I feel like the one thing the prequels needed to do (and IMO it didn't do it nearly well enough) was to show how Anakin was personally responsible for the state of the galaxy in the OT. It should have shown that Palpatine's schemes, brilliant though they were, would have failed and he would have been defeated by the Jedi were it not for Anakin's betrayal. Without Anakin, there would have been no Death Stars, Star Destroyers or stormtroopers reigning terror over the galaxy and the whole plot of the OT would have been averted.

I know there was that scene in ROTS where Anakin saves Palpatine from Mace, but I think it needed to be a deliberate decision on the part of Anakin rather than an impulsive one. I basically imagined the plot of ROTS being that the Jedi were putting together the clues and were on the verge of discovering Sidious's identity, when Anakin begins to sabotage their efforts from within, and by the time the Jedi realize he's a traitor it's already too late.

The other thing that the PT needed to do was to expand on the "Obi-Wan once thought as you did" line in ROTJ. We needed to see Obi-Wan make an attempt to convince Anakin back to the light side, and we needed to see him almost succeed...but yeah, that didn't happen.

 

Aye we needed Clone Wars

 

What was the point?? Seriously? Hmm, let's see...

• To tell the story of the Clone Wars, for starters
• To tell the story of Anakin Skywalker, and why he fell and ultimately turned back to the light side.
• To show the rise of Palpatine, the Empire, stormtroopers, how the Skywalkers were connected to the Lars' family.

I love it when detractors try to claim that the OT only centered on "only one" central character. Funny, because the films I watched were all centered around three: Han, Luke, and Leia. And one could make a good argument for Vader as well. People talk about how many characters come and go in the Prequel Trilogy, but literally characters come and go nearly as often in the OT: Jabba, Greedo, Boba Fett, Tarkin, Lando, Admiral Ackbar, even the Emperor himself. People put blinders on in an attempt to make a point, in my opinion.

 

GL wanted to tell a story about a civilization in the twilight of its golden age, a thousand year conspiracy on the verge of completion, a society of mystic warriors trying to be good in a time of injustice, and a child of prophecy destined to shape the fate of a galaxy. It turned out pretty good imo.

 

I don't even know why people still keep responding to an obvious bait/troll question. I have yet to read an adequate reply to the counter-question "what's the necessity of Star Wars or.... (fill in any random movie at all)?" I mean, seriously?

 

Everything was clear in the PT. The point was the fall of the Jedi and creation of the Empire. There was no hero in the PT, the bad guys won the series. Qui Gon, Obi Wan & Padme lost. Anakin won only by switching sides. The PT in summary is the fall of the Jedi and the Republic.

 

Good topic.

I actually quite like the PT for its portrayal that Anakin was (although not innocent) deceived and manipulated, rather than that he was the one that the entire success of the empire was hinging on. The idea that his decision to save Sidious and turn to the Darkside is impulsive is great IMO, cos it shows how just the littlest decision, for the smallest of reasons can affect SO many. It's also more relatable; the idea that any one of us could've made desperate (and perhaps bad) decisions to protect our loved ones and/or control things, and IMO it's a lesson for us all about the nature of choices vs. consequences.

Also, with Darth Sidious being the one who's really responsible for orchestrating the whole thing really fleshes out the idea of the Sith as tenacious masterminds of deception-the concept of which, I quite enjoy.

I feel that what most made the PT necessary was to add depth to Darth Vader's story, as well as other characters-including the state of the galaxy, the father son relationship, Obi-Wan, all of it. The PT makes the OT so much more enjoyable for me. Without them, the OT would seem to me like just another trilogy of great movies (which is how I saw SW before the PT).

 

The point of them was to show how Anakin fell to the dark side and to show what the clone wars were.

 

I don't understand why this "needed" to be the case. It's sufficient that Anakin could have stopped it all from happening but chose not to. Instead he chose to help the villain enact his plans.

I also don't understand why it "needed" to be this way. Anakin made an impulsive decision, but afterwards he made a deliberate decision. He felt trapped by his initial decision, but he wasn't actually trapped. He simply chose to take the easy path rather than the hard one.

I don't think there was any psychologically realistic way to depict Anakin's descent which didn't include at least a little element of rash thinking.

The PT shows how Obi-Wan cared for Anakin and believed in him wholeheartedly even when others severely doubted him. It's also clear that Obi-Wan is still conflicted when he faces Anakin on Mustafar, and even up to the point he reluctantly deals the fatal blow.

 

Lucas did it for marketing
I knew that Star Wars would sell like hot cakes even when the prequel movies do not have a good quality

 

An allegorical retrospective to Lucas' life? Anakin features many similarities to George Lucas: Racings, tinkering with technology, building an empire, ruining his marriage, ...

 

I think the PT and the clone wars has shown what a rich concept the clone wars and anakins story is.

Yes you can talk about Georges execution if you like but it can't be denied he has created something fairly rich out of it.

 

To show how an innocent person can transform into a monster due to rash decisions