Should Lucas have begun at the beginning?

A common theme of many criticisms of TPM is that it has the wrong tone or 'feel' to be Star Wars. Star Wars, for the most part, is set in a dark, gritty universe fraught with peril, where heroes must struggle against long odds. TPM is set in a bright, shiny universe where the good guys sit around in meetings. It also features floppy eared bright orange amphibians and a nine year old protagonist yelling 'Yippee!'. Can this possibly be Star Wars?

I think many fans assumed that the grittiness of the OT was an inherent part of the GFFA. EU tended to reinforce this notion. Nine-year-old protagionists and goofy, bright orange amphibians, far out of place in stories like ESB or most EU of the 80's and 90's, clearly don't belong in SW.

But it seems that for Lucas, the darkness, seedy characters, and the constant sense of peril and struggle against long odds are not inherent to his universe. Rather, they are the result of a galaxy spanning tragedy, namely the Clone Wars. The gritty tone ultimately results from the actions of the Sith.

So in a story set before the Sith gain power--a story which in fact depicts how the Sith first began to acquire power, there would be no dark grit, no sense of long odds for the good guys. After all, there is essentially nothing wrong with the galaxy, nor has there been for 1,000 years. In this story, the epitome of evil, Darth Sidious, maneuvers hiself into position to cause some serious problems for Our Heroes. But naturally, he can't create those problems just yet, so the conflict centers on a trade dispute.

This brings me to my question. Would you have preferred that Lucas begin his saga 'later' in the story, when the forces of darkness already had some overt influence? This would create a tone more in line with the rest of the Saga. After all, many people are bored with light stories and find dark elements alluring, or at least more interesting. Or can you tolerate the lighter tone of TPM, realizing that the nascent darkness here cannot yet create the galaxy that Luke, Han, and Leia lived in?

Personally, I'm in the latter category. I'm happy with TPM's depiction of a bright, even somewhat goofy galaxy to be corrupted later. Heck, why not add in an orange amphibian and center the action on a nine-year-old, just to drive home the point that the galaxy at this time leaves room for innocence and even silliness? In time, we see the Sith transform the galaxy into the one we remember from the OT.

 

I definitely would not advocate starting earlier. Especially THAT early, when we wouldn't get a chance to meet any OT characters (or people who influenced OT characters).

It'd be an interesting piece to do for EU, like a TV series or a cartoon movie or something, but Lucas' numbering system permits him only three prequel movies, and there's too much to do.



Starting later would have worked. Don't get me wrong, I liked the choice to see Anakin as a child and start at his finding and stuff. But I think we could have started Episode I later and still made it interesting. For example, perhaps at the first signs that Anakin is being a difficult student. Or something. It's definitely a viable option if you ask me.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

I think that, on paper, it would have been a better idea to have the whole six-part saga fleshed out before he put any of it to film. That being said, we wouldn't have the original trilogy we all know and love today. So my answer, really, is no.

However... It's just too obvious that the prequels were purposefully made to have connections with the original trilogy, and were made after the "later" episodes IV-VI. For example...I really doubt Lucas had Obi-Wan's complete story conceived when he made A New Hope. It wasn't completely thought out until he started work on the prequels. Because of the odd sequence in which he went about putting the saga to film, he has to go back and ?fix? the original trilogy so that it meshes better with the prequels. Conversely, if he had made Episode 1 first, and continued on up to Episode 6 from there, the saga would be much more cohesive.

 

For many years I wanted to see the PT, like the rest of us. As the PT was made, other sagas have followed suite and made PTs, and those, too, have excited me (Dune and Babylon 5 come to mind). But overtime I've come to realize that PTs in general are not a good idea. Why? Because it's not a good method of storytelling. Here are a couple reasons why.
1) A story should move forward. But a PT by its very nature drives a story backwards.
2) Anything important from a PT is already told (in order for an initial story or series to be told, the important info in a backstory has to be revealed for the viewer/reader to understand), there is no new critical information in a PT. Sure, lots of new info is often revealed, but not important info. If it were important, it would have already needed to be explained to the audience so that they may understand the original body of work.

So to answer the initial question of the thread, no. If more SW stories needed to be made into movies, it would have been best to press onward to post-ROJ, IMO.

 

Darth-Stryphe, I?m going to agree with most of what you said. However, one important thing I disagree about: We don't need to have movies that are post-RotJ. Return of the Jedi concluded the Saga just fine! The Empire has come and gone. The "prophecy" has been fulfilled. The Alliance has won, and all that is left for them to do is mop up the remaining Imperials. It's simply not a grand or appropriate setting for three more movies. No central villains remain (despite what the EU says, there should not be any Sith remaining when Vader and Palpatine die,) no superweapons remain (again despite what EU says,) and they'd really have to dig to conceive some worthwhile ideas.

 

Well, if there were to be any more, Stryphe means they'd be better suited at the end rather than at the beginning. And I agree whole-heartedly. The story is still progressing as it moves forward, that is at least somewhat fresh; better than a Prequel that ends at the beginning.

 

I can remember when I was 10, riding home with my mom who had just taken me to see ESB. I remember asking her, "But Mom, how could something like the Empire get started? If it's all evil, why would so many people join it in the first place?" Of course, it was obvious even to my 10-year-old mind that a full-fledged empire could compel membership. My question was aimed at the very beginning. How could the first world convince the second to join an empire based on evil and domination, without meeting opposition from others? Mom's somewhat prescient answer was, "I don't know son, maybe the Empire used to be something people wanted to join." Since then, I've wanted to see what the 'good' Empire was like and how it turned into what we saw on the OT. So on my end, there's been interest in the prequels since summer 1980.

Then again, perhaps it's just me. I am always curious about the origins of things. Given the way anything is, I want to know how it got that way and why it is that way and not otherwise. I spend a lot my spare time studying the distant past of human societies and of the universe itself. Knowing how it all turned out does not lessen my enjoyment; it's just as fascinating to see how it played out. I guess someone like me, given a universe as fascinating as the one George showed us in the OT, would want a PT. Accordingly, I enjoyed TPM and AOTC, and look forward to III.

 

Star Wars is the story of the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. It started where it had to and it ended where it had to.

 

Would you have preferred that Lucas begin his saga 'later' in the story, when the forces of darkness already had some overt influence?

Yes. I wish that when Lucas re-released the OT in theatres that instead of changing lots of things, he had changed only one thing in each movie. I wish he had renumbered them as follows:

STAR WARS: Episode II: A New Hope
STAR WARS: Episode III: The Empire Strikes Back
STAR WARS: Episode IV: Return of the Jedi

Then I wish that he made one and only one prequel, which would be the movie we're going to see in May 2005. It, of course, would be Episode I.

The 1977 SW film starts with the galactic civil war already underway. I think the prequel saga should have started with the Clone Wars already under way. Nothing in TPM or AOTC particularly interests me. But the subject matter of the upcoming prequel (the Clone Wars, the Kenobi/Anakin duel, Anakin's transformation, the rise of the Empire and the fall of the Republic) does.

 

I don't think that the PT could have worked if it had been started at a different time. As entioned before, it is the story of the fall and the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, and that story could only work if Lucas strted where he did.

 

I disagree that the OT is primarily about the redemption of Anakin. It is clearly the story of Luke Skywalker.

 

I like to think of the saga as Anakin's story in the first half, and Luke's story in the second.

 

Binary is correct; the OT (by itself) is Luke's story. It's the presence of the PT that makes it also the story of Anakin's redemption.

Coming back to my original question, I agree with MatthewZ (in case that wasn't clear enough in my first post). The Saga works just fine for me exactly the way it is. I raised the issue because I think this is another way to explain TPM's lukewarm reception. Many assume that George has lost his touch or his skill at storytelling, when in fact he has simply chosen to tell a different type of story.

Consider this: Underneath all of the action in TPM is a fraud perpetrated against the main characters by the antagonist, Darth Sidious. Dramatically, the audience has the heroes' point of view, so many in the audience felt defruauded in a sense, frustrated by the futile actions they see. (How do the Neimoidians gain from blockading Naboo? It's moot; they're being defruauded and don't realize it.) But GL began his saga at a point where dark forces were nowhere near ready to confront the heroes openly. So evil has to use deception at first, then influence, and brute force only once the saga is well under way. I find this process fascinating to watch.

In telling his story this way, though, GL risked failing to entertain anyone who was expecting the samne types of stories as in the OT. The story proposed by Binary, featuring overt action and conflict from the getgo, might have been a good one. But I'm also enjoying Lucas's story.

 

I think the perfect start for the movies was ANH. That movie stood alone. It introduced the characters and it was able to create a huge following for the series. The other movies weren't made to stand by themselves.
If ANH didn't go over like it did, it wouldn't have left people hanging if a sequel wasn't made. Those of us who loved the film would have wanted another one made, but our imaginations could have created one for ourselves. The rest of the other movies were made with others in mind.

 

buT people need to realize that TPM is darker than they think. For me, the lighter elements such as JarJar add a chilling coginitive dissonance to TPM that is very compelling when you view it against the sinister plot underneath. It fits well into the whole mythological element about the monster at the heart of the labrynth. And what other SW movie has the main villian in the last shot of the film?

 

Rpeugh brings up an interesting point. TPM, after all, ends with the main bad guy having accomplished everything he set out to do. If fans miss this, I guess it's because the story's characters, whose point of view we have, never recognize the bad guy for who he is and therefore never oppose any aspect of his scheme. Fans looking for a good vs. evil struggle miss the evil that walks in unopposed. For me, this adds to the story, because the evil which noone can recognize is far more powerful than the evil which overcomes people by brute force.

 

DellowFelegate, you make some good points. The PT films are indeed set in a different time from the OT. Pre-Geonosis, the GFFA is calm, peaceful. The sense of urgency and long odds has built from I to II, and will no doubt climax in III. Personally, I don't mind this aspect of the PT. I think it's cool to see the pre-Clone Wars Old Republic.

At the same time, I can agree with fellow delegate Binary_Sunset that the "real" prequel story is in III, and that, in a sense, I and II have been superfluous backstory. At the very least, the themes we've seen so far could have been explored dramatically in one film.

For example, if Anakin--as played by Hayden Christensen--had begun the story as a youthful slave, who witnesses the death of his mother at the Tuskens' hands, is liberated by a single Jedi (Kenobi), and then goes on to win the Battle of Naboo through sheer amazing skill as a starpilot (no "Oops!" or "Whoa!"s), wouldn't that have been infinitely more exciting than the drawn-out PT films? The theme of goodness corrupted by powerhunger can come in halfway through the film, as Anakin wins the Battle of Naboo and gets a swollen ego! The theme of loyalty subverted by passion would then come in as the young hero moves in on the queen. By the Clone-War climax, Queen Amidala has relented to the dashing knight's advances, and consents to give her hand in marriage.

Most of the political machinery could be dealt with in the opening scroll and through dialogue. One expansive Senate scene would be enough to convey the Palpatine aspect of the plot. In TPM, Sidious is suitably menacing, but the Trade Federation and its slender robots never seem very threatening. This is a problem. The Super Battledroids of II should replace the dipsticks in I, and the Gungans should be wholly dispensed with! The "mystery" of the clones' creation is fairly compelling, with Jango's origin being an intriguing subplot, so that would all remain in this (proposed) first of two STAR WARS prequels. The pacing would be "faster and more intense" like the STAR WARS of old.

 

No, Lucas should have begun in the middle, continued towards the end, then finished at the beginning.

My brain hurts now.

 

Lucas should have sat down and written all nine SW stories before he decided to film anything else after ANH. The fact that he decided to kill the series off after TESB by collapsing eveything into ROTJ meant that if he ever went back to do eps 1, 2 & 3 then we'll never have the real story as it was whimsically considered before he truncated it due to lack of interest.

The saga in its original nine part serial type origins would have been pretty much the story of Luke Skywalker for the last six parts and the story of Anakin The betrayer of the Jedi), character X who would have been Lukes original father and Obi wan for the first three. Since Character X ceased to exist after Lucas collapsed the saga into ROTJ then that makes the new six part story pretty much the tale of Anakin Skywalker more than the tales of the Skywalker family on a whole, and a badly focused one at that. Why? Because all the focus that Anakin has in the initial three PT films will pale in comparison as he becomes simply an iconic bad guy in the next two with no scenes generally showing any conflict in his character, as Vader in ANH & TESB he is absolutely EVIL, he kills without second thought and tortues without remorse. Vader was only ever meant to be EVIL, the Baddest of the Bad.. to suddenly turn all that on its head by having him kill the Emperor due to a collapse in the story and suddenly be Lukes father and the father of Liea who he tortured in ANH then suddenly wipe his slate clean enough for him to become a smiling blue spirit sitting alongside Yoda and Ben is pants!

It never sat well with me and it never will and now SW and TESB will be the oddities in the pack because the Vader in there is a simple evil bad-guy with no other dimensions to his chracter other than to destroy. Sure Lucas might go back and add scenes where Vader melancholy remebers Padme or clutches the pendant he carved her in TPM before hiding it quickly in his belt as imperial offices knock on the door etc, but it will never be the same, it's a make-it-up-as-you-go crappy way of filming, it's bollocks!

The so called saga is a mess, Lucas never planned anything, he spent 16 years trying to bury SW until he realised it can still make him big-bucks and that's why it started as one thing, turned into another and is now in the process of trying to amend and patch up parts so that it all makes some level os sense! No amount of patching up can avoid the fact that he wanted a love triangle between Luke, Han and Liea before he decided to make Liea and Luke bro and sis, it will always look sick especially after they snog royaly in TESB and Luke lies back absolutely savouring the fact he just snogged his sister!

Should Lucas have begun in the begining? - Yes, but he didn't so he should have finished what he started and stuk to his original plans instead of kopping out and leaving it for dead after the ROTJ collapsed story. The real question is Should Lucas have begun doing the begining since he ruined the end? The answer is NO! Why? Because all the new fangled CGI effects in the world can't make up for the fact that the story is now a mess. The films are now simply visual treats with a shelf life of the the next summer flick with new SFX to savour. In termsof substance, they are found severely lacking.

 

But, CeeJay, Vader is pure evil only in ANH. In ESB, we do see traces of conflict in Vader. For example, he suggests 'turning', rather than destroying Luke as the emperor seemed to want. He offers Luke the chance to rule at his side. Yes, we assumed in 1980 that it was deception, but now we see that he meant what he said. When Luke vanishes into hyperspace instead of answering his father's pleas to join him, I sense in Vader disappointment and a touch of sadness--not rage--as he paces the bridge of his Star Destroyer. In fact, far from being a mess, the saga shows an intersting parallel with Anakin:

I. All Anakin, no trace of Vader
IV. All Vader, no trace of Anakin

II. Shades of Vader appear in Anakin
V. Shades of Anakin appear in Vader

III. Anakin transforms into Vader
VI. Vader transforms into Anakin

I won't deny your point that Lucas makes things up as he goes along. I'll just point out that Lucas is quite good at doing this.

The parallel structure above may also serve to address Vortigern's point. Vortigern's combined I-II chapter may well be more exciting and fast paced that what Lucas showed us. But it seems that Lucas wanted an 'all Anakin' chapter in his saga to mirror his 'all Vader' chapter 4.

 

Nope, in TESB I see a power hungry evil bad guy who sees a chance to ursup his master and rule the galaxy. His stating to Luke that he is his father was done in such a way that the audence would not know if it was a ruse or the truth. He himself said to Luke that with their combined strentgh they could defeat the Emperor and rule as father and son. Luke as far as he is concerned was very strong in the force, he felt that in the death Star trench. Vader was being treacherous and seductive just as the Darkside is.

Vader as far as I'm concerned was never meant to be anything other than the man responsible for Lukes fathers death and the death of all the Jedi. At the end of TESB, he walks away content that he has done enough to leave the boy confused and his plans to overthrow his master intact. Should Lucas had continued in that vein and not scrapped the third trilogy by collapsing it into ROTJ. Then the original title of ROTJ would have remained Revenge of the Jedi and Luke would have at some point in ep6 killed the man who murdered his father and the objective to defeath the Emperor and the Empire in the last three films. The knowledge that he has a sister would also add to the adventure in the last trilogy which he probably would have learned from either a dying Vader, Yoda or Ben Kenobi. And Yoda wouldn't have passed away so soon either without properly completeing Lukes training.

The Vader in ROTJ is rubbish, he's nothing at all like the man in the first two films, he kills nobody who fails him, he has no respect or fear surrounding him and he's forever moaning about his son to the Emperor. The one thing they NEVER described Skywalker as in their initial discussion in TESB is SON! He was merely the son of SKYWALKER, the man they betrayed and killed. Why would they talk about him that way in one instance and then all of a sudden decide it's fine to call him Vaders son in the next? I'll tell you why.. a collapse in the intention of the original tale, that's why!

The other make-it-up-as-you-go crap like the rule of only two darklords etc only makes it worse. If Vader was truly meant to be Lukes father, and the Emperor knew this, then the very suggestion that Luke becomes an ally and joins them would mean either Vader or the Emperor has to die real soon and the both of them would be aware of that. They'd be checking their drinks, meals, every dark corner or alley way all the time. How could they trust each other ever again and why would Vader suddenly emphazise that he HAS to obey his master in ROTJ after plotting to overthrow him in TESB?

The common knowledge that Lucas actually thought any of this through or even wrote down basic plotlines years ago at the time of writing ANH is all false. He wrote nothing and didn't want to either, he spent the last sixteen years before making TPM not giving SW a second thought and it shows. Expect a lot of changes to be made to the OT films when they get released on DVD in order to cover his lazy tracks and make some level of sense to the now six part saga.

 

That nine part saga that Lucas originally had in mind might have been quite a story. But then again, so is this one. When considered on its own terms and not in terms of what might have been, it works.

The transformation in Vader begins right there at then end of ESB. Otherwise, Vader would not have simply walked away with his head down. He would have force choked Admiral Piett. Piett, after all, was responsible for disabling the falcon so Luke couldn't escape. Piett had just failed Vader. But he didn't die. Vader had begun to change.

Lucas may well have altered his original story to change Vader in this way. But the change is neither arbitrary or random within the story itself. It caused by the presence of Luke Skywalker. In TPM, we see his strong need for his mother. In AOTC, we see what happens when he loses his mother, and then his desperate need for Padme. A consistent character trait apprears--Anakin is someone so unstable that he needs someone close to him as an 'anchor' to keep him grounded. Once Luke appears in his life, there's a new hope not just for the galaxy, but for Anakin. He now has someone else to fill the 'anchor' role. Accordingly, he makes finding Luke his obsession in ESB.

This brings us to another argument for beginning the saga when Lucas did. We needed to see the young Anakin afraid to leave his mother. We needed to see Shmi strengthen her son for his decision. We then needed to see Padme's faith in Anakin, and how her faith strenghened him when he lapsed into rage. This sets the stage for Vader's relationship with Luke, and why Vader is so single-mided about finding him.

Did Lucas have all this in mind in 1977? Probably not. But it still works. Lucas is good at making stuff up to fit.

 

This is all fairly fascinating. I seem to fall somewhere between DF and CJ in that I perceive Vader as wholly evil through ESB, yet even after his scurrilous atrocities I do not deny his essential humanity and potential for rebirth. In ROTJ, Vader, out of love for his son, redeems himself by undoing the evil Empire he has helped create. This makes for a fine character arc, even given that Lucas did not concoct the Vader-as-father plot twist until well into the writing of ESB. I side with CJ insofar as Vader is pure evil, showing no remorse or morality through V; but I concord with DF in that Lucas managed to neatly dovetail his villain character with his (originally separate) "good Father" character.

 

If Vader needed his son so badly then why the hell would he try to kill him for the Emperor? The whole thing is bollocks, if Vader wanted his son to Join him overthrow the Emperor in TESB but in ROTJ he suddenly wants Luke to join the both of them, then why is he trying to kill him in the final lightsabre fight? Why would he decide to kill the Emperor when the Emperor is finishing Luke off. It never worked for me and it never will, vaders character changes from excellent bad-guy to confused man in black. He has no plan of action, he doesn't know what he wants or what to do because Lucas never knew what he wanted from the character after deciding to make him Lukes father after all. He doesn't even attempt to convince Luke to go through with his original plan from TESB of joining forces to defeat the Emperor. He's just humble and fully supportive of his master, adamant that Luke Joins them or dies. RUBBISH!

It's so weak and made-up so badly as it goes along. Liea showed no signo f having the Force or even being able to use it in any of the films simply because she was never meant to be his sister. All of a sudden in ROTJ when Luke tells her they're related SUDDENLY she can feel his presence escaping the Death Star, no training needed and at her age aswell. Even Vader when he was toturing her in ANH and with his hand on her shoulder restraining her while the Death Star blew up Alderaan NEVER felt the mass of Midichlorians in her body bursting with flavour of the Force, an undeniable Skywalker trait. Why? because it was never meant to be - just as he was never meant to be their father.

I can't swallow this SW crap any more, it's total rubbish to me now. Two films in the series make any sense at all and that's SW:ANH and TESB, the rest are merely poor attempts at changing the original direction the story was taking and nasty patch up jobs. They really are making this stuff for kids who don't know any better or remember the way things were.

 

They really are making this stuff for kids who don't know any better or remember the way things were.

Nice insulit at kids. What's wrong with them getting a fantasy movie to watch.

I mean sure I could show a little kid The Never Ending Story. But I don't really see that as a movie for little kids. SW is for the young.