, people look for a human element of some kind that they can understand or relate to. Without it, it's just the history channel.

I will agree with you in that the general backdrop of Star Wars is the rise and fall of the Empire. But the events of the story are driven by characters. Who is the main character overall in 1-6 is definately debatable, but without characters like Darth Vader, Luke, or Kenobi, the OT would not be what it is by a long shot.

The rise and fall of the Empire is only the stage, not the actors.

EDIT Just read your other post. Actually it seems that we agree. It seems more that you're just not fond of the characters. That's understandable. I'm not to fond of PT Anakin myself. But unfortunately, he IS the drive of the story.

The Picnic

 

I was reading Aeschylus' "Agamemnon" right before coming to these boards and was reminded of Star Wars by these lines:

Be healer of this haunting fear
Which now like an enemy creeps near
And now again, when hope has seen
These altars bright with promise, slinks away
Tell us that hope may lift the load
Which galls our souls by night and day,
Sick with evil which has been
The evil which our hearts forebode.

I thought it would be appropriate for this Greek tragedy thread. Anakin, aided by Luke (hope), is eventually the healer of fear by bringing balance to the force by defeating Palpatine, the enemy which slinks away when promise returns (Luke and Leia). Lucas' brilliance is that in the character of Anakin/Vader he combined both the fear and the healer, the fallen and the redeemer. That is unusual in myths. In Agamemnon, the son also avenges his father's death, which Luke does figuratively since Anakin is dead in spirit.

 

I guess it's just one of those issues, people have to agree to disagree on. I see the story of how a naturally good person like Anakin turned into a vicious murderer, and then was redeemed through the efforts of his son, as the heart of the entire saga. Also, I don't understand why people are instantly put off by whiny characters. They're supposed to be that way, it's one of the flaws in their personality that leads to their downfall.

 

I'm not saying it has to be the history channel or that the characters are unimportant.

What I am saying is that the story has shifted from Empire to Anakin; which makes the PT harder to digest because you have to like Anakin in order to like the PT.

We no longer focus on the Rebels defeating the Empire, but now focus on what happens to Anakin.

Big bad shift.