PT What would you add/subtract to make the Prequels better?

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by DarthEmpron, Sep 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    What's wrong with the chosen one prophecy? Well, I used the wrong terminology, I just realized. Immaculate conception has to do with the religious belief of being born sinless, not a person has no human father. Anyway, what's wrong with a miraculous birth for Vader? It just sounds very cool, and makes his character more, interesting. It sounds pretty cool.

    Vader being the chosen one is good, because, it is a darker, more evil, yet good in the end, version of a savior figure. Darth vader is a very scary figure, with that samurai helmet, deep voice, mechanical breathing, robotic suit, a bald, burned up scarred face underneath his helmet, and he was once a very normal looking guy with long brown hair, evil yellow eyes, and that dark mysterious look on Hayden Christensen's face. That character being the "chosen one" sounds very cool. I know chosen ones are very cliche, but if you do it with a good twist, such as the chosen one becoming evil and disfigured, then it becomes more original. It makes Return of the Jedi more of a fallen messiah turning back to the light side and bringing balance to the force. It makes Return of the Jedi, when Luke unmasks his bald pale father, and has a celebration on Endor, much more of a rich story, with the chosen one in it. But that's just my opinion.

    As for the miraclous birth thing, it just makes sense with the messiah archetype, and it makes Darth vader, anakin skywalker father of luke, much more interesting.
  2. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Our mileage for what constitutes "cool" and "interesting" obviously varies greatly. My distaste for it has nothing to do with it being "cliche." As I mentioned before, I don't believe in destiny, I believe in choices--and people make good and bad choices without any divine intervention whatsoever. I also think that the term "destiny" is often used in real life as a means of avoiding both ownership and responsibility for one's choices.

    Without the Chosen One prophecy, Anakin is a talented Jedi who chooses in ROTS to turn his back on his fellow Jedi and join Palpatine. He makes a terrible choice which has consequences for the entire galaxy, and while there are many complicated factors that contributed to that choice, ultimately the choice should be Anakin's--not a case of "the Force made him do it" or "he had to do it in order to fulfill the prophecy."

    And in ROTJ, he surprises everyone by responding to the unconditional love of his son, returning to the Light, and making the choice to overthrow Palpatine, even though that choice would result in his death.

    Again, I much prefer a storyline in which Anakin can be fully credited for making that choice, as opposed to the notion that "he was destined to do that anyway and he just fulfilled it."

    As far as Anakin's father--he could have been killed, Shmi could have had a one-night stand, there are multiple options. Anakin being a space Jesus takes far more from the story than it adds.
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  3. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    I don't see it making it more interesting. I find it just makes it more contrived. It is interesting enough (and more easy to empathize with them) when normal people make choices that lead them to different impasses and successes. I don't need a prophecy or anything to have me believe a guy can be really strong in the Force and run into all sorts of issues that include making him become one of the worst of the worst. But obviously the entire will of the force thing works from some people. I think it works better when kept more vague and loose but that's just me (and a handful of people I know!)
  4. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    This is all a matter of preference over the story. I prefer anakin to be a space jesus. Return of the Jedi being about a space messiah who turned to evil coming back to good and fullfilling his destiny. Well, I do think that destiny is not a good idea for stories in general, but it worked for Star wars. Yoda said the prophecy was misread. If anakin decided to, he could have defeated sidious in episode 3 and been the chosen one then. Instead, he joined the very thing he was destined to destroy and became a disfigured cyborg samurai, working with Palpatine and the death star for over 20 years, before fulfilling his destiny.

    The chosen one isn't always going to be a totally good, handsome, young hero. For anakin, it could have been, but he chose to do it as a disfigured, pale, bald, armored and masked cyborg who did a lot of evil things before finally turning to good in the end. Evil was defeated, just not the way the jedi expected the chosen one to do it.

    Also, what's wrong with anakin having no human father, and being the son of the Force, and luke and leia grandchildren of the Force? It sounds pretty cool if you ask me.
  5. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Again, our mileage on "cool" obviously varies. @sinkie summed it up for me. I can relate better to Anakin as a normal human, albeit with a strong gift, who makes choices. Anakin having no father just adds another contrived plot point designed to make him superhuman/half-divine.

    Part of what makes the Chosen One prophecy so contrived is the implication that ordinary people aren't capable of greatness.

    Without the prophecy, ROTJ is about a human being who turned evil, realized the error of his ways, and came back to the good, encouraged by the son who did not stop loving him even after realizing the evil he had done. As far as I'm concerned, that is still what ROTJ is about because I ignore all the prophecy and destiny talk. IMO my version makes a much better story than a demi-god of some sorts who overthrew the evil Emperor because...*drum roll*...he was destined to overthrow the evil Emperor before he was born because his god-sperm-donor said so. To me there is no story in that.

    OK. Your point is what exactly? I don't think anyone here has posted that "Anakin shouldn't be the Chosen One because he was fugly with all those scars and burnt parts."

    And regardless of whether Anakin is a demigod, evil was still defeated--it was just defeated by an extraordinary human being as opposed to someone with divine conception.
    FARK2005 likes this.
  6. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    I usually don't like messiah archetypes, because they're cliche, but, if done in a cool, creative, and different way, they can be the exact opposite-awesome. For instance, Luke. It doesn't matter if George Lucas intentionally created similarities, but they're there. A boy with humble background, living with adopted parents, who becomes a hero and an adventurer, and he redeems Vader in the end, by urging him to turn away from the darkside.

    But anakin is more of a direct messiah figure, more explicit. He was a prophecized, half human half divine being with no father, destined to destroy a dark supernatural evil. But he joins the evil whom his destiny was to destroy, did atrocities, and became a space samurai cyborg with a bald pale burned face, and did destroy evil in the galaxy, 20 years too late, but he still fullfilled the prophecy/destiny. I think it's awesome.

    Anakin had the chance to do so as a young man, but he chose not to. He did it later on in life, in a dramatic temptation scene between the devil figure who brought him to the darkside, and his son, now a young man, who faced the same temptation as his father anakin once did, but, who refused and remained pure. Anakin did what he always wanted to do in his life-save someone close to him, and defeated the last sith lord, breaking the cycle of the Rule of Two. After that, his soul lived on in eternity as his younger self with his jedi friends and his wife.

    While I generally don't like destiny plotlines, if destiny involves a person taking a darker path to fullfill their fate, then the story becomes interesting and has a plot twist. Anakin was a messiah, just not the 100% good messiah, he joined the bad guys for some time.
  7. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Also, make the star wars prequels far less of a political thriller in space and make it a classic good vs. evil superhero type story. Show han solo's planet coreilla too.
  8. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Though it's open to interpretation, there's really no particular indication that Force ghost Anakin is "with Padme" or with anyone else who didn't achieve the ghosting ability. It is said in ROTS that the dead transform into the Force. The Force ghosts seem to hang around and retain their identities in a way that others do not.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Oct 21, 2012
  9. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Give a better explanation for why padme died. Had she lived and not "lost the will to live", she could have turned anakin back to the light side of the force and away from the darkside, theoretically. That never could have happened, because if it's a prequel anakin has to turn to the darkside and Luke eventually redeems him, but it still makes no sense both for Vader's darkside living and for herself that she died of a broken heart. Vader's force choke or force lightning should have been padme's cause of death.

    Anakin going mad for 20 years as darth vader in the originals because he was grieved at his wife's death makes no sense, because, if she died of a broken heart because of his turn to the darkside and him committing atrocities in Palpatine's orders, then it's his fault for not repenting quick enough that she died and he's evil.
  10. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    I'm sure it is just phrasing but ROTJ (and the OT in general) wasn't about a messiah as anakinfansince1983 said before, you could read it quite differently then (and still can if you choose). Now, sure it has some kind of weird dark messiah thing going on.

    But ultimately, for almost the very reasons you see to like it, I don't. It is way too obvious, way to in your face. Having a messianic figure is one thing, or a hero or a mentor or whatever archetype we choose, practically spelling it out is another and that's when it becomes less interesting for me because I feel like I'm being spoon-fed. Of course, there may not be much room for interpreting the various archetypes in the OT, but at least there is the sense of freedom, that you discover what they are rather than being told.
    Last edited by sinkie, Oct 21, 2012
  11. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7

    You're missing a few points here.

    1. Anakin went mad for 20 years in great part because he thought he had killed her in his attack. IOW, what you said you wanted to happen, was exactly what he thought happened. He had no idea she had "lost the will to live" or that the medical droid said she was perfectly healthy.

    2. Along with point #1, a great part of the reason he went mad for 20 years is because in a momentary heat of anger--a momentary snap and lapse of judgment--he indirectly caused the very thing he was trying so hard to prevent. Or so he believed.

    I'm not sure why you're so eager for Vader to use Force lightning. What exactly would be the point in that, other than a very contrived "Hey, cool villain move, let's insert it in random places!" I saw ROTJ on its first run in theaters, and seeing Palpatine use Force lightning had a huge impact on me. If Vader had been using it every time he got constipated or someone looked at him wrong, the impact would be lost.

    3. Padme didn't lose the will to live/die of a broken heart because of what Anakin did, although I'm sure his behavior on Mustafar was the straw that broke the proverbial bantha's back. I believe she died of a broken heart because she saw her entire life's work--the work of democracy--get tossed into a cesspool like yesterday's garbage, thrown away by the very man she worked to put into office, a man who had been her political mentor and trusted advisor. In the ROTS novelization, in the "this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause" scene, she tells Bail Organa to keep voting for Palpatine because at this point he had no choice, but as for herself, she didn't think she would live much longer. And that was before she had any idea that Anakin had turned. Even without that dialogue from the novel, I believe that was the scene in which she began losing the will to live. Her asking Anakin to run away with her was a last-ditch effort on her part; had they gone into hiding, with him on the Light Side, she could have protected her children. Otherwise, there was no way for her to protect them as long as she remained alive.

    So Anakin's actions contributed in a way but let's not insult Padme's character by assuming she was part of a lame-ass "damsel in distress" story. Her actions in the previous two movies and the deleted ROTS scenes were proof that she was hardly that.
  12. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4


    No, no, no! Oh no! The idea of the PT being an Original Trilogy 2.0 is a big mistake to me. A classic good vs. evil superhero type of story for the PT? Nooo! I'm sorry, but I feel that would have ruined the story for me. There is no complexity in that type of storytelling. I tolerate its presence in the OT, because even that trilogy also had its share of complexity. But I don't think I could have tolerated such a story for the PT. I'm sorry, but I can't.
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  13. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    There is no evidence I have ever seen that says the PT couldn't have up-ed its fun factor and gone with a much more straightforward storytelling approach and been forced to sacrifice the politics/intrigue on this straw man alter of the OTs apparent oversimplicity.

    There were ways to get the same information and sense of a plot etc across while still having us not be bored by lots of "walks in hallways with exposition" or "council/senate/office meetings". There was an action story to be told and that in its unfolding we, along with characters, find stuff out that is founded on emotional involvement. For me, the moments of action tied to story (eg Kenobi on Kamino) are some of the few that actually work in the PT.

    The OT as "action-only" (or at least action, classic storytelling only) misses the point. The OT was not just this, it was only that it used this as a vehicle to rope us in and bond us with the characters.

    The PT approach is to let us in on all the mechanics that will eventually lead to swashbuckling that for the most part happens off camera or happens only after a long set up. I think GL proved that he's up to the task of developing a complex story but perhaps not in telling it as effectively as it could be by moving certain elements up front to move things along and allow the exposition to come about through the challenges and actions the character undertake.
    Last edited by sinkie, Oct 22, 2012
    MrFantastic74 likes this.
  14. Mnhay27 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 1
    I couldn't agree more. What makes the PT so great is the fact that it is different to the OT and yet still feels like Star Wars.

    If I was still 10 years old in 1999 then maybe I would've wanted more of the same clear cut and simplistic morality. But I was a grown man when TPM hit the big screen and I welcomed the different approach because there was so much more to keep a mature mind entertained. People complain about the political stuff being "boring" and "confusing" but I just don't see this at all. To me, it's extremely entertaining to see how the republic becomes the Empire as the result of expertly manipulated democratic process rather than through a simple-minded coup as I had expected as a kid. And as much as the PT is the story of Anakin's fall to the dark side it is also an account of Palpatine's rise to power and the fall of the republic. I think it's a shame that more people couldn't enjoy this side of the story but I have to say that I'm really not surprised. Sadly, most people don't like to think too hard about the movies they watch. Which is why a terrible movie like Transformers raked in waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more cash than a genuinely great film like Dr. Strangelove.
  15. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    I don't find the political stuff boring, I find the package it arrives in boring. There is a difference.

    And for the record, I hate Transformers, love Dr. Strangelove, but don't feel SW fits either of those bills and therefore wish it was like neither. I don't think people being suckers for mindless action films is what is at the heart of the discontent for the PT, at least not by those taking the time to think and post on fan sites.
    Yunners likes this.
  16. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    I take back my original statement about Vader using force lightning. For a combination of reasons put together, it would just wrong for the story. The force choke is Vader's classic move from the original trilogy, so, seeing it done again in the prequels would be way better and cooler, to see him do that darkside power in a non-cyborg, younger, version of Vader. Vader using force lightning would be too cheesy and out of place, it's the emperor's signature ability.

    What's an original trilogy "2.0"? Sometimes simpler is better. Too much politics in a good. vs evil. outer space story kind of ruins the purpose of it being space opera. That's just my opinion.
  17. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Also, Morgan freeman should have been in the prequels, as the narrator. He has one of the most powerful voices in movie history.
  18. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    There is a reason I don't like too much politics in the prequel trilogy. I don't want good guys to be good and bad guys to be made because of political systems. It's supposed to be a fun adventure in space, and that doesn't go along with it. In marvel and dc comics, the bad guys have a clear obective that the good guys have to stop. In the star wars originals, the empire and the sith had the death star, which, they presumably would have used to destroy more planets across the galaxy is the rebels/jedi didn't stop them, I guess.

    In the prequels, they did mention the Death Star, but it was only for a little while in AOTC, at the end of Episode 3 in construction, which I liked the way it was shown. Episode 3 was supposed to set the stage for the original trilogy, or, more specifically, a New Hope. The Skywalker twins, Luke skywalker, and princess leia, are born, and are with their adopted parents-owen and beru lars on Tattoine and the organas on alderaan. Darth Vader is now the suited, space samurai cyborg with the robot breathing and deep voice from the originals. The star destroyer that looks like the one from episode 5, and all those cold-lifeless, imperial soldiers and army are there, with Vader standing among them like in the originals. Palpatine is now the ugly emperor. Padme is dead. Obi wan and yoda are in hiding, on Tattoine and that swamp planet. The galactic republic and jedi are all gone, and the empire exists now. THe death star is being built.

    Showing the death star in the prequels or ROTS would ruin the concept of "setting the stage" for A New Hope. However, it should have definitley been mentioned and a part of the story. When mace windu fought Palpatine to make sure the Sith didn't take over, when padme was in the senate when palpatine became emperor, obi wan tells padme that anakin turns to the darkside, the emotional talk with vader and padme on mustafar, should not have been about the Galactic Republic being gone with an empire instead. It should have been about them realizing Palpatine's evil plans for the future. Padme had no idea about Alderaan and what the empire would do with it, in the prequels, yet, she died of a broken heart.

    I'm confused on why exactly she lost the will to live.
    Last edited by Lord Tyrannus, Oct 22, 2012
  19. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    I would also keep the Senate scenes, to show what Leia was talking about in a new hope, but would keep the Jedi code forbidding marriages and emotional closeness to people. Because, in the expanded universe, the new Jedi order with Luke Skywalker encourages marriages and attachments. It seems kind of cool to have a contrast between different time eras in the story. New Jedi allow it, old order of jedi, didn't.

    I liked the Jedi ban on marriages, because, if Anakin's closeness and fear of losing Padme is what led him to the darkside, then the reason he became Darth Vader is because he broke the Jedi rules and got into a Romeo and Juliet esque-relationship (hence the love theme being titled across the stars), the thing that made him turn to evil, which, turned out to be Padme having Luke and Leia.

    He had force visions of her death, which turned him to evil in a self fullfilling prophecy. However, I don't get the real reason the Jedi forbid marriages. If they allowed the Jedi to have emotional attachments, then they would have better counseling to help other jedi deal with fear of loss.
    Last edited by Lord Tyrannus, Oct 22, 2012
  20. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Also, the only reason Anakin and padme seemed to fall in love in the prequels was because of their looks. I would have made their love story more complex than that.
  21. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Ah, that tired old argument again. So if they were both ugly, you would have found their story more convincing?

    The AOTC novelization, which gets inside both characters' heads, does a better job of explaining this than I do but here goes. I'm only going to explain this once (and trying to sway me that their relationship was superficial would be a huge waste of your time, just so you know).

    Anakin knew a girl who had been kind to him when he was younger, and a slave, when very, very few people were kind to him. On the ship in TPM, she reached out to him, understood that he missed his mother and needed comfort, when the rest of the people in his life either overlooked that or condemned him for it. He learned later that this same girl ruled a planet, and did it well. That in a nine-year-old slave kid's eyes had to be pretty awesome. So the friendship was forged. Fast forward ten years later. This same young woman is a well-respected Senator, and she's still his friend. She takes an interest in him personally, asks him about life as a Jedi, knew without being told that his nightmares were about his mother and had sympathy for him, allowed him to vent his frustration with the Jedi without judgment but without endorsing it either.

    Now onto Padme--in TPM she saw Anakin as a sweet, smart kid who could build protocol droids and podracers from spare parts and helped save her planet (which she mentions to her parents in the AOTC deleted scenes). In AOTC she sees a young man who is crazy about her--as Padme Naberrie, not as Senator Amidala--and he is the only one in her life outside her family about whom she can say that. It was very obvious in the Varykino scenes that she enjoyed his company, he made her laugh, and while they talked about her job, it was obvious that Anakin cared about Padme, not the Senator, and he would have cared about Padme even if she really had been merely Queen Amidala's handmaiden.

    Where exactly does the airheaded "he's hawt" or "she's hawt" fit into this? Especially when Padme had had previous boyfriends, and the Outlander Club scene with so many female heads turning in Anakin's direction made it clear that he could have had any woman he wanted, and if this were only about looks, it would have been far easier just to pick up a chick from there?

    The best love relationships are formed out of friendship and understanding, and I believe that if Palpatine had not interfered, Anakin and Padme would have lasted.
  22. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Now it makes more sense to me I guess. Anakin and padme did have a connection to each other. But there were still other things I would have changed with the prequels, such as the political motivations for Padme. I mentioned those above.
    Last edited by Lord Tyrannus, Oct 22, 2012
  23. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    He only knew for a few hours as a little kid, and he met her 10 years later. That doesn't make sense that he thought about her that long after only meeting her for a short time. That's what I find confusing and weird about their relationship.

    Also, this is just my opinion, but Anakin shouldn't have come from Tattoine. Be creative. Make up a new planet. That's what I would have done if I was George Lucas. But then again, Vader coming from Tattoine and luke being raised on father skywalker's home planet kind of makes sense.
  24. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Also, I would've given Tarkin a bigger role in the prequels, not just a cameo at the end of episode 3 to set the stage for a new hope. He should've been a big character in episodes 1, 2, and 3.
  25. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    And I liked the idea of the Emperor and Luke and Leia's mother coming from the same place. Would not have changed that.
Moderators: Bazinga'd
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.