Did the prequels have to be about Anakin?
#1
Posted 13 May 2005 - 01:11 PM
Any thoughts?
#2
Posted 13 May 2005 - 01:33 PM
Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video
Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
#3
Posted 13 May 2005 - 03:56 PM
Not to mention it upsets me that the entire SW saga now seems like Anakins story rather than Lukes. :angry:
#4
Posted 13 May 2005 - 05:09 PM
#5
Posted 13 May 2005 - 05:49 PM
Well... technically it could have been. It simply was lucas's choice what it was about.
Like 'starwarsisus' (is that a name?) just said.... it'd be boring. Uneventful. The Empire would be in charge and the rebels would be small and fairly useless from begining to end.
And any rebel and Empire main characters would have to do nothing to change the balance of power at all and would all probably have to die too so no one would ask why the hell they weren't in Epi. 4.
'Bout the most you could do is make some crappy little story about whatever rebels died to get the plans for the Death Star to discover it's ridiculously moronic flaw in it's design.
Make some little adventures with Biggs and Wedge and dorky junk like that.
Technically I'm of the opinion that pretty much ANY idea could be made into something good with a skilled writer at the helm but that's damn rare so best to have a set-up that's more inclined to be bad ass without so much strain to make it 'work'.
IMO I think the tale of Ankin's rise and fall along with the fall of the Jedi and return of the Sith, control of the Galaxy under the Emperor, etc... was by FAR the more important story to tell than random rebels vs. Empire stuff implied between Epi. 3 and 4.
Sadly.... lucas IMO totally botched this 'potetially amazing' mythological tale along with ruining everything that was cool, powerful, right about being a Jedi Knight.
It makes me sick how many poor choices he's made through all three prequels (I read the Epi. 3 book but didn't see the crappy film yet).
"-It would have been better if Anakin was a secondary character, and maybe someone like Organa, or Obi-wan the primary. Would have made for a better story.-"
Obi-Wan was just a much a main character in this trilogy as Anakin so I think that's a weak argument.
Organa? Jimmy Smit's character right? The Senator? The Senators could do nothing but stand back and watch while a retarded clone/droid war unfolded. I don't see a good story coming from that so you'd have to convince me since you claim it'd be better.
"-I mean, who wants to see the Hero fall at the end?-"
Sorry, but everyone did. Ask around. Everyone wanted to see Anakin become Vader. It was by far the one thing that SW fans wanted to see from this trilogy.
"-Not to mention it upsets me that the entire SW saga now seems like Anakins story rather than Lukes.-"
I don't see that at all.
This first trilogy certainly revolved around Anakin but also largely around Palpatine (maybe more-so than Anakin though Anakin gets more screen time) and to a lesser extent Obi-Wan's tale too.
The orig. trilogy was very much Luke's story and Vader was hardly in it with almost no character development or story around him other than
'I'm your dad dude!'
'Nooooooooooo Waaaaaaaaaay?!'
'Waaaaaaaaaaaay!'
....and then Vader tossing the Emperor off the railing -which seems highly unlikely based on Epi. III's version of the Emperor.
#6
Posted 13 May 2005 - 05:56 PM
#7
Posted 13 May 2005 - 06:02 PM
Sorry, no. I didn't want to see it, nobody I know wanted to see it. Not back in '83, not during the Great Hiatus, not after the SEs came out.
#9
Posted 13 May 2005 - 06:50 PM
It just means that you agree with him.
To get back on topic, I think The Other raised an interesting idea and I think, despite StarWarsIsUs' opinions to the contrary, the start of the rebellion could be done well. It would all come down to how good the writers were and how well they could pull it off.
I also think that Obi Wan would have made a far better point of reference for the audience than Anakin. Anakin can still be a major character but I think having Obi Wan as the main focus would tie in better with the original movies as he's the one who draws Luke into the tale. Anakin however is just an evil henchman in the original Star Wars. He's not as important.
And let's get this straight - the original trilogy is not the story of Anakin. It is Luke's story. If it was about Anakin, then we should have heard his name mentioned more than it was... which if you were wondering, was just two times in Return of the Jedi.
#10
Posted 13 May 2005 - 06:50 PM
#11
Posted 13 May 2005 - 06:52 PM
Would you rather see a PT that covers
the same amount of time exactly,
approximately twelve years longer,
or an extended period of time. (centuries, millenia?)
I'd of thought Lucas would be steadfast for the first option, obsessive as he is.
Since he settled for the second, maybe he ought to have just started 999 generations ago and laid out the framework to include what was already on film.
Hit the high points, keep the clarity and wow us with the evolution.
Maybe Darth lived 500 years ago and his essence was preserved for Luke and Leia's mom. Just tell everybody "there was no father."
#13
Posted 13 May 2005 - 07:05 PM
This post has been edited by Sagacity: 13 May 2005 - 07:06 PM
#14
Posted 13 May 2005 - 07:10 PM
Indeed it is not.
""Darth Vader was a henchman; nothing important about him other than he's the Emperor's right hand man, and, as is revealed later, Luke's father.""
Vader is one of the key characters. He is the embodiment of importance in the Trilogy!
This post has been edited by StarWarsIsUs: 13 May 2005 - 07:12 PM
#15
Posted 13 May 2005 - 08:10 PM
Sounds a bit like how the rebellion is portrayed in the OT. Boring and uneventful depends on how you tell the story. There is potential there.
Hardly, the PT is afterall the story of Anakins rise and fall. Obi-wan just happens to be there to move the plot along. He does nothing unique, nothing that any other Jedi could not have done. In TPM he plays second fiddle to Qui-gon, his role is more prominent in AOTC, but we only give them weightage because Anakins scenes are unbearable to watch.
You make the mistake of seeing Lucas's portrayal of the character/events as the only way the character/events could be portrayed. In the PT Bail Organa does nothing but stand around, though I believe his role in ROTS will be slightly expanded. But there is potential for a story. We know from the OT that Obi-wan severed as a general for Organa in the Clone Wars, we also know that he raised Leia, and was a member (probably a prominent one) in the rebellion. He's probably a King, or Prince (at the time of the PT) to boot. What would be so wrong about the story of a Galactic Clone War, in which Organa plays a pivotal role in winning, aided by Obi-wan and his young apprentice - Anakin. Things then go to pot, Anakin turns, the Emperor reveals himself, Organa and Obi-wan attempt to resist, but are unsuccessful. Obi-wan goes into hiding, and Organa takes Anakins estranged wife into his household and upon her death adopts her daughter as his own. A great last scene for the PT could be Organa and his wife standing on a balcony overlooking ALderaan, to be joined by a young Leia (maybe 5 or 6). End credits.
Organa works a main character (if not the THE main character) because in the OT his torch is carried on by Leia, and we don't need to know why he isn't in the OT (he either died in the intervening time, and if not, was definitely killed early on in the OT when Alderaan is blown up).
There was curiosity about how Darth Vader became Darth Vader to be sure, but there was no need to have Anakin as the 'Hero figure' of the PT. Imagine watching ROTJ and at the end Luke chooses the dark side and sides with the emperor? Might still be a great movie, and the ending need not change, since both Darth Luke and the Emperor would die once the death star blew up, but would leave a bad taste in the mouth. Not good story telling.
This first trilogy certainly revolved around Anakin but also largely around Palpatine (maybe more-so than Anakin though Anakin gets more screen time) and to a lesser extent Obi-Wan's tale too.
The orig. trilogy was very much Luke's story and Vader was hardly in it with almost no character development or story around him other than
'I'm your dad dude!'
'Nooooooooooo Waaaaaaaaaay?!'
'Waaaaaaaaaaaay!'
....and then Vader tossing the Emperor off the railing -which seems highly unlikely based on Epi. III's version of the Emperor.
Surprises me that you can't see the Saga (episodes 1-6) being Anakins/Vaders story rather than Lukes. Anader is a central character in all 6 episodes, while Luke appears only in the last 3. The entire Saga tells the story of Anaders rise, fall and redemption. Luke just happens to be the catalyst which helps him redeem himself. The PT also makes the entire movie ESB redundant, since the major plot point in the movie - Vader being Lukes father - is something we already know.