[Magee]

Going into these movies I was looking forward to seeing how powerful a Jedi Anakin was, and how sinister a villain Darth Vader was. After 6 hours I have yet to see either.

[Lord Aquaman]

Going into these movies I was looking forward to seeing how powerful a Jedi Anakin was, and how sinister a villain Darth Vader was. After 6 hours I have yet to see either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're not alone.

[Darth Player]

Vader could have made a career for himself by just entering taken over ships like the Tantive IV in A New Hope and above the sound of laser fire and smoke, yell out "Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!" scaring the bejesus out of everyone.

Every single cool aspect of tthe OT is destroyed in the PT.

[Harvey Globetrotter]

Unless you do what I do and pretend the PT never existed.

[Sagacity]

That's about the only way to get through it.

[Harvey Globetrotter]

Either that or get some Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind-style surgery.

[Casual Fan]

I don't see why you couldn't view the PT as non-canonical. The movies contradict the OT almost gratuitiously.

Turn it around. Supposing you really loved the PT, knew nothing of the OT, then saw the OT. How would you view these "sequels"? Vader is now quite collected and competent, OK maybe he was really trained well by the Emperor in between trilogies. But how did Yoda get to be so wise? There is now a rebellion against the Emperor? What happened to Naboo? Why is Vader suddenly considered redeemable?

I'm not sure if this is deliberate, but to the extent the PT has a coherent message is that the Republic had to go down, that is what happens to corrupt institutions that can't defend themselves, and the Jedi were too self-absorbed to save it. Even then I can't square why Anakin is considered to be so desirable to have on your side. Then suddenly in the OT we get the last remnants of the Republic launching a rebellion more effective than the Republic ever was, and Yoda actually training someone properly. You almost need three new movies to explain the transition.

Best explanation is that when it came time to make the PT, Lucas' interests had moved on from the original conception of "Star Wars", which is fine, but instead of making some new and completely different movies he had to use characters from his original famous movies, even though there is no real plot continuity.

[Magee]

I think that that is all absolutely right. In the PT

The Republic is not worth saving
The Jedi are not worth spit
Anakin is not that impressive

I dont think Lucas' vision changed, I just think he got caught up in telling the story and forgot that he had to present these other themes. He got so caught up in selling toys, CGI, and ridiculous cameos that he forgot that these were three more in a series.

[darth_newmacer]

I think that that is all absolutely right. In the PT

The Republic is not worth saving
The Jedi are not worth spit
Anakin is not that impressive

I dont think Lucas' vision changed, I just think he got caught up in telling the story and forgot that he had to present these other themes. He got so caught up in selling toys, CGI, and ridiculous cameos that he forgot that these were three more in a series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it was "worth" saving. The only reason the Republic was inneffective was because Sidious boggled the Senate with mindless procedures, and with war issues giving him even more power. When one of your players is for the other team, how can you win? (not meant in any "weird" way...)

The problem with the Jedi is basically Yoda does to much fighting and not enough premonitions and seeing the future that is in motion... Besides that, they too like the Senate happened to be bogged down, firstly they're getting shot at (and getting to adventures, one thing Jedi craves not..) and they are being made into generals/warriors, and we all know wars do not make one great!! It stupefies them! They're getting killed left and right... (Plus in all fairness, Qui-Gon was meant to symbolize the fall of the "true" Jedi, and maybe Qui-Gon teaches Yoda to be "wiser" seeing as Yoda is a crackpot in the first three (or middle two whichever...)

I hate the Anakin portrayed on the screen too, whiny bastard! I would defend, but I hate him as well..... He shoulda been a little more "Vader-like".....But how can you do that when you have to shit out lines like: "I wish i could WISH my feelings away" but your Natalie Portman, so I wont!

And truly, Lucas is a Anakin-Vader story all in itslef, great "independant" film-maker makes two awesome sci-fi films (IV,V) Then turns to shit to make a buck or two!

....

This post has been edited by darth_newmacer: 19 July 2005 - 11:23 AM

[ernesttomlinson]

The prequels are empty at the core because George Lucas made two mistakes. First, he decided to make Anakin Skywalker the raison d'etre for the movies. It didn't have to be this way; I have seen speculation here about an alternate set of prequels concerned with the fall of the Jedi and of the Republic in which Anakin / Vader is only a supporting character. Second, having decided to focus his prequels on Anakin, Lucas completely, utterly, hopelessly mishandled the character.

There is absolutely nothing to like about Anakin, nothing. Either he's an obnoxious little movie child for whom everything goes right (oops, blew up the command ship!) or he's a noisome, self-centred, whining little creep. We're supposed to accept on faith that Obi-Wan saw anything likable in Anakin; their great friendship takes place almost entirely off-screen and what we see on-screen is resentment and petty squabbling. "This shows that he's got the Dark Side in him," defenders will say. OK, fine. So where's the Light Side? The only thing that Anakin has going for him is youthful good looks - well, good to some; I think he looks like a totally unappetising, pouting teenager (and I *like* guys.) He's not even that good with the Force from what we actually see.

The prequels will be, I daresay, be remembered mostly as vehicles for special effects because they're so empty at the core. You can't have a tragedy without a hero and Anakin isn't a hero; he's a petulant cypher, whining and slouching his way into a black costume. Is there any sense whatever of tragic loss when Anakin "turns"? No, just a dull feeling of inevitability (and a chuckle at Lucas's hamfisted attempt to *make* us feel tragedy with that ridiculous "NOOOO!")

[Lord Melkor]

I agree. If Anakin was a hero to be admired, his fall would be much more tragic. The new trilogy would be a masterpiece. Now it is only entertaining.

[toadape]

The prequels are empty at the core because George Lucas made two mistakes.  First, he decided to make Anakin Skywalker the raison d'etre for the movies.  It didn't have to be this way; I have seen speculation here about an alternate set of prequels concerned with the fall of the Jedi and of the Republic in which Anakin / Vader is only a supporting character.  Second, having decided to focus his prequels on Anakin, Lucas completely, utterly, hopelessly mishandled the character.

There is absolutely nothing to like about Anakin, nothing.  Either he's an obnoxious little movie child for whom everything goes right (oops, blew up the command ship!) or he's a noisome, self-centred, whining little creep.  We're supposed to accept on faith that Obi-Wan saw anything likable in Anakin; their great friendship takes place almost entirely off-screen and what we see on-screen is resentment and petty squabbling.  "This shows that he's got the Dark Side in him," defenders will say.  OK, fine.  So where's the Light Side?  The only thing that Anakin has going for him is youthful good looks - well, good to some; I think he looks like a totally unappetising, pouting teenager (and I *like* guys.)  He's not even that good with the Force from what we actually see.

The prequels will be, I daresay, be remembered mostly as vehicles for special effects because they're so empty at the core.  You can't have a tragedy without a hero and Anakin isn't a hero; he's a petulant cypher, whining and slouching his way into a black costume.  Is there any sense whatever of tragic loss when Anakin "turns"?  No, just a dull feeling of inevitability (and a chuckle at Lucas's hamfisted attempt to *make* us feel tragedy with that ridiculous "NOOOO!")

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps, even tough I agree with you, the movies still could have been great if George only had time to sit down and think "- Ok, so to whom am I doing these prequels for?".

The first film was out to be an adventure for kids, it's not very hard to sympathise for the rebellion when you got a pretty "straight line story"- Good Vs. Evil.

But for the PT, there is a little bit harder to make it a kids-movie. With all the politicts and corruption that this movie presents (poorley), many kids in my family cirkle had no idea what the hell this three movies were about... I sort of figuerd things out after watching these movies over and over again on the dvd...

Lucas should've made his head clear WHAT sort of movies he wanted to make... Would it have been soo bad if the movies where PG-13 all the way? Wouldn't the diehard fanboys from the oldies going to see it anyway?

Now you got goofy humor that everyone over 7 hate. To much of politicts that makes everyones head spin except the little ones that has no clue ofcourse... To much special effects that would have been cool and "special" if just we had seen more dialog and plot... Now, it's irrelevant, the whole trilogy.