PT Should Naboo have been replaced by Alderaan?

You still could keep all of that. Palpatine would be one bad SOB if he blew up his home planet.

Btw you reminded me of the old theories of the prequel spoilers....

Sidious is a clone
Mace is a Sith

 

Anyone remember the whole "Naboo = Dagobah!" rumor that persisted throughout 1999-2005?

 

Boy that was strange. And that is one example of a planet from the OT that does not need to appear beyond the two movies its in because it serves its purpose.

 

Yeah, I totally remember that. Gosh, there were some crazy awesome rumors back then.

 

Yeah Merkual calm down hes not looking to ve enenies lmao.

 

Should Naboo have been replaced by Alderaan?

In short, no.

I can understand the easy appeal to fans in making Naboo into Alderaan, but that's a bit like saying that Qui-Gon should have been made into Obi-Wan, or that the prequel storyline should have begun with the events of Episode II, et al.

Further, I think GL wanted to create a fairly large air of mystery at the start of TPM. Naboo is a wonderfully archetypal some place else. Somewhere removed from the galactic core; a far-off jewel of a planet/civilization that we haven't seen before; a resplendent "other" being targeted and overrun by deviant "others". Both are distant (mutually opposite) Dark Side "suckers": the "greedy", monstrous Trade Federation, and the "peaceful", youthful Naboo. Each is being played by Palpatine in an advanced game of divide and conquer. And seeing these extreme opposites, neither of which appear in the OT (save Naboo's fleeting appearance at the end of ROTJ), has a profound sensory-aesthetic effect. We're well beyond the conventional pocket of SW landscaping at the start of the saga.

Along with the above, TPM is ostensibly the lightest or most bucolic of the SW movies, so having Naboo be Alderaan might have created too much of a solemn, tragic cloud, when some sense of fun, beauty, and adventure was still the order of the day. There's the inevitable universe-shrinkage effect, too. It's somewhat interesting, to me, that fans used to complain vociferously about all the alleged coincidences and contrivances in the prequel films, with another plot detail in TPM -- Anakin building Threepio -- commonly hoisted up as abject proof that GL was too wrapped up in making cheap, easy references to the OT ... yet so many declare that Alderaan should have featured in the place of Naboo without blinking.

I also think it's even more poignant, in a way, to only get the briefest glimpses of Alderaan at the very end of the prequel trilogy, which is quite a subversive way to play it, given Alderaan's symbolic role as a kind of "mother" planet for the Rebel Alliance. Of course, with the completion of the PT, we can now more properly look at Alderaan as the adoptive mother, with Naboo, the "real" mother, dying a kind of death and disappearing from the weave just as its beloved former queen does. Alderaan picks up a heavy tab, then, in assuming the mantle of Naboo, and it's all the more shocking that the Empire pencils it in for annihilation. The "real" mother is no longer around to offer her protection; and those that follow in her wake have to suffer the consequences.

Plus, Naboo, compared to Alderaan, is just kind of weird -- the right kind of weird to start the prequel trilogy with, in my opinion. I mean, a watery core, and all that strange, pulsing plasma energy. I think GL wants fans to look upon Naboo as something special. It may not even have been possible, if you like, for the Empire's Death Star to destroy it. While the fortunes of its human and Gungan occupants may hang in the balance in TPM, the planet itself may, essentially, be immortal, even as it fades into the background, seemingly dead or sleeping, once the prequel narrative wraps. Certainly, its slaying by a super-powerful green laser would have resonated with me, but Naboo is better for being unique, in my view, and I dig its role in the PT, and the saga at large, just fine. Perhaps there are some jewels that no amount of fascist regimes or ideologies can taint.

 

Ninja'd!


***

In short, no. If Palpatine had come from Alderaan, fans would have had a fit...

 

While I greatly admire your interpretation I think narratively speaking it still makes more sense to have Alderaan. You say it yourself the Mother Planet of the Rebellion.

 

Every time I read your posts... You got me like

 

For that reason alone, the fatherly-face of evil Palpatine should have nothing to do with that planet.

 

I never thought about this, but coming to think about it would be interesting.

 

A larger role for Alderaan would have been nice. Even a battle there or just mentioned in passing would have made the planet more remarkable. The EU, I suppose, fleshes Alderaan out more, but not that I've read.

 

Naboo serves as the political front for the Sith, Plagueis spent decades laying the foundation and personally executed the king... setting the stage for the invasion. Alderaan was located much closer to Coruscant, the blockade wouldn't work there, Bail Organa would get in the way and that would make it harder to justify sending both twins to the most obvious of places. Anakin hailing from Tatooine robbed Alderaan of any chance of being featured, Padme could have come from Bail's homeworld... but Palpatine couldn't... and the planet to be used as a chess piece couldn't either. I wish they would have kept the Rebellion scenes, but filmed them from Bail's mountain retreat instead of the Galactic Capital.

 

For me, Alderaan couldn't have replaced Naboo for one simple reason: narratively, getting the audience invested in that planet is counterproductive. There is absolutely zero fallout from the destruction of Alderaan in ANH or beyond. The Rebels never remark upon it, it's never shown to have increased recruitment, even Leia shows little reaction. Because of this, having the audience become attached to Alderaan with no emotional resolution at its destruction would have felt very jarring. It's a similar situation with Owen and Beru. I'm glad Lucas chose not to give them large roles in the PT because their deaths in ANH are so perfunctory. Once they die, they literally cease to exist in any context within the OT. Given that fact, granting them a larger role in the PT would have been a mistake, in my opinion. And the same is true for Alderaan. Naboo is perfect as it is.

 

so in other words we shouldn't have given a **** about Alderaan then because the characters didn't?


don't think that's what Lucas intended somehow.

Just because characters didn't care doesn't mean the audience shouldn't, the audience should have a mind of it's own, not follow the emotions (or lack there of )of the characters on screen

 

You ninja'd me before I could cover that point from the PT's POV, but its in there now. And, Leia is all I need to care about Alderaan in Star Wars.

 

Personally, I'd say both should have had a bigger part to play in the saga. I really wanted to see Alderaan developed. It's a shame it wasn't. I think genuine emotion is somewhat lacking in SW. Many would say it should be because it's an adventure film but I disagree. If you don't feel for the characters amid a war what's to tie you to caring about the conflict.

On one hand, Alderaan being fleshed out may have given more weight and impact to it's destruction for the audience.Yet, on the other, I am conversely glad it wasn't because there is enough Tarkin hate as it is.

 

Lucas absolutely didn't care at all about the founding of the Alliance to Restore the Republic, otherwise, we wouldn't have gotten the nonsense that is TFU.

 

Oh, the audience can still care, but there's no emotional resolution is what I was saying. Imagine, for instance, if Luke is killed off in the sequel trilogy and no one cares. If the audience is really attached to Alderaan, it's going to be jarring to not be given closure when it has been so built up.

 

Agree with the above. Alderaan's demise is fairly abrupt as it is.

Also, I like Naboo. Beautiful setting and interesting as a pawn in Plan Palpatine. As has been stated, we don't need any additional universe shrinking.

 

It seems in Star Wars any death is seen that way though

Star Wars is basically about getting to one scene to the next without the melodrama in between, I figure all that stuff happens off screen.

After all, Obi-Wan got

"I can't believe he's gone"

"we're not out of the woods yet"

"oh ok...wwwooot I got 'im yaaaayyy"

 

Lol. They don't dwell in SW.

 

SW doesn't seem all that strong on emotion, it's about action. It's a bit sad though. I think action and emotion can co-exist but then I have the mind of a storyteller that writes not a director oriented to action and technicality.

 

I disagree. Qui-Gon's death is a really emotional moment for Obi-Wan and then there's his funeral. Similarly, the death of Anakin's mother is a huge turning point for him and she's brought up three times in ROTS (not to mention Anakin's subsequent breakdown and the funeral in AOTC). Padmé's death, similarly, is extremely important and profoundly affects Anakin. And as all the Jedi are dying, you see Yoda's reaction -- and it's not pretty. Both Obi-Wan and Yoda also have moments where they look upon their fallen brethren in the Temple. In fact, all of the PT deaths really hit home for the characters.