PT What Was the Point of The Prequels? Topic: Necessity of them

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

 

I feel like if the birth of the Empire hinged on this one moment where Anakin fumbled this one impulsive decision, that doesn't really feel particularly powerful. Sure, Anakin goes on to slaughter the younglings and that's horrific to the audience and the in-universe characters, but ultimately that's not very consequential. I think if Anakin had done more things to actually help Palpatine win, that would have cemented his fall to the dark side more convincingly.

 

You do have Palpatine subverting the prophecy though, turning the Jedi's chosen one and foretold Sith-killer into his own seemingly permanent slave, so the Sith will never fall. From that point of view his plan hinged on Anakin not being a Jedi.

 

The problem with needing Anakin to be more specifically responsible, more decisively evil, is that it makes Luke look like a fool for believing there to still be good in him. As structured, you have the image of a cherubic Anakin in Episode I to cling to as he messes up in Episode II and III, so that when Luke says "There is still good in him" in VI, it has some basis in the narrative (WHICH IT DIDN'T IN '83).

Which, by the way, is my answer to the original question. Return of the Jedi creates the necessity for them, because the idea of a redeemable Vader comes out of absolutely nowhere in that film.

 

I'll have "obvious troll questions" for $300, Alex.

 

Troll or not, at least the topic is one that can lead to an interesting discussion.

 

@Jedi Princess :

Can you please elaborate on the bolded part why you think this?

 

@Jedi Princess :

Can you please elaborate on the bolded part why you think this?

If I may say so, I think it makes a difference, if one views the redemption sub-plot re: Vader with Vader as character in isolation , versus viewing it terms of Luke's character arc for the OT - in which it can be made to work, even if it's seems* to "ret-con" the duel from the previous film.

*did Luke merely misinterpret Vader being unable to kill him in TESB as being evidence of this "good", and was it that and that alone which made Luke think that way?

 

I can.

The Empire Strikes Back concludes with Vader's infamous revelation, after which he says: "Luke, you can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny. Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son." There is nothing GOOD in this statement, it is still the selfish desires of an evil man. He tries a few more times, telepathically, before the end of the movie, but the request doesn't change.

If Luke has had further contact with his father between the movies, Return of the Jedi doesn't indicate it. There is that deleted scene, but there it's still just "Luke, come with me" (and it's deleted). When Obi-Wan and Luke finally discuss the truth about Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan says "Anakin was a good friend," but he also says "the good man who was your father was destroyed." When Luke says "There IS still good in him," it's in response to Obi-Wan saying "I thought I could train him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong."

I do not understand why Luke says that after what Obi-Wan just told him. "I can't kill my own father," sure, and maybe "There IS still good in him" is just Luke saying THAT without being so direct. But we in the audience certainly have been given no reason, at that point, to believe there is still good in Vader, Obi-Wan just told us as much.

The back end of the film does a lot with Vader's performance to sell you on the idea, but it's still an idea that comes out of nowhere at that time.

To be clear, this has never stopped me from loving Return of the Jedi, I have just found it works better as the end of the I - VI sequence than it necessarily did the IV - VI.

 

Absolutely agree with this.

 

Vaders redemption is a plot decision made to the satisfy audience expectation of a happy ending, and is another example of the series touching its low points when it chooses to pander - particuarly to its child audience! (think of the [insert droid factory action scene here] or [ill try spinning!]). Lukes hope of good seems to be something borne from ignorance and hope rather than the facts of what occured (i wonder what he really would have thought had he been present to witness what obiwan witnessed on that hologram). Maybe thats part of the point - that only ignorance can enable you to see past the actual - but that doesnt appear to be what the film wants to get across. No, it seems to play it quite straight - that you should look for good in even the most murdering and heinous of people. And that that those people will not only be adorned by their blood relations, but also by the cosmic force itself!

God ROTJ is so bad.

 

And yet it works for me. Maybe it's the performances, maybe it's the music, maybe I'm just a gullible viewer. But when Luke throws away his lightsaber and declares, "I am a Jedi, like my father before me," after EVERYTHING we've seen these characters go through, I - VI? When Anakin finally learns to let go, like his mother tried to teach him all the way back in Episode I? I think it's beautiful.

 

"Vader's redemption" by itself does not guaranty a happy ending, though. Say he saves Luke, for example, and everything else stays the same, but except that Han - or even Leia - is killed.(!) Is that scenario still going to "satisfy the audience expectation of a happy ending"?

I believe Lucas had more compelling reasons for doing it than merely what you suggest. I believe that a redemption of sorts was planned for his character for some time prior to ROTJ, but admittedly it was not going to be the same story as it ended up being in ROTJ. Lucas at one time thought of the Vader character/persona merely being a "evil spell" that was put on Luke's father, and that Luke - with even Ben's help (!) - was going to break the spell and bring his father back. The implication of the spell would have been that Luke's father didn't necessarily become evil of his own free-will. Then you have Producer Gary Kurtz, in an old interview, giving the impression that he thought Vader's offer to Luke at the end of Empire was genuine, and further that he thought that the next film would continue this, and that this really was the "redemption" that was going to be in play for the story. In other words, by teaming up with his son against the Emperor, they were going to "right the wrongs" that had been done.

If anything, "pandering to the child audience" in this case would have meant keeping Vader a villain, certainly not 'redeeming' him, and not even showing a 'conflicted' Vader, let alone having him save Luke - who was the hero - from the Emperor. Sorry, but I don't think see the Luke and Vader dynamic in the film being geared toward kids.

It's funny that you bring up the hologram from the PT. I've seen it argued by some - in this very thread, for example - that if anything, the PT strengthens ROTJ's Vader's redemption/Luke feeling the "good" still left in him. I have also witnessed the opposite argument: that the PT sort of 'muddies' or even hurts the redemption story. for example, "it was borne out of ignorance (on Luke's part). And if one thinks about it, it's kind of a 'win-win' for Lucas regarding the OT and the PT, in that people will forever be discussing and arguing how the two trilogies relate to one another (which points back to the topic of this thread).

- "that you should look for good even in the most murdering and heinous of people" - Well, not quite, since in the exact same story/film, this message that you allude to doesn't seem to apply to the Emperor, for example. So I don't think that's what the message necessarily was.

It's good to keep in mind, as well that for Lucas and co., with the OT, as much as it was meant to work as a whole, he still wanted each film to work on their own as well. With that in mind, perhaps he thought that ROTJ would not have worked as "TESB part II."