Saga Star Wars, Lucas and TMIS

Yeah, but hasn't the history of film adaptations proven for the most part that too much information is detrimental to the narrative? That's why I feel that a franchise such as star wars has been so lucky over the years to have the option to explore different avenues. To meet every fans expectations. So why try to contain it within three movies?

 

Edit:

Lucas seems to had been caught in the conundrum of having to choose on whether to have the specifics of the amalgamated father person lean more toward the Anakin side, or more towards the Vader side.

Of course, Lucas could have side-stepped this conundrum by having the Anakin and Vader characters stay separate, and still so in a scenario where the latter is the true biological father of the hero.

Ex-post facto reasoning.

 

All right, all right.

e:

It's called reductio ad absurdum. The proposition was that creative limitations generally lead to superior outcomes. I turned it around and showed that creative limitations will just as, if not more, often lead to inferior outcomes.

So now the proposition is that creative limitations generally lead to superior outcomes, except for when they don't, which is most of the time. Well, no kidding! What a revelation!

It's a proposition devoid of any informational or philosophical value.

 

I don't want to harp on this, but just to clarify...

The proposition was...

Limitation, though, is obviously a relative term, so saying that limitation can often be a major driver of something doesn't mean that the more limitation there is, the better the thing will be. If that were so, total limitation would bring about a perfect result. That would clearly be an absurd conclusion and was never the one which I was attempting to draw. Apologies if my original post didn't make that clear.

 

The problem with reductio ad absurdum is that it can so easily become (as it has here) a "strawman". See MOC Yak Face response above.

 

What was interesting to me was how I saw conversations for years regarding things like whether Yoda 'should' have used a lightsaber, who could use the Force, etc (and yes, other seemingly more straightforward things like whether RotJ originally implied something different about Leia's background than RotS showed). In many of these cases, it seemed like a fair proportion of fandom had somehow formed similar intuitions/conclusions about what preceded the OT and/or how the universe worked - and these conclusions seemed to differ from the PT in consistent ways. Later, it turned out that many of the straightforward (and some not-so-straightforward, yet still reasonably widespread) conclusions people had reached about the story, and/or the hints of background they had seized on from novel sources in fact did reflect the story as it was left between 1983 and 1999. I think some of this was very clear (scripts stating things, even if the films were not as explicit) and some of it resulted from subtle references to familiar cultural archetypes, which people picked up on and used to build their mental imagery and expectations.

Truth be told, I was pretty young and hadn't yet really developed a critical eye for fiction when the prequels first came out. I think I started to really notice the things that distance me from the prequel films later on, when upon watching the OT and coming upon a reference to the in-universe past, sometimes my mind would conjure something different from what the PT actually showed. Often, these conjurations were simply based more on the style of the OT plus straightforward extrapolations of dialogue or information. Then I would go on to find out that, again, the OT references I was keying into really did reference a slightly different backstory, one that wasn't simply completely vague, nor a jumble that was difficult to really resolve, but which was discussed by the filmmakers during the making of those films.

I better understand (I think) what Lucas was doing now, in seemingly deliberately subverting a lot of things he had earlier set up. But I still would have loved to actually see the 1983-ish backstory (filled out, of course), probably because it just feels like it matches the OT more, in my opinion.

(I still think that some of the biggest points of departure for me are things that redefine aspects of the setting. Some of these do indeed developed out of OT-era notes of GL's, like a notion of a 'Chosen One,' or the Jedi and Sith epitomizing an ages-old manichaean struggle that tied directly and very strongly into the political situation (by which I mean, the Empire is now essentially a Sith Empire... not the product of a political opportunist-sorcerer who maybe used some Sith knowledge but had loyalty to nothing but himself, which might be even scarier than a true believer, to me). But while some ideas are indeed older, they weren't really implied by the OT - if you'd have polled 1995 fandom somehow for the presence of things like a 'Chosen One' or Force-virgin-births or whatever, I doubt many, or any, would have said they got those concepts straight out of the films that existed at the time - and so feel like additions and redefinitions. To me the whole scale of the conflict feels different - more personal and societal in the OT, more cosmic in the PT. That feels like a redefinition, to me. Can't speak for anyone else, though.)

Your point about Qui-Gon is interesting to me. I actually really like Qui-Gon. And I didn't have any negative reaction to his being cast/created, either. In fact, I remember being extremely excited for everything that was going on, around that time. One big reason for my affinity for that character is because he seemed to epitomize 'Jedi,' in some ways. (And of course, my notion of 'Jedi' being informed by my reading of the OT... and EU.) But then at some point I'm re-reminded that Qui-Gon essentially is who Obi-Wan was 'supposed to be' - essentially is the person Obi-Wan remembers being, in ESB and ROTJ (in a quite literal sense, Qui-Gon having apparently been created out of Kenobi's pre-established OT-retrospective character traits, and taking over Kenobi's role in TPM) - and I halfway mourn for a version of the film/saga that simply showed that.

I think that Lucas was completely legitimate in doing things differently - I want to stress that - but to me the other version might have been preferable. And I see my statement of that as different than saying something like, "But I wanted the Great Pumpkin to appear in Episode I!", because at no point was the Great Pumpkin part of the plan/backstory... unlike other things like Kenobi just being trained by Yoda, himself finding Anakin, "taking it upon himself" to train Anakin because of his own pride, etc, which were (or 'would have been') part of the story, once upon a time.

Why not?

Okay, that's slightly sarcastic on my part, but the OT really does do a lot to establish that these two characters had similar temperament, similar talents, similar skills, similar emotions, similar ways of doing things... Anakin would always have been different than Luke in some ways, because of the differences in the state of the galaxy and the ways they each interact with historical events in their own times. But I don't see 'they'd be too similar' as a problem, because to me that's a large part of the point of Luke's journey, and really, the saga as a whole. These two people, father and son, are very similar and each has the potential to follow the path of the other: Luke has the potential to fall, just like his father did, and Anakin has the potential to reject the darkness, just like Luke did.

(Even RotS as made has references of this kind - visual callbacks from the bridge of the Invisible Hand to the Emperor's throne room. And in an earlier version of the story, that was, as I understand it, where Anakin was supposed to turn. Luke and Anakin, nearly identical situations, opposite results. And that's very late in the development of the saga. Yes, I think Luke and his father were always meant to mirror each other, something that became deeper as Annikin became synonymous with Vader. I wouldn't have any problem with an alternate PT in which Anakin is even more Luke-like throughout.)

It's his right to do it however he wants, but does that require that no one should contemplate other ways it could have been done?

I really liked TPM and AOTC, and was if anything even more excited and pumped up on seeing ROTS. I still like TPM quite a bit, and the others (especially RotS) have elements I like too. So it's not that I didn't or don't like the films. For me, the subversion and tinkering GL shaped them with just makes it harder for me to see them as 'the' past of the OT, and so I have a soft spot for the older backstories and ideas, which do feel to me like they could be the past... because the OT was made with those ideas in mind. They were the past.

I see it kind of like this: Tom Paris in Star Trek: Voyager was supposed to be a pre-existing character, a cool callback to an earlier storyline. But they couldn't get the rights or something, and so they just cast the same actor and gave him a nearly-identical backstory. Some hypothetical fan, knowing that Paris was supposed to be character X and then seeing the actual show where he's slightly different character Y, might be a little disappointed at what felt like a disconnect or even a missed opportunity for a connection. With Star Wars, the differences were bigger and the timescale to get used to what things were 'supposed to' be like was much, much longer. For some people, such as yourself, the focus of their fandom for SW almost seems to be on Lucas-as-ultimate-auteur, as well as the positive aspects of the saga as an achievement. I think that's totally cool. There just happen to be other people too, whose attachment to SW was/is focused in a different way. And that's cool too.

 

WOW you sir are GENIUS I have watched RLM and CM reviews of the prequels and I could never take their arguments seriously. But as a prequel fan you might finally have come up with an argument against the prequels that I can understand and more importantly take seriouslly. From now on I will never scratch my head as to why people hate the prequels so much because I can finally see were they are coming from even if I still love the films.

Again thank you. You dear sir are a smart person.

 

Well thank you kindly. I don't 'hate' the PT, but if you think I'm successfully expressing a critical stance, then I'll take it. I was so tired when I wrote that that it's a miracle it makes any sense at all.

 

I was actually reffering to the OP.

 

Ah. Boooooooo.

 

You'd be right in saying that fans weren't expecting things like the prophecy. But I've always understood that people like to have something unexpected and new brought to the table. After all, "I am your father" had rocked fans and become pop culture.

For me, at least, there should be room for additions like Qui-gon so long as it doesn't contradict things and by and large, it doesn't. But yet, throughout, there were people complaining because it went against what was said. That there wasn't room for expansion. That Lucas must rigidly stay within the confines and not explore things that interested him as a storyteller.

 

Sure but the problem is that most of the time it seems to be people taking the actual movies done and then tweaking them to exactly what they want them to be rather than using the "old" backstory and creating something "new' from that.

The thought that strikes me though is that you seem to want the PT to have the same straight good vs evil tone of the OT which simply wouldn't work. It by it's nature has to be different. The basic Saturday Matinee Serial roots of Star Wars cannot be in the same forefront role in the PT as in the OT. They are still there and far larger and resonant to the Flash Gordon roots but not to the openess. The PT needed to be more about cloaked and secretive things.

Lucas said all the way back that he started with the OT because it was more fun. Now of course that is a bit of a fib but I think that there is truth in that. By the early 80's he had a basic idea of what the themes and story of the prequels would be and comments of that time do sketch out the kind of tone he was thinking of.

 

I think it would be more correct to say people don't like it if things become too predictable.
That you can watch the first ten minutes of a film and know everything that will happen in the next hour and a half.

If Luke suddenly changed gender halfway through ESB, that would be unexpected but I think people might have reacted a bit to that.
If RotJ had ended with Luke killing Vader and turned to the Dark Side and the rebels all died and the film ended with Palpatine laughing and there were no further films. That would have been very unexpected but also not something that would have gone down well I think.

As for the prophecy, mine and I think other people's problem with it is that it doesn't add anything to the story or to the characters. It is just there to make the story seem more Epic.
Had something interesting been done with it, I might have liked it.
As is, to me it is a waste of time that could have been better spent elsewhere. And the time spent on this meant that other important parts of the PT were underdeveloped or rushed.
I think the issue that it was never mentioned in the OT could have been accepted by most if the prophecy itself had worked better in the films. Now, at best it feels tacked on and doesn't go anywhere. At worst it reduces the choices the characters make to predetermined events and spoils the end of the sixth film.

The Vader is Luke's father twist is liked because it worked well. It changed things and made Luke's journey a lot more complicated and something good and interesting was done with it.
If Vader's line had been revealed as just a lie, then I think people would not have liked it as much.

[/QUOTE]

But with Qui-Gon, what point is served by having him be Obi-Wan's Master and not a senior Master that Obi-Wan follows during his first missions as a Jedi Knight?
You still have a sort of master/pupil relationship. Qui-Gon is the more senior and more seasoned while Obi-Wan is more green and inexperienced.

So the issue of who trained Obi-Wan is changed and for pretty much no reason.
You could have pretty much the exact same movie with Obi-Wan following Qui-Gon, as is required by all new Jedi Knights.

And how much does Qui-Gon add to the later films? He is mentioned int he Dooku/Obi-Wan scene but that would play the same way even if Qui-Gon wasn't Obi-Wan's master.
He found the way to become a Force ghost but again, that could work just as well if he wasn't Obi-Wan's master.

If you are going to change something, make it matter.
I am reminded by the Han/Greedo thing. People try to defend the new scene by saying that it doesn't change anything. It is still the same scene. Well doesn't that make Lucas work to alter it kind of pointless? He spent time and money to change it but the end result is still the same.

Another example, Obi-Wan said he took it upon himself to train Anakin vs him promising Qui-Gon to train him. What point is served here? The second reduces Obi-Wan's part on wanting to train Anakin.
Yes you could argue that he still chooses to but the impetus has gone from something he wanted to do on his own to a request made to his dying master. The first had a huge responsibility on Obi-Wan's shoulders. He wanted to train Anakin and did it by himself. The latter reduces his culpability somewhat. He is still responsible but not as much.
And what is gained here?
We can blame Qui-Gon instead? To what end?

Or "Your father wanted you to have this.." line. This is now a total lie on Obi-Wan's part.
Why? What point is served here? That Obi-Wan is a out and out liar and nothing he says can be trusted?

In closing, if something is changed and done well, it tends to cause less problems than if something is changed and done poorly. In people's opinion of course.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

If you watch it I-VI, then you think that maybe it wasn't Anakin but Luke. That's why the whole misread aspect was introduced. It makes people uncertain as to what will happen in ROTJ and given that there will be nine films now, seeing Luke past ROTJ makes it seem likely that he was the one. Yet, when the newcommers watch the films I-IX, they'll see Anakin was the Chosen One.

It isn't a case of being a lie or not, but that it changed everything. It went against people's expectations.

But that's still the same. That is what Qui-gon is to Obi-wan. The Jedi Master who goes out on missions with Obi-wan as his Padawan. Yoda still trains Obi-wan as we see with the Younglings class in AOTC, where Yoda is actually training young Jedi how to use the Force in the same manner as Obi-wan did to Luke in ANH.

He serves as the father figure to both Obi-wan and Anakin. He is the model of a Jedi Knight that Obi-wan hopes to aspire to, much like Obi-wan did for Luke while Luke had someone who raised him in Owen. It also serves as a symbol of brotherhood between Anakin and Obi-wan, as the latter sees Anakin as a brother and Qui-gon was a father figure to both of them.

For Lucas, it made what he wanted it to be clear. But overall, Han still plans to shoot Greedo. If Lucas had cut Han un-holstering his blaster, then it would look more like self-defense than Han was going to commit cold-blooded murder, but Greedo manages to get a shot off.

You're not supposed to blame anyone other than Anakin for his own choices and Palpatine for manipulating him.

Who says that it was a lie? Perhaps they did talk about if Jedi were allowed to have children, Anakin would want his child to have his saber. And if it was a lie, so what? It is a motivator for Luke wanting to follow in his father's footsteps.

 

I'm sure even if it was an unspoken desire Obi-Wan had enough insight into Anakin to determine for himself that he would've wanted Luke to have his lightsaber.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

I don't at all think Lucas was obligated to not add things. I do think that said addition (and what looks like deliberate subversion of prior established elements) plays a part in the difficulties of some fans. I don't think you and I are disagreeing.

"I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong. My pride has had terrible consequences for the galaxy." - Ben Kenobi, RotJ script.

At best, we're not supposed to blame anyone but Anakin and Palpatine as the story is now. But that appears to have been different in the past. (Though Lucas did say in an interview that Qui-Gon was wrong, and if I recall, dangerous, in his decision-making, so maybe we are meant to blame him too).

I dunno. I can't account for them, just for me. I do think there is an element of what you describe; some people would probably never be satisfied with, or able to appreciate, anything.

I know the quotes you mean here. But I don't agree with the premise that the OT even has a "straight good vs evil tone." Of the OT films, ANH has the closest to that tone, though it also has Han going through a kind of redemption arc. In addition, the later films' merging of Annikin Skywalker and Darth Vader, the depiction of Luke's danger of falling to the dark side, Obi-Wan's lesson that "the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"... these things emphasized, to me at least, a decidedly more murky worldview. And that's one of the things I like most about these films. So I'm not sure where this notion that I would want the PT to match something simpler comes from, because I don't think the OT as a whole has that approach either.

This is a great point, and one I'm not sure I've considered in much detail before.

If, for example, Anakin's arc in the PT had made him a 'Chosen One,' but put its emphasis on him not knowing his origins, him agonizing over feelings of obligation to a vague 'prophecy' but perhaps not even knowing what he was really supposed to do, etc, that could have been fascinating. And I don't think there would be as much groaning and gnashing of teeth over disconnects with the OT (though there would be some - I really would have liked to see something closer to what had been built up in the OT and subsequent Intertrilogy years) were that kind of exploration to have taken place, because that would flesh out the ideas that were introduced, instead of just mentioning them.

Though I think there probably was enough nascent (or even explicit) thematic, character, and plot material in the backstory to chew on, without even having to add more. But that's just my opinion.

Agree. Though for me, Qui-Gon is one of the changes that actually works alright. Probably because Liam Neeson does a great job, and the character simply is Obi-Wan Kenobi in his prime. It still grates and doesn't feel quite right when I try to picture it while watching ESB or ROTJ. But I'm glad this portrayal exists, nonetheless.

As I'm thinking about it, perhaps the most jarring things are the ones that change or add to the mythos at large, yet seem to lead down rabbit holes with logical issues.

Or changed/added but incompletely explored. I agree.

You know what might be an example, at least partially, of this principle of different handling of the same basic material? The RotS novel. It appears to be pretty beloved, even and especially among fans who were left cold by the film. I haven't yet read it, so I don't know, but it could simply be the handling is more deft in the book, or it could be that a novel allows more space to deal with things. The latter possibility could be seen to tie into the OP's notion of 'TMIS.'

 

Your original post was perfectly clear. Of course you weren't intending to imply such an absurd conclusion. But that's one of only two ways your proposition would contain any informational value. It would be false, of course, but at least you'd actually be saying something.

The only other way the statement would have any value is if creative limitations demonstrably led to superior outcomes more often than they led to inferior outcomes. I doubt such a thing could ever really be quantifiable, but even just thinking about it casually, I think it's pretty clear that that probably isn't true. So, like I said: What value does the statement have? What does it actually tell us about.....anything? That's what I'm asking.

 

Lol. Okay.

 

I learned long ago that philosophy was often a waste of my time.

 

Actually I think you may have misunderstod the point that was being made.
What was said was:

Outcome wasn't mentioned at all. It simply said that limitations can be a boon to creativity.

I can give an example from my work that attests to this.
One of the projects my students are given is to build a model bridge from some straws, some paper and glue. And this bridge should then be able to withstand a certain amount of stress. Their resources are limited and thus they are forced to be creative.
Had they been given a huge amount of material then the project would have been very easy.

I can also give a film example, Monty Pythons The Holy Grail.
Had they had a big budget they would have gotten horses for all the actors and taught them how to ride.
They couldn't so they were forced to be creative and we got coconuts instead.
So not only did they save money, they also created a gag.
Terry Gilliam, one of the directors said that had they gotten a big budget, all they would have done would have been a mediocre epic. Instead, they had to be creative and the film was better as result.

It is not as simple as "Lower budget = Better film" nor does the reverse apply "Bigger budget = Better film".
So if the issue is about trying to prove something then all you need is a few examples of films with a low budget where that low budget gave a better result than a high budget would.
That would show that more money =/= better film. It would not show that little money = better film.

Your argument about 3 dollars wasn't very useful to the discussion because with 3 dollars there would have been NO SW film. So 3 dollars wouldn't give a better/worse film, it would give no film at all.

The point that MOC Yak Face tried to make is that limitations can make you more creative..
For a film, limitations doesn't have to be in terms of budget, it can also be in running time.
If the story a person wants to tell is 5 hours long, should the film be that long?
If not then the writer has to think the story through and condense material and perhaps remove things that are not 100% needed.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

True and as the story evolved, we saw that even Yoda wasn't immune to losing a Jedi as we saw with Dooku. Which was a smart idea as it leaves the blame where it should be on the one who fails to learn, versus the one who fails to teach. The part about Qui-gon is that Lucas was saying that it was dangerous to take Anakin away, but then it was right in the end because of who he was.

 

I think it very clearly adds to both story and character. For Anakin, Obi-Wan and the Jedi.

What it doesn't do is overplay it in your face which is exactly the Star Wars way.

It's no different than when Luke finds out Vader is his father. He doesn't go off on Yoda and Obi-Wan and ask them lots and lots and lots of questions and goes on about it incessantly. That Vader is a cyborg is barely actually touched upon in the movies.

We don't get huge expositional explanations of all of this backstory. What we get are snippets of information played out over a story that is in motion.

This is the whole point of the way the movies have always worked. All sorts of things happen in-between the movies and the scences that we don't get to see.

It amazes me that the same method that is used for all the movies but for one trilogy it's the wrong way and for the other it's the right way.

The only real difference is that the PT story is far more complex so obviously the "missing" information in-between is far more than the same for the OT even though there is a TON missing from in-between ANH and TESB which the new comics are filling in officially for the first time.

 

I suppose it depends upon how casually you decide to think about it. I'll offer a couple of examples from two sports. Mike Tyson. He had a limitation. For a heavyweight boxer he is remarkably short. So, he had power, he had speed but....he and his coach had to find a way to overcome the limitations he had (mainly reach) and the result was one of the most explosive and phenomenal fighters of all time. His tactics had to be explosive, based around body punches and well-practiced combinations and getting into the space of his opponent. It made for an immensely aggressive, pressing style. Tyson's limiting attribute, and his and his coach's response to that is what made Tyson the fighter he was.

Back in the fifties F1 was all about engine power. The engines were seated in the front of pretty primitive, rigid contructions. The Cooper's (father and son) had started racing small tubular-framed 500cc racers in British club racing, and then started working with a company who made fire engine pumps to produce 'racing' engines from those devices..slowly enlarging the until they were nearly F1 size units. Ferrari had money to throw at their designs, Cooper didn't. They relied upon what they knew. Light tubular-frames and the engine between the rear axle and the driver. Cooper changed the face of F1. Despite being down on power on their rivals their lightweight, well-balanced cars won the World Championship two years running and within a couple of years everybody was following suit.

Limitation generally focuses minds on getting results from what you have, having what appears to be limitless resources tends to make people..profligate.

 

Yeah, there are plenty of examples from various fields and levels of endeavour. Burt Munro and John Britten are another two who spring to mind straight away.

 

I disagree. It had no effect at all on Anakin as a character as he never talks about it and what motivates him is his attachments, fear of loss and power. It doesn't seem to have occupied his mind or been something he thought about. The prophecy say he is supposed to kill the Sith, that is not something he needs a prophecy to do. The only reason he doesn't kill Palpatine in RotS or doesn't let Mace kill him, is Padme. He fears to loose her. Remove her and Anakin would not need a prophecy to kill the Sith.
Or take RotJ, did Vader kill Palpatine to save his son or did he do it to fulfill the prophecy? If the latter then I think it would severely weaken the story and Vader's redemption.

As for Obi-Wan and the Jedi. Qui-Gon wanted to train Anakin because of the prophecy, that is a plot purpose, not story or character. The only character bit is maybe that Qui-Gon has more faith in the prophecy and Anakin than the rest of the Jedi. But he also knows him better than all the other Jedi.
Obi-Wan trains Anakin, not because if the prophecy but because of his promise to Qui-Gon.
He and the other Jedi mention the prophecy a couple of times and he yells about it to a dismembered Anakin in RotS, that is pretty much it.
The Jedi seemed unsure about the prophecy/Anakin in TPM and they sort of went with it and in RotS they are back to doubting it. Then it is forgotten.

The OT establishes some things that are then developed and adds to the story and the characters.
In the PT, the prophecy did neither.

It is very different.
First imagine the OT minus the Vader is Luke's father bit.
That would first have an impact on the characters of Luke, Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader.
I hesitate to add Leia as her being Vader's daughter isn't really dealt with in the films.
Second it had an impact on the story and the resolution of Luke's journey to become a Jedi, the challenges he had to face and overcome and also the death of the Emperor.
You could certainly have done the OT without it but the OT would have been quite different.
As for the cyborg bit, we see enough to figure out that Vader is part man and part machine, Obi-Wan even says it. But Luke has also lost his hand and replaced with a robotic hand. Then in RotJ, after he cuts of Vader's robotic hand and he looks at his own robotic hand, he realizes that he is becoming Vader. So an aspect of Vader is established and then it comes into play at the climax of Luke's journey.

Not so with the prophecy in the PT. You can remove it altogether and almost nothing changes.
Anakin is just uniquely gifted and Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan thinks he could make a good jedi and wants to train him. The council first says no because he is too old but they are later impressed with his command of the Force and Obi-Wan basically issues an ultimatum, "I will train him, whether you agree or not." Anakin's issues of fear of loss and attachments are unchanged as are his actions in AotC. In RotS simply remove the few lines about the prophecy and the Jedi still tell Anakin to spy on Palpatine, Anakin joins him to save Padme and everything plays out is before.

In short, the prophecy is mostly a plot point, not a part of the story and the effect it has on the characters is mostly plot related, why Anakin is trained for ex.

Ex Harvey Dent dying at the end of Dark Knight could have been just a plot point if not for his earlier line, "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." That makes it a part of the story and the themes explored by the story.

As for Luke, the Vader reveal has an impact on him in ESB, he is almost broken by it.
Far more than the prophecy affected Anakin's character. Then in RotJ he does ask Yoda and Obi-Wan about it and why Obi-Wan lied. They also talk about what he is supposed to do now and he says he can't kill his own father. The Jedi never talk to Anakin about the prophecy or what he should do. On Endor Luke tells Leia about it and explains why he has to give himself up to Vader, which he then does. So Luke gives himself up because Vader is his father, would he have done that if Vader had been his father's murderer?

With the prophecy we get next to nothing. We hear about it in TPM but not what it means or anything much. In AotC Anakin is called the chosen one, that is about it. Then in RotS the Jedi start to doubt the prophecy and it seems that "Balance of the Force" = "Kill all Sith."
So basically the PT does this;
"There is prophecy and Anakin is the one."
"Yes?"
"Oh wait, maybe not...forget I said anything."


As for films, films tend to focus on what is important for the story and the characters and leave minor stuff unsaid or as quick references.
Ex, in RotJ the rescue of Han was pretty important so quite some time was spent with that. Some might say a bit too much. Imagine instead that the film had started with Han already free and they just mentioned that they saved him from Jabba. Would that work? I doubt it.

The prophecy is apparently hugely important as it makes Anakin into the divine savior, the only one who can defeat and destroy the darkness and the most important Jedi alive. But nothing much comes of it.
The Matrix films did more with the prophecy and chosen one things and that was quite interesting, the sequels had other flaws however. Same with the Harry Potter books. Something was done about it. And there the point was made that Harry didn't fight Voldemort because of some prophecy, he would have done that anyway because that is the kind of person he is.

I don't know what you mean in the last paragraph but to me, the PT tried too hard in lesser areas and not enough in the areas that really matter. The OT did it's job far better in my view. The focus was the characters and the story was quite simple, which doesn't make it bad. Exposition was handled well and many scenes managed to do several things at once. For ex the DS conference scene. That establishes the threat the rebels pose, the dissolving of the senate, introduces Tarkin, shows the relationship Vader has with Tarkin and few of the other officers and gives another example of his power.

[/QUOTE]


I can agree that the plot in the PT is more complex/complicated but that is one reason why I think the PT works less well. The OT had a simple story so you don't need to spend that much time on details, the Empire is the Evil Empire. Quick and simple, they are bad guys.
ANH is basically, "The heroes along with the good wizard rescue the princess from evil warlock's castle." Again, the OT isn't bad for being a simple story and it was very creative by changing the setting from fantasy/fairy-tale to outer space. And it did unexpected things by having the evil bad guy be the father of the hero. The writing doesn't need to be convoluted, intricate or very specific.

If you have a complicated story then this type of writing won't work. It needs to be thought through and mapped out in advance. The details get much more important and things you could gloss over in a simple story might actually need to be addressed in a complicated one. Lucas tried to write the PT in the same way as the OT but since the story was that different, I don't think it worked as well.

People who defend the PT quite often invoke one or several EU books, Lucas commentary or the databank. "Oh, this thing is explained in that book." I shouldn't have to read 10-15 books in for order the story in the films to make sense.
That don't mean I can't follow the story or understand what is happening, it just means to that the story is somewhat poorly told. Important details are glossed over or ignored and the characters comes across as stupid or doing things that make no sense. Or rather they do things in order for the plot to work. I can see what Lucas is trying to say but I don't think he says it very well.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface