I just can't reconcile myself with episodes 1-3. Whilst they have a few good bits here and there they are mostly god awful, and they really tar my enjoyment of the franchise overall. The story of Anakins descent into darkness deserves so much better than those movies.
Should Disney remake them? If so, should they make them as a trilogy or do it as a single origins move?
Here's a few things I'd like to see; ditch the whole prophecy thing about Anakin being the Chosen One. Just make him a gifted pilot at one with The Force who becomes a Jedi and is seduced by the dark side. I say this because the prophecy was never mentioned in the originals, so it came out of nowhere and went nowhere. Also, don't start Anakin as a kid. That was dumb. Make him at least early 20s. Keep Shmi though.
They should have kept the plot simple stuck to the three act method the originals used. The prequels were all over the place. They should have keep the focus on a handful of good guys (Obi-Wan, Anakin, Padm etc.) and one bad guy (Darth Maul, because he's cool), like how the original follows Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie etc, whilst also following Darth Vader. Also, Tarkin should have gotten focus too. He seems to me like he'd be the third man in the unholy trinity of the Empire with Vader and the Emperor.
Also, R2 and C3P0 should never have been in the prequels because they just raise so many questions. Like, where do you even begin? 3P0 was built by Darth Vader? R2 worked with Obi-Wan but he didn't know who he was? Instead, their role as the observing 'normals' could be taken over by Owen and Beru. Beru could have been Anakins sister and Owen his friend and crew mate on that spice freighter that was mentioned. Or something, you know?
Also, I hate how Jedi were portrayed in the movies as the 'Space FBI', operating out in the open with a big temple on the capital planet. I think they should have always remained mythical and secretive and legendary even in the age of the Republic. It makes the issue of Han and that jerk imperial officer's attitude to the force more understandable. Also, maybe the force can be an actual religion that was worshipped in the Republic but phased out by the Empire and kept alive by the resistance?
My ramblings aside, what should Disney do? Leave them be or try again?
Leave them as they are, flaws and all, but by all means do more, lots more, within that time frame. The Clone Wars and events within and surrounding it are still hugely fascinating, and as much as Clone Wars (the series) has done some amazing stuff with it, I'd love to see more of it in live action.
Visually, the prequel era has a load of great stuff that I'd love to see more of, and scope for some truly epic stuff. Rogue One is being touted as a Star Wars war movie, but ultimately it's going to mostly a guerrilla affair with one or two set piece battles, whereas you could pick any number of engagements throughout the Clone Wars that would dwarf anything we've seen so far in live action. Again, we've seen a load of that in Clone Wars, and snippets here and there in II and III like the battle for Geonosis and the fleet battle over Coruscant, but a film that really zoomed in on a particular, local event and went all in in putting the 'Wars' in Star Wars has huge potential.
That's not to mention that the notion of de-canonising them completely throws out a fair amount of good with the bad. Anakin's arc, while not well-realised on screen, is still intriguing and integral to the setting, Obi-wan was on the whole great (I'm holding out hope for a post-RotS Obi-wan movie with McGregor myself), not to mention a whole bunch of supporting characters that, while not hugely important overall, have a lot to them and are generally quite interesting/cool. When it comes to the likes of Windu, Maul, Dooku ect, I want more, not less!
There's also the fact that if we're getting another trilogy of Star Wars films, I'd much rather see new material than retread what's already been done. Maybe they could make better versions of 1-3, but that money could be better spent on something like a set of Old Republic films, or more Anthology films that flesh out the setting, or all kinds of other good stuff. The Prequels aren't exactly the best they can be, but for me at least, they'll do, with a few select edits I can still watch and enjoy most bits of them.
Yeah... Given its Disney if you were to look at their track record with a movie franchise like marvel you'd say it looks like a total retcon-fest was pretty likely. But maybe that's just in the nature of comic books, the non-stop do overs, the often overlapping, contradicting story arcs, one artist version versus another, this era, that era. It all lends itself so naturally to a seamless steam rollering of all previous movie encarnations no matter how recent.
There are arguments for the same treatment for Starwars. There have been various story lines and plot twists in Comics, novels, animated shows, movies, games, toys. The universe has been expanded ad-nauseum. There's absolutely endless scope.
Looking at Star Trek and the big reboot thats gone on its tempting to Imagine a recast, reworked, Jar-Jar free 1-3. Throw out the plot throw in a cameo and everybody's happy.
But where Starwars is different from both marvel and Trek is that the original trilogy was ALWAYS the focus. Always the benchmark, always the whole crux of the franchise. Look how much episode 7 leaned on them. It was like being clobbered over the head with the old VHS box set repeatedly throughout.
As far as I can see Disney are never going to acknowledge the prequels in anything other than vague plot exposition. They will take it as understood back story and use that to build on but they'll not bother to redo movies that are widely regarded as flops. They will advance the time line into 8 & 9, they will fill out characters origin stories and flesh out the universe through movies like Rougue 1. They will give the Bobafet ample fan service but in my opinion they will leave Annie in the orphanage.
It is probably best to move on and produce new material, but in my opinion it would be a shame to have to use those three as the gateway to the saga for future fans. I can't get over how crap they are.
If they existed, which they don't, I would agree but the awful Lucas wouldn't let the original films be so I can't see why people would give deference to non-existent films while the originals are molested constantly.
Whether you like it or not, they are solidly G-canon, for better or worse.
The fact that there has to be a letter in front of cannon to separate it from other canons makes baby Jesus cry. A lot. As for me no company gets to tell me what my own personal head canon is. *folds arms defiantly while holding back tears*
It's tough to ignore the prequels because, let's say everything people really like about the Original Trilogy is XYZ, well the prequels explain XYZ with ABC. So now you want to do movies for people who like XYZ - but without getting into all that ABC crap. It's kind of like doing movies about the Cold War without referencing anything that happened before 1939, you're missing the Russian Revolution. So what do you do? You minimize the importance of the Revolution, you portray the Soviet strategy as being in continuity with some kind of geographical reality that Tzarists and Communists alike have to deal with, rather than anything to do with ideology. And that is pretty much what Disney seems to be doing: Snoke and his agenda seem to pre-exist the Empire and Palpatine's plots. Similarly, neither Kylo Ren nor Rey appear to have much to do with Jedi.
Manchu wrote: well the prequels explain XYZ with ABC
Only in the sense that they really do not. At all. If there were prequels, and I am not saying there are, they would probably be sub-par fan fic explanations of things people lived for a long time without and probably could live their entire lives without. Dakka has probably come up with better explanations on accident then Lucasfilm ever could, if they had ever made any prequels that is.
Manchu wrote: well the prequels explain XYZ with ABC
Only in the sense that they really do not. At all. If there were prequels, and I am not saying there are, they would probably be sub-par fan fic explanations of things people lived for a long time without and probably could live their entire lives without. Dakka has probably come up with better explanations on accident then Lucasfilm ever could, if they had ever made any prequels that is.
Can you imagine if Lucas tried to put some half-baked hard science behind the Force? Instead of 'space magic' we could have some nonsense about it being some kind of STD in the blood.
Ideally I'd just like to see the prequels tossed out and forgotten. They really dont add much to the greater story, but do add in tons of contradictions and and simply absurd acts on top of horrible writing and terrible acting with painfully aging CGI. The franchise would be better off without them. They dont need a replacement, though retcons couldnt be any worse.
One could deal with the bad acting and terrible writing if they were at least relevant to the greater story, but they're really not, especially Episode 1.
Future War Cultist wrote: I just can't reconcile myself with episodes 1-3. Whilst they have a few good bits here and there they are mostly god awful, and they really tar my enjoyment of the franchise overall. The story of Anakins descent into darkness deserves so much better than those movies.
Should Disney remake them? If so, should they make them as a trilogy or do it as a single origins move?
Here's a few things I'd like to see; ditch the whole prophecy thing about Anakin being the Chosen One. Just make him a gifted pilot at one with The Force who becomes a Jedi and is seduced by the dark side. I say this because the prophecy was never mentioned in the originals, so it came out of nowhere and went nowhere. Also, don't start Anakin as a kid. That was dumb. Make him at least early 20s. Keep Shmi though.
They should have kept the plot simple stuck to the three act method the originals used. The prequels were all over the place. They should have keep the focus on a handful of good guys (Obi-Wan, Anakin, Padm etc.) and one bad guy (Darth Maul, because he's cool), like how the original follows Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie etc, whilst also following Darth Vader. Also, Tarkin should have gotten focus too. He seems to me like he'd be the third man in the unholy trinity of the Empire with Vader and the Emperor.
Also, R2 and C3P0 should never have been in the prequels because they just raise so many questions. Like, where do you even begin? 3P0 was built by Darth Vader? R2 worked with Obi-Wan but he didn't know who he was? Instead, their role as the observing 'normals' could be taken over by Owen and Beru. Beru could have been Anakins sister and Owen his friend and crew mate on that spice freighter that was mentioned. Or something, you know?
Also, I hate how Jedi were portrayed in the movies as the 'Space FBI', operating out in the open with a big temple on the capital planet. I think they should have always remained mythical and secretive and legendary even in the age of the Republic. It makes the issue of Han and that jerk imperial officer's attitude to the force more understandable. Also, maybe the force can be an actual religion that was worshipped in the Republic but phased out by the Empire and kept alive by the resistance?
My ramblings aside, what should Disney do? Leave them be or try again?
Leave them be. While the acting and dialogue were at times bad, the prequels did some amazing worldbuilding, told us new things about the Star Wars universe, unlike say episode VII which was little more than a polished recap episode of the original trilogy.
The Clone Wars animation series did a lot to salvage the concept, with an animated Anakin who was a massive improvement over Hayden Christensen's version.
Disney won't own them until 2020.
And they won't own ep4 until Fox gives it up (they (Fox) retain the rights in perpetuity, but the rights to the rest go to Disney in 2020).
The fact that there has to be a letter in front of cannon to separate it from other canons makes baby Jesus cry.
There didn't 'need' to be... they could have just gone with what Star Trek did, and said 'Meh, none of it's actually canon, except for the stuff that's actually just taken from the movies or TV shows.'
This approach removed a need for any sort of 'levels of canon' to sort out contradictions from later series or movies, and also removed any need for a continuity editor, but makes the Star Trek novels even more contradictory and variable quality than the Star Wars Expanded Universe ever was.
Disney's approach of keeping everything all tied into the one continuity is a huge improvement, though.
For the prequels, tossing them out would mean tossing out the Clone Wars series as well, and that would be a shame.
Should Disney remake them? If so, should they make them as a trilogy or do it as a single origins move?
No. There is no point. They're out there. It isn't like SpiderMaynard or Failure Four where they have to make a movie every X years or lose the license.
They can continue to print a metric feth-ton of money by making episodes 7-9, plus one-offs like Rogue One, Han Solo: Origins, Chewbacca versus the Suck-Cut, Luke's Missing Hand Hears a Who, and Nien Nub Nabs a Nap.
I just had a crazy thought. What if the story of the prequels instead portrayed Palpatine as something similar to the high sparrow from Game Of Thrones? This seemingly harmless little monk who has strange powers (healing and clairvoyance) and charisma and rallies the broken troops of the republic around him and is propelled into power with the backing of the army? And Skywalker abandons the Jedi to follow him instead.
Obi Wan said that Vader was a pupil of his until he was seduced by the dark side and turned to evil. This would fit that description a little better in my opinion.
But in truth, we could be here all day listing alternative suggestions for the story. Anything would be better.
Future War Cultist wrote: I just had a crazy thought. What if the story of the prequels instead portrayed Palpatine as something similar to the high sparrow from Game Of Thrones? This seemingly harmless little monk who has strange powers (healing and clairvoyance) and charisma and rallies the broken troops of the republic around him and is propelled into power with the backing of the army? And Skywalker abandons the Jedi to follow him instead.
Obi Wan said that Vader was a pupil of his until he was seduced by the dark side and turned to evil. This would fit that description a little better in my opinion.
But in truth, we could be here all day listing alternative suggestions for the story. Anything would be better.
Obi-Wan was flat out lying to Luke, that's kind of the point of the entire "No, I AM your father" thing. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
I quite like how the prequels set up Palpatine tbh. It was just Anakin's story that sucked. Too much petulant child behaviour. The original films were limited due to the technology at the time, but the duels with Luke Vs Vader were far more satisfying than Obi-Wan's final confrontation with Anakin Vader in Revenge of the Sith.
They should be left as is. Hating on the prequels nearly 20 years later has got to be too exhausting to really care about by now.
And as others have said, whilst the production and acting of the prequels was terrible, the world-building they did (and the actual stories of the prequels themselves) was great. The prequels certainly did more to expand the Star Wars universe than A New Hope 2: Hope Harder did last year.
Ahtman wrote: The fact that there has to be a letter in front of cannon to separate it from other canons makes baby Jesus cry. A lot. As for me no company gets to tell me what my own personal head canon is. *folds arms defiantly while holding back tears*
No need to cry. Such distinctions no longer exist.
There is only canon (movies + Clone Wars + Rebels + books/comics released since the massive ret-con) and non-canon (everything that came before the ret-con).
H.B.M.C. wrote: They should be left as is. Hating on the prequels nearly 20 years later has got to be too exhausting to really care about by now.
I actually don't disagree on either point but it is what the thread is about so here we are. I don't go around talking about the movies, well maybe the Rifftrax for them occasionally as they were actually decent, but I won't lie if asked about them either.
H.B.M.C. wrote: the world-building they did (and the actual stories of the prequels themselves) was great
I find both those points incorrect, therefor you are now history's greatest monster.
I think there's some confusion over the difference between world building and nice sweeping vistas. About the only world building in the Star Wars prequels was in the first film, which also happened to be the worst of the three by a wide margin. Even worse, the world building that went on revealed the Republic to be corrupt, dumb beyond belief, and the Jedi unwilling to do anything about it (and indeed, refusing to even acknowledge how broken the system they were part of had become). It's the opposite of setting up for a good story for the second two films which were about saving the broken and corrupt Republic, and tried really hard to make me care that the incompetent Jedi Order was going to fall.
LordofHats is right though. Everyone everywhere was so stupid it makes me not want to care.
This is how I feel about Ep 1-3. Stupid everyone, everywhere, all the time.
But I realize the SW movies were made really to sell action figures to ten year olds. I watched Ep 4-6 when I was ten, so the movie magic worked on me.
I need to find someone who hasn't seen any of the SW movies, then have them watch all six and tell me if the quality of 1-3 is really that far below 4-6.
Mr Nobody wrote: Bring back the cartoon network clone war miniseries. You know, the ones that looked like Samurai Jack? Those were cool.
Yeah, I loved that.
I think the prequels should be left alone.
The problem I think has to do with Darth Vader, who is a very cool character, but I think he is much better as a supporting character/villain than an actual main character himself.
I do not want to see another set of movies treading along the same path of over exposing this character, just like I have had enough of Wolverine and Brienne of Tarth.
Have a mini-series that traces the Sith to their originator. A plotting, scheming mastermind concealed to the universe as a kindly, well spoken, well groomed, somewhat elderly man with a moustache and an insidious pet mouse...
An idea that came to me recently was to pretend that episodes 1-3 didn't happen, keep the clone wars show since it doesn't affect the movies too much and instead create a new movie called something like Vader or Kenobi: a Star Wars story, and tell it from after a certain point. The clone wars are over, the empire has been formed and the surviving Jedi are on the run with Vader hunting them down and killing them off until he meets obi wan. Star Wars movies always work best when we the audience are left to wonder about the details.
Future War Cultist wrote: An idea that came to me recently was to pretend that episodes 1-3 didn't happen, keep the clone wars show since it doesn't affect the movies too much and instead create a new movie called something like Vader or Kenobi: a Star Wars story, and tell it from after a certain point. The clone wars are over, the empire has been formed and the surviving Jedi are on the run with Vader hunting them down and killing them off until he meets obi wan. Star Wars movies always work best when we the audience are left to wonder about the details.
I think we'll definitely get something like that down the line. McGregor is on record as being very open to reprising his role as Obi-wan, he's one of the more popular elements of the prequels and they're really pushing the III-IV period with the 2 announced Anthology films and Rebels. Obi-wan is a character you can tell a lot of interesting stories with and doesn't have a huge deal of stuff in book/comic form that they'd need to work around... I'd be amazed if we don't see an Obi-wan film in the next 10 years.
I've got plenty of energy and I do many things with it. And after I've done all of those things I've still got just enough left to talk about Star Wars, which I'm going to continue doing if it's all the same to you.
@ Paradigm
I didn't know McGregor was open to playing Obi-Wan again. That's great!
Yeah, there were some interviews around the time Disney picked up the franchise where he said he'd love to do it again, and he did record the uncredited line in Rey's vision in TFA. I'd love to see him get another go with a good script and a competent director.
I understand the sentiment in the OP's post. We want better prequel movies. I was about halfway through my own 'improved' version before I deleted it to say something different.
Star Wars has a real problem with rehashing the same stuff over and over again. This wasn't just a problem with the prequels, it was also a problem with the new film, and to a lesser extent a problem with Return of the Jedi. Its a fantasy series set in outer space - the whole point of it is to show amazing new worlds and incredible characters.
Star Wars should make lots of new stories, some tied to the original Skywalker family melodrama, others with no connection. Let the prequels slowly become a half-forgotten relic, just like the Final Frontier is now a kind of curiosity to Star Trek fans, kind of buried by a long string of movies that just wanted to do their own thing.
sebster wrote: Its a fantasy series set in outer space - the whole point of it is to show amazing new worlds and incredible characters..
I'm actually rather hopeful that this is exactly what they'll do with the anthology movies. They don't have to tie directly into the trilogies and so can spin off in different directions, story-wise. We're already seeing that Rogue One is going to be a very different sort of movie to Episode VII... I find myself really excited to see where things go in the future, and having all different directors and crews handling things has all sorts of awesome potential.
Ignore the prequels, and bring out the original star wars withouth the nonsense added by Lucas in the consecutive versions, i am a big fan of the de-specialized versions
insaniak wrote: I'm actually rather hopeful that this is exactly what they'll do with the anthology movies. They don't have to tie directly into the trilogies and so can spin off in different directions, story-wise. We're already seeing that Rogue One is going to be a very different sort of movie to Episode VII... I find myself really excited to see where things go in the future, and having all different directors and crews handling things has all sorts of awesome potential.
I'm hopeful too, for exactly the same reasons. I'm also a little concerned, because they're still relying on a link to background detail from the original films. But I'm still more hopeful than concerned
For a start we are introduced to Anakin as a padawan already. He should already be a hero in order to concentrate on telling the story of his fall. We don't need to see the full Campbellian cycle, he doesn't need to come from a humble beginning. As a fully fleshed out and active hero in the universe he inhabits we only need to see his greatness in order to feel the tragedy of his descent into darkness.
For a start we are introduced to Anakin as a padawan already. He should already be a hero in order to concentrate on telling the story of his fall. We don't need to see the full Campbellian cycle, he doesn't need to come from a humble beginning. As a fully fleshed out and active hero in the universe he inhabits we only need to see his greatness in order to feel the tragedy of his descent into darkness.
God yes.
Like I said, Star Wars works best when some of the story is told offscreen.
Also give him some of darth vaders mannerisms...have him say "all too easy" just once, so that we know he's the same person. Because I can't see how that whiny bastard grew up to be...well, Vader.
And, honestly, I'd have made padame the poor person and anakin the high born one. Or if not, at least make her poor. It helps to show how he's a good person.
Maybe when he's introduced he's already a pilot and warrior but he's got these strange powers he doesn't understand. Because honestly I'd have made the Jedi a secret and legendary organisation even at their height. So that the galaxy was in three frames of minds about them:
They're either not real, real but don't have mystic powers, or they are real and do have powers.
Makes some of the things people said about them in the originals more believable. And the number one use of the Jedi mind trick? To make people forget what they saw, like the pen from Men In Black.
For a start we are introduced to Anakin as a padawan already. He should already be a hero in order to concentrate on telling the story of his fall. We don't need to see the full Campbellian cycle, he doesn't need to come from a humble beginning. As a fully fleshed out and active hero in the universe he inhabits we only need to see his greatness in order to feel the tragedy of his descent into darkness.
I would rather the focus was on Obi-Wan. Anakin sucks when he is stretched to more than a supporting character.
Well no not really. Anakin sucks when directed by Lucas and acted by Christenson. Both sucked at their jobs in those movies. But yeah I think McGregor was pretty good considering what he had to work with so seeing him more as Obi Wan would be great
KingCracker wrote: Well no not really. Anakin sucks when directed by Lucas and acted by Christenson. Both sucked at their jobs in those movies. But yeah I think McGregor was pretty good considering what he had to work with so seeing him more as Obi Wan would be great
You may be right, but I still think following Obi-Wans failure is much more interesting story than Anakins conversion to the Dark side.
Nothing yet. The Original Trilogy is much more in need of a re-make than the prequels. It by now is so old and so outdated, it is barely even watchable anymore. It is boring and feels awkward, like most movies from that era. Besides, the only actor in it that I liked is Harrison Ford. (Who couldn't like Harrison Ford?). And it had Ewoks in it. And they defeated the Stormtroopers... That was just horrible. Scrap the Ewoks please (or leave them in and just have them resist only to be mercilessly slaughtered by the Stormtroopers for the sake of grimdark) The prequels were also mostly bad, but at least they have great effects that make them enjoyable to watch. I also feel that the basic storyline of the prequels is pretty promising, just really badly executed.
But mostly, I want them to leave both prequels and OT alone and just focus on making more new movies. Expand the universe instead of rehashing the same simple old stuff over and over again. Episode VII was really disappointing in that regard.
The prequel trilogy is best referred to as the official story of what happened, as opposed to the truth. This allows enough room for headcanon to retcon and fill in the blanks.
The Ewoks became more palatable to me when I properly realised they're a savage hunter and possibly warrior race. Ever wondered what meat they were serving during the feast at the end? Probably Stormtroopers. They were going to eat the protagonists after all. The nature > technology thing was annoying but it's hardly a unique problem. Come to think of it, isn't it the only time Stormtroopers are defeated by non-Luke\Leia\Han\Chewie\Obi-wan people in ground combat?
chromedog wrote:Disney won't own them until 2020.
And they won't own ep4 until Fox gives it up (they (Fox) retain the rights in perpetuity, but the rights to the rest go to Disney in 2020).
They'll probably leave them be.
I didn't know that, that certainly explains scrapping the Clone Wars series and not referring to the prequils. It's not a devotion to quality, it's a business decision not to promote something Disney does not 100% own. Like Marvel/Disney cancelling the Fantastic Four comic and sidelining the X-Men.
In that case certainly look for the era to be revisited in the 2020s, they'd probably do a side story at first but a remake is hardly out of the question. Phantom Menace is 17 years old now, it'll be 21 (old enough to drink!) when Disney gets the full rights. A 25th anniversary remake/revisiting seems logical.
But the question of what they will do is not what they should do.
I think we're in general agreement the Republic/Clone Wars era is worth another visit, but the prequels were Not Very Good.
So what are the options?
1-Complete reboot, remake.
2-Remake keeping major plot points
3-Ignore, work around
I'd be happy with any of the 3, what SHOULD Disney do... My general answer is #3, if you don't like a shared universe story just ignore it and work around. I don't spend much time telling people about my Junior High days, and somehow I get through life. Just don't bring them up.
But in this case I'd go with #1 because as I said the prequels were Not Very Good, bordering on Very Not Good or even Bad. And for movies I waited 15 years for Not Very Good is unacceptable.
So yeah, toss em out.
(OK, that's scary, the wait between Jedi and Phantom Menace was 15 years, 1984 to 1999, Phantom Menace was 17 years ago, does not feel the same at all).
Future War Cultist wrote: Like I said, Star Wars works best when some of the story is told offscreen.
I think every story works best when the exposition is left to the exposition A guy betrays his brothers and turns in to the big evil is a set up, not a story. They added the forbidden love stuff to turn it in to a story and it was contrived and just did not work.
Because honestly I'd have made the Jedi a secret and legendary organisation even at their height. So that the galaxy was in three frames of minds about them:
Yeah. The Jedi should have been mysterious and hardly believed even at the height of their power in the Republic. Even if Jedi numbered several thousand then consider the trillions of people living in the Republic, then only a few ordinary citizens, even on Coruscant, would ever see a Jedi, let alone see one use their powers. This wouldn't just make Han's comments in Star Wars more sensible, it would also make Jedi a lot cooler than they were in the prequels.
But now I'm back again thinking about making the prequels better. Dammit.
Iron_Captain wrote:Nothing yet. The Original Trilogy is much more in need of a re-make than the prequels. It by now is so old and so outdated, it is barely even watchable anymore. It is boring and feels awkward, like most movies from that era. Besides, the only actor in it that I liked is Harrison Ford. (Who couldn't like Harrison Ford?). And it had Ewoks in it. And they defeated the Stormtroopers... That was just horrible. Scrap the Ewoks please (or leave them in and just have them resist only to be mercilessly slaughtered by the Stormtroopers for the sake of grimdark)
The prequels were also mostly bad, but at least they have great effects that make them enjoyable to watch. I also feel that the basic storyline of the prequels is pretty promising, just really badly executed.
But mostly, I want them to leave both prequels and OT alone and just focus on making more new movies. Expand the universe instead of rehashing the same simple old stuff over and over again. Episode VII was really disappointing in that regard.
I have to disagree with you there Iron_Captain. Whilst their special effects obviously show their age I think they have aged far better than the prequels, which are so 90s it's painful. Real effects trump CGI 9 times out of 10 in my opinion. As for boring and awkward...say wha?!! I've been watching the originals on TV and they're riveting from start to finish. The prequels have flash but no substance. The levelling of acting, dialogue, character development and interaction etc. in the prequels is...well, garbage.
The Ewoks were unfortunate though. I will agree on that.
If they do go back to the clone wars era, I'd like them to try and make the aesthetics look more like the originals. It's hard to explain but ever notice how everything in the prequels looks more sleek and advanced than the originals despite supposedly being set in the past? And the ships are all bright colours when later ships are usually grey/white? Clone troopers look far superior (and more colourful) than the later stormtroopers. Things like that don't sit well with me.
sebster wrote: Yeah. The Jedi should have been mysterious and hardly believed even at the height of their power in the Republic. Even if Jedi numbered several thousand then consider the trillions of people living in the Republic, then only a few ordinary citizens, even on Coruscant, would ever see a Jedi, let alone see one use their powers. This wouldn't just make Han's comments in Star Wars more sensible, it would also make Jedi a lot cooler than they were in the prequels.
But now I'm back again thinking about making the prequels better. Dammit.
Yes exactly! Me, I think that the relationship between the Jedi and the republic should have been similar to the one between Batman and Commissar Gordon. By that, what I mean is only the chancellor and the very top government and military officials know about them, and they ask the Jedi to help but ultimately the Jedi only answer to themselves (but in a good way, you know?) To the vast majority of people in the galaxy they're a myth or legend. Which makes the later attitudes to them we've seen more believable.
And they shouldn't have been on Corusant. They should be in secret places all over the Galaxy.
Iron_Captain wrote: Nothing yet. The Original Trilogy is much more in need of a re-make than the prequels. It by now is so old and so outdated, it is barely even watchable anymore. It is boring and feels awkward, like most movies from that era. Besides, the only actor in it that I liked is Harrison Ford. (Who couldn't like Harrison Ford?). And it had Ewoks in it. And they defeated the Stormtroopers... That was just horrible. Scrap the Ewoks please (or leave them in and just have them resist only to be mercilessly slaughtered by the Stormtroopers for the sake of grimdark)
The prequels were also mostly bad, but at least they have great effects that make them enjoyable to watch. I also feel that the basic storyline of the prequels is pretty promising, just really badly executed.
But mostly, I want them to leave both prequels and OT alone and just focus on making more new movies. Expand the universe instead of rehashing the same simple old stuff over and over again. Episode VII was really disappointing in that regard.
If they do go back to the clone wars era, I'd like them to try and make the aesthetics look more like the originals. It's hard to explain but ever notice how everything in the prequels looks more sleek and advanced than the originals despite supposedly being set in the past? And the ships are all bright colours when later ships are usually grey/white? Clone troopers look far superior (and more colourful) than the later stormtroopers. Things like that don't sit well with me.
I do think that the Chrome and Colour Asthetic does work for the prequels. The Republic is supposed to be a glorious society that has experienced years of peace. In contrast, the original series focuses on the outer, poorer regions of the Empire, after a war and 20 years of an oppressive regime. Imperial stuff is going to look practical and military, while rebel and independent stuff is going to look rather run-down and battered. Republic stuff is more focused on looks, and hence the bright chrome, paint, and smooth lines.
insaniak wrote: Yeah, the Clone Wars-era stuff was supposed to harken back to the days of the early scifi serials, where everything was shiny and pretty.
The Galactic Empire era was supposed to be more focused on mass production and less on individuality.
I think there's a certain irony that the clone troopers had colorful customized armor while the (non-clone) Storm Troopers had identical impersonal armor. I doubt it was intentional but it raises some interesting ideas that the Clones compensated with colorful nicknames and armor while the Empire tried to drive individual identities out of the Storms with depersonalizing steps.
There was a bit in the old West End RPG that the Emperor's end game was to create Dark Side worlds where no one had independent thought. Which is a cool place to take Star Wars, sort of Jack Kirby's anti-life equation by way of pulpy science fiction.
Ah, ok. I take your points about the aesthetics. However, I still think that the earlier stuff is too advanced at times. The droid armies, those buzz droid mine things, the camouflaged sleek looking clone troppers etc. Where the hell did all they go? Surely the empire could find uses for more advanced versions of them.
@ Kid_Kyoto
There is a great irony to that. If only it was explored more.
Is it weird that I think that the clones should have been the bad guys? That they should have been used by the separatists, but in combat these faceless clones the troops of the empire ended up becoming evil faceless goons themselves.
Eh, just a thought.
EDIT:
You know what they should have done? Checked out Ralph McQuarrie's concept art. That's how they created BB8. They took an early concept drawing of R2 and made it so.
Here's an example: a concept for the storm troopers showed them wearing a rounded helmet with a glass visors and less enclosed looking armour. Elements of it went into making the outfits of the Tantive IV's crewmen, specifically the helmets. Now if they had used that, that would have been much better imo.
One of the many great weaknesses in the prequels (and spin offs like Clone Wars) is the Clones and Anakin are the heroes.
Their big turn when they gun down not just Jedi but even children should/could have been one of the most dramatic moments in film instead Palpatine literally pushed the 'turn evil' button and off they went.
As for tech, I like the point that, barring Death Star, we never really saw the best of the Empire. So Palpatine may have been hoarding all sorts of stuff for himself.
(the Dark Empire spin off was all about that).
Or, like the historical Tokugawa Shoguns in Japan, he may have been making a deliberate effort to roll back the clock and limit the type and power of technology out there.
"Never again will we allow droid armies to menace this galaxy!" Because it's hard to keep power when anyone with a factory can roll out an army or two.
Again, that should have been so much more dramatic than what we saw. It also probably should have happened in the second film. So that the third film is dealing with the fledging empire and the aftermath.
Good point about the tech too I suppose. But I think my point about the clone trooper still stands.
Future War Cultist wrote: Again, that should have been so much more dramatic than what we saw. It also probably should have happened in the second film. So that the third film is dealing with the fledging empire and the aftermath.
Yeah, Anakin's fall, the reveal of Palpatine as the villain, and the clone troopers turning on the Jedi should have happened in film two. That leaves a third film that can end on a heroic note, you could tell a good story about smuggling the Skywalker kids out, about starting the rebellion and defeating Darth Vader before he murdered everyone, and of course the surviving Jedi escaping to their respective hidey holes.
Instead the clone troopers attacking the Jedi gets a short montage in the middle of other things, and the rest is dealt with in an epilogue.
Purge indeed, by banishing them to the legends section and starting over.
@ sebster
Yes exactly, than you for agreeing with me.
Kenobi said Vader helped the empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi. I wanted to see that. The second film should have had an epic battle in the Jedi temple; empire versus Jedi. Not a montage.
Future War Cultist wrote: Again, that should have been so much more dramatic than what we saw. It also probably should have happened in the second film. So that the third film is dealing with the fledging empire and the aftermath.
Yeah, Anakin's fall, the reveal of Palpatine as the villain, and the clone troopers turning on the Jedi should have happened in film two. That leaves a third film that can end on a heroic note, you could tell a good story about smuggling the Skywalker kids out, about starting the rebellion and defeating Darth Vader before he murdered everyone, and of course the surviving Jedi escaping to their respective hidey holes.
Instead the clone troopers attacking the Jedi gets a short montage in the middle of other things, and the rest is dealt with in an epilogue.
I like that.
You can be a consultant when I remake the prequels
Future War Cultist wrote: The world building was good for sure but the story...and the acting...I can't accept those movies.
I disagree with this. The prequels were terrible at world building because the world they created was boring. Making your world more complex is not good unless you also make it more interesting. The prequels failed in that regard.
We had Palpatine who had basically no credible opposition in the senate at any point throughout the films. Instead of having a clever struggle for power in which he outmaneovres his opponents a la Lannisters/Tyrells or Littlefinger/Varys from GoT, as it is now the only reason Palpatine was emperor is because the entire senate was incredibly dumb to the point that they passed a motion put forward by fething Jar Jar Binks
And for gods sake stop twirling your lightsabers around! The duels in the prequels were pretty vapid as they were never portrayed as the struggle between ideologies and the duelists wills, as they did in the original films. The originals may not be as flashy with somersaults and twirls but at least they were interesting beyond the visuals (though I argue that the visual direction was also better, just look at the use of lighting and camera shots in the Luke vs Vader duels).
So the story, acting and world building were all garbage? Yeah, I can agree to that.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing yes but GOT shows us how stories of intrigue should be done. Also, there's two major characters who should have been in the prequels who whereb't...Tarkin and Mon Mothma. The later could have been that opposition to Palpatine you mentioned.
Yeah, considering how hard both of these first two disney movies are clinging to A New Hope it looks like Disney's stance on the prequels is total outright denial.
I'd be surprised if we ever hear mention of Naboo despite the fact that that's the royal line that Leia gets her "princess" creds from. I honestly wouldnt be surprised if they just made her the princess of Alderan without even skipping a beat.
It's as if there's a total ban on referencing anything not from the original trilogy.
theCrowe wrote: Yeah, considering how hard both of these first two disney movies are clinging to A New Hope it looks like Disney's stance on the prequels is total outright denial.
I'd be surprised if we ever hear mention of Naboo despite the fact that that's the royal line that Leia gets her "princess" creds from. I honestly wouldnt be surprised if they just made her the princess of Alderan without even skipping a beat.
It's as if there's a total ban on referencing anything not from the original trilogy.
Didn't Leia get her Princess creds from her family on Alderaan? It wouldn't make sense otherwise as it would be a pretty big give away that she was Amidala's daughter. Darth Vader might have found that information useful.
Also, I just realised what it is that bothers me about the prequel era ships. In the originals, the ships were models constructed from lots of parts which made them look very chunky and detailed:
The prequel era ships however are all cgi, so they're smooth and shiny:
When they showed that ship landing on (I think) Naboo you could feel the render farm groaning from the fancy reflections all over the shiny sliver carapace. From a storytelling perspective I think they were going for a 60s futurism inspired look for the prequels (and the associated optimism) and a more utilitarian realism in the original trilogy (to reference old war movies) but in the end it just made the older stuff (prequels) look newer than than new stuff (original trilogy).
In the cartoons they have at least reduced all the specular highlights and made everything feel a bit more used and lived-in. That look also makes the evolution of some ships fit better.
And for gods sake stop twirling your lightsabers around! The duels in the prequels were pretty vapid as they were never portrayed as the struggle between ideologies and the duelists wills, as they did in the original films. The originals may not be as flashy with somersaults and twirls but at least they were interesting beyond the visuals (though I argue that the visual direction was also better, just look at the use of lighting and camera shots in the Luke vs Vader duels).
And stop turning your back on the enemy! The lightsaber fight in A New Hope wasn't good but at least they weren't constantly turning their backs to each other.
You can be a consultant when I remake the prequels
Well... I'm record as saying Star Wars is better off making new stories and moving the franchise forward... but on the hand yeah I'll take that sweet consultancy cash
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Hindsight is a wonderful thing yes but GOT shows us how stories of intrigue should be done. Also, there's two major characters who should have been in the prequels who whereb't...Tarkin and Mon Mothma. The later could have been that opposition to Palpatine you mentioned.
Thee difference is that GRR Martin understands feudal politics, whereas George Lucas appeared to understand almost nothing about how government actually works.
The most obvious thing was having a democratically elected 'queen', which is something most toddlers should be able to understand as nonsense. But then there was the senate itself, which appeared to kind of represent worlds and groups of worlds, but then there were also senators who were in control of government agencies, which is nonsense. And then there was that 'democratically elected queen', who was able to speak before the senate and put forward a motion of no-confidence in its chancellor... when she wasn't a senator yet.
Then there's the utterly disfunctional position of the Jedi in all this. Religious orders on the fringe of government can exist, and are certainly viable enough for a pulp movie series, but the Jedi aren't on the fringes of government. They're right smack bang in the centre, given major responsibility for peace keeping and diplomacy, but at the same time they're allowed independence and secrecy. That's a basically nonsense - we are expected to believe the senate would allow itself to become responsible for and dependent on an organisation it has no oversight or control over.
theCrowe wrote: Yeah, considering how hard both of these first two disney movies are clinging to A New Hope it looks like Disney's stance on the prequels is total outright denial.
I'd be surprised if we ever hear mention of Naboo despite the fact that that's the royal line that Leia gets her "princess" creds from. I honestly wouldnt be surprised if they just made her the princess of Alderan without even skipping a beat.
It's as if there's a total ban on referencing anything not from the original trilogy.
Someone mentioned Disney doesn't get full rights to the prequel till 2020. Disney's policy is not to promote anything they don't own.
On the Marvel side that means no new Hulk movies (someone else has distribution rights), no Fantastic Four in comics and downplaying the X-Men as much as they can.
I would not be shocked if we suddenly hear a lot about the 'beloved, classic' prequels in 2021.
Future War Cultist wrote: Hindsight is a wonderful thing yes but GOT shows us how stories of intrigue should be done. Also, there's two major characters who should have been in the prequels who whereb't...Tarkin and Mon Mothma. The later could have been that opposition to Palpatine you mentioned.
Thee difference is that GRR Martin understands feudal politics, whereas George Lucas appeared to understand almost nothing about how government actually works.
The most obvious thing was having a democratically elected 'queen', which is something most toddlers should be able to understand as nonsense. But then there was the senate itself, which appeared to kind of represent worlds and groups of worlds, but then there were also senators who were in control of government agencies, which is nonsense. And then there was that 'democratically elected queen', who was able to speak before the senate and put forward a motion of no-confidence in its chancellor... when she wasn't a senator yet.
Then there's the utterly disfunctional position of the Jedi in all this. Religious orders on the fringe of government can exist, and are certainly viable enough for a pulp movie series, but the Jedi aren't on the fringes of government. They're right smack bang in the centre, given major responsibility for peace keeping and diplomacy, but at the same time they're allowed independence and secrecy. That's a basically nonsense - we are expected to believe the senate would allow itself to become responsible for and dependent on an organisation it has no oversight or control over.
It's the sort of stuff that could work with some more fluff but movies aren't the place for that sort of exposition.
My guess was the Senate was like the UN, every world appointed senator (or senators?) and ran its own affairs its own way within certain broad guidelines (ie no slavery). And even those guidelines were ill-enforced. Read the Universal Delcaration of Human Rights which all UN members have to sign. See how well that's doing.
Some senators would be appointed as Ministers just like any parliamentary system, or might head up agencies back on their world. They'd probably have titles too, ie the Viceroy of Duraf is also a Senator. And apparently heads of State can take over from the Senator. So probably Senators are there as representatives/proxies as the heads of state but if the head is present it can vote, make motions etc. Senators probably also have deputies/juniors who can act for the real Senator, that would be Jar-Jar's job.
The Jedi could function as either an informal but powerful organization (the US constitution never mentions political parties, but they're out there and powerful) or have a whole network of agreements, powers and understandings that vary from world to world. Akis gives them full diplomatic immunity to do whatever they need to, Eleas lets them operate but only with a local official overseeing, Ujal outlaws them, but turns a blind eye.
The elected queen bit, again could work, it's a unique system native to Naboo or whatever, but wasn't needed. Did it matter that she went from Queen to Senator? Why not just say she stepped down and let her sister take over? Or just name her President/Premier/First Citizen Amadala instead of Queen. Trying to have the fairy tale noble Queen AND democracy just made everything seem slipshod.
The most obvious thing was having a democratically elected 'queen', which is something most toddlers should be able to understand as nonsense.
Nothing to stop one from having an elected queen. There have been times when monarchs have been elected in the past. Admittedly by nobility but the point stands.
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote: Nothing to stop one from having an elected queen. There have been times when monarchs have been elected in the past. Admittedly by nobility but the point stands.
True (that's where they got the inspiration for elector counts in the empire from fantasy) but for me it'll always be undermined by the fact that a planet elected a 14 year old to lead them. It's just...stupid..
Also, is Tarkin more of a politician than a military figure? Because I think that if he is, he should be the one to call for palpatine to have emergency powers...then latter call for him to be emperor. I'm thinking of Roman history here; the two of them working together should get palpatine into power...then give him more power and build up an army...and then have said army proclaim him emperor. Because in Rome, a lot of the time the emperor was chosen by the army. And who's going to argue with them?
Kid_Kyoto wrote: It's the sort of stuff that could work with some more fluff but movies aren't the place for that sort of exposition.
My guess was the Senate was like the UN, every world appointed senator (or senators?) and ran its own affairs its own way within certain broad guidelines (ie no slavery).
Yeah, that's one of the other problems. The Senate most closely represents the UN, and the UN is a multi-governmental organisation aimed at achieving diplomacy and multi-national programs. But the Republic is something closer to a government, with real authority over its member planets, and the ability to raise an armed force in its own right.
Some senators would be appointed as Ministers just like any parliamentary system, or might head up agencies back on their world.
Having elected parliamentarians become ministers is a viable process in a Westminster style system, but again we're talking about something close to the UN. Imagine Samantha Power being given control of WHO.
And note that there's no parties or factions in the senate, just appointed diplomats. So how would you decide which appointed diplomats get ministerial powers?
The Republic sits somewhere between a UN model and Westminster system in a way that makes no real sense. This would be nitpicking, as it is just background information, but the prequel trilogy is meant to be about government, about the death of a democratic system. In order to make that work you have to give us a system where we not only see how it has failed, but also see how it might have worked. We don't get the latter, so the impact of the failed system is completely lost.
The Jedi could function as either an informal but powerful organization (the US constitution never mentions political parties, but they're out there and powerful) or have a whole network of agreements, powers and understandings that vary from world to world. Akis gives them full diplomatic immunity to do whatever they need to, Eleas lets them operate but only with a local official overseeing, Ujal outlaws them, but turns a blind eye.
The Jedi aren't so much a political party as a government department. They've taken on parts of State Dept and the FBI. But somehow they've maintained their independence, they aren't accountable to the Senate. This is quite silly - governments don't allow third parties to negotiate and investigate on their behalf, while granting them complete independence.
The elected queen bit, again could work, it's a unique system native to Naboo or whatever, but wasn't needed.
It's basically just a way for Lucas to bridge the gap between celebrating aristocracy in the OT, to celebrating democracy in the prequels. It is stupid, but it is harmless.
Future War Cultist wrote: So the story, acting and world building were all garbage? Yeah, I can agree to that.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing yes but GOT shows us how stories of intrigue should be done. Also, there's two major characters who should have been in the prequels who whereb't...Tarkin and Mon Mothma. The later could have been that opposition to Palpatine you mentioned.
Don't forget Bail Organa! He and Mon Mothma could have been the direct political opponents of Palpatine and Tarkin. Maybe even the reason Tarkin targets Alderaan, aside from merely being Princess Leia's homeworld, he has an old score to settle.
I would say it's silly to even compare SW goverment to our current political system. If we assume SW is in alternative reality systems have obviously evolved differently. If it's in future then it's fairly far future(not like few centuries but more like thousands of year) so our current democracy system has changed into something else anyway. Either way just because things are X now wouldn't mean it's same then.
tneva82 wrote: I would say it's silly to even compare SW goverment to our current political system.
The point isn't that its merely different, but that it's entirely disfunctional. The line between legislative and executive is incoherent. There's a religious order that's been assigned power and authority but no accountability.
This is no different to talking about an alternative maths where 1+1=3.
If it's in future then it's fairly far future(not like few centuries but more like thousands of year)
Also, has anyone considered the possibility of the republic being a bit like the EU? There's different opinions on what it should be: some think it should be a single entity, and this school of thought has its good and evil counterparts. The good being a single democratic nation as it where, whilst the bad is the Empire. There's some who sit in the middle; they like the republic as a unifier of planets it individual planets should still have some autonomy. And then there's the separatist types who hate it and put individual planet rights before the republic.
The commission can be the chancellor and various other posts who oversee the republican armed forces. I think it's stupid for them to not have an army at all; instead they could have a small peace keeping and space policing type navy with planets providing the armies. Like UN peacekeeping forces. Meanwhile, the council and the parliament are combined into the senate. Or, something. I'm not sure.
Also again, they should look at the Jedi the way super heroes are regarded in comics. They're the good guys of course but they don't answer to anyone but themselves and they help out on their own terms. It's why Palpatine and Tarkin want them eliminated. They can't be controlled.
tneva82 wrote: I would say it's silly to even compare SW goverment to our current political system.
The point isn't that its merely different, but that it's entirely disfunctional. The line between legislative and executive is incoherent. There's a religious order that's been assigned power and authority but no accountability.
This is no different to talking about an alternative maths where 1+1=3.
And we haven't had insitutions who have power but nobody to oversee them ever in the history? And you can safely say it's 100% impossible one won't appear? No chance whatsoever they got that power by political or show of power in past that's never been revoked out of fear/convenience/whatever?
tneva82 wrote: And we haven't had insitutions who have power but nobody to oversee them ever in the history?
Maybe, but I can tell you right now no government in history has ever given that power to an organisation, because it would put government in an impossible situation. I simply refuse to continue to explain why organisations don't hand over official government powers to other bodies that they cannot control in any way. It's a ridiculous conversation.
It does give me thought that the politics of the prequels could have been written along that very conflict. A beleaguered Republic that needs the aid of the Jedi, but is unwilling to accept it unless they can take some control over the actions of the Jedi. Meanwhile the Jedi order is keen to aid the Republic, but unwilling to give up their sovereignty. I can't tell you whether that could have been made punchy enough for a swashbuckling movie series, but I know it would at least make some kind of sense.
Future War Cultist wrote: There's always the danger of the politics and intrigue getting in the way of the action.
That isn't the way it should be approached if you intend to put an intrigue element into your story. The politicking is the action, just a different type to running and gunning and explosions. Finding the right balance between the two in the story can be difficult, however.
The prequels got it very wrong. We got the occasional snippet of something happening in the Senate but that was about it. There was nowhere near enough time invested into that part of the story for it to actually be intriguing. In the meantime they give us shots of Anakin talking about how he hates sand and rolling around in a field with Padme.
Does that mean then that when they're introduced, Padme and Anakin should already be an item? To save out on all that nonsense?
Not necessarily. The problem isn't showing them fall in love on screen, it is how badly it was done, which is a bit of a running theme with the prequels (some good ideas but executed poorly).
Just some rough ideas, mostly revolving around Anakins character and his arc:
- Have them meeting when they are already late teens/early 20s. Anakin is training to be a Jedi, Padme is a senator/queen/princess of Naboo (or maybe a senators aide, to account for her age). This should happen in the first film of the trilogy and their adult friendship should start to build in this film, rather than the child/older woman thing that they had going on in TPM. Then in the second film, it becomes a romantic relationship and culminates in the third film with the birth of Luke and Leia and the death of Padme.
- Give Anakin an already darker, aggressive personality from the beginning. Do not have him be a whiny, petulant teenager but rather a troubled young man, scarred by his experiences as a slave on Tatooine. Show that he is unable to form friendships with his fellow Jedi, with the exception of Obi-Wan who he trusts completely for rescuing him from slavery, which often leaves him feeling isolated and alone. His differences with the Jedi council are due to his upbringing as a slave, making him resentful of the master/apprentice relationship and often causing him to lose his temper when they give him orders which he disagrees with. Obi-Wan, on the other hand, treats him as a friend and equal, able to bring out his better qualities such as his loyalty.
- Have the Emperor kill Padme with an assassin during childbirth. Obi-Wan manages to save Luke and Leia (who neither he nor the Emperor expected), however in doing so he leaves evidence that he was there behind, hands Leia over to Organa to protect. This event serves as the tipping point which pushes Anakin over to the dark side after the Emperor shows Anakin that Obi-Wan was there and leads Anakin to believe that Obi-Wan killed Padme on the orders of the Jedi council and has stolen his child. Cue Anakin killing Jedi council members, the scattering and isolation of Jedi across the galaxy and him tracking down Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan has heard of what Anakin did to the council through Yoda and resolves that he cannot let Anakin have his children as he is too unstable. Cue duel in which Obi-Wan tries to make Anakin stand down and listen to him but Anakin is too enraged. Anakin loses limbs and gets burned (out of reach of Obi-Wan who is distraught that he can do nothing to help his friend), Emperor arrives, forcing Obi-Wan to flee. Obi-Wan escapes and fakes his and Lukes deaths before placing him in the care of Owen.
In general the first film should set up the Clone Wars, show the growing discontent with the republic in planets with separatist leanings. This culminates in the official start of the war.
The second film should be set several years after the beginning of the war. It is devastating whole planets and crippling the traditional economy of the Republic which begins its slide into handing more power to the Chancellor. However the chancellor should not be Palpatine yet. He is biding his time and getting power solidified in the top position before taking it himself in order to deflect suspicion away from himself. Second film culminates in a huge separatist attack on Coruscant which kills the chancellor and all of his government except for Palpatine before it is repelled by the republic forces. As Sidious, Palpatine plotted with Senators to facilitate the attack, plots which Palpatine then exposes. In light of the Senate being infiltrated by the separatists, supreme power is handed over to the newly formed Supreme Chancellor position for the duration of the war, which Palpatine is then elected to due to his experience in the previous government and for his role in exposing the treason within the Senate.
Yes, all that please. That's a far better idea than what we got. This is why I think this needs to be done. There's so much potential here, see?
I think anakin would work best as an overzealous vigilante type. He generally wants to protect the little people and uphold order, but his rage means that he goes berserk when dealing with the raiders of the Galaxy. Jedi are supposed to try and reason with the enemy and only defend themselves but anakin would think nothing of hacking pirates etc. to bits because 'they deserve it'. Him and Tarkin should be like two peas in a pod. Both wanted order and peace in the galaxy but go to extremes to get it. And the emperor is a tyrant who just wants the power for the sake of it, and is very good at manipulation.
Here's a few things I hope for too:
1. Don't show yoda. At all. Mention him for sure but don't show him. Imagine someone in the future was watching this series from start to finish for the first time. By keeping yoda a secret it makes him more significant when we do eventually see him in episode V. Say that anakin has passed all that part of his training and now it's in the field training.
2. Don't have R2 or 3PO in it either. They raise far too many questions if they're in it.
3. Again, try to match the atheistics of the originals more. Chunky looking ships with lots of 'bits' and blasters that look like real guns.
One last thing; you see how Lucas made obi-wan's robes the 'Jedi uniform'? Don't do that. Give them better gear than that.
One of the things I think the prequels did wrong was they showed Anakin becoming Darth Vader.
Wait, wait... let me finish...
Remember when you first saw ESB? Remember how your jaw hit the floor when Vader said "I am your father" to Luke?
Well, if you reveal Anakin's transformation into Vader in Ep 1-3, you destroy the strongest, most memorable moment of the OT. You rob younger generations who have not seen ESB of that moment of surprise when they learn that Vader is Anakin.
So why show Anakin's fall at all? It isn't needed for the PT. Just make the PT about the rise of the Emperor and the fall of the Republic. Have Obi-Wan in it, but as a secondary character, like Wedge. Have Anakin exist only as a character other people talk about, but who never makes an appearance on screen. End the third movie with the Emperor in charge and the Jedi weakened, but still around. They don't all have to die in a montage in Ep3. Have them still around, still nominally a part of the government, but starting to pull away, as they dislike the idea of the Empire. Leave the actual Jedi purges for the space between Ep 3 and 4. We don't need to see the purges, since Obi-Wan tells Luke that Vader hunted down and destroyed the Jedi in Ep 4.
Keep the sense of wonder and surprise in the OT, which we all experienced as kids. Don't destroy that surprise for your kids by showing them Anakin's fall.
It has always been a bit funny that no matter which order you watch the films (original then prequels or prequels then original), they will get spoiled.
Watch the prequels first, ESB big reveal is ruined. Watch the originals first and Anakins fall is ruined.
Bit of a catch 22
'Course the correct order is originals first as the twist in ESB is much better, not to mention the quality of the films.
Maybe the trick is to scrap the idea of episodes 1-3...rename episode IV back to episode 1 (and shift all the others back) and tell the story of Anakin through one of these spin off movies they're using? Skywalker: a Star Wars story? That way, anyone watching them can watch the main episodes first them watch the spin offs later to get the story without it being spoiled. It's drastic but it might be the only way to fix this.
Remember when you first saw ESB? Remember how your jaw hit the floor when Vader said "I am your father" to Luke?
Well, if you reveal Anakin's transformation into Vader in Ep 1-3, you destroy the strongest, most memorable moment of the OT. You rob younger generations who have not seen ESB of that moment of surprise when they learn that Vader is Anakin.
That's why, as Malus said, you watch the OT first.
The 'reveals' in the Prequels are less of a big deal, really, as most of them are things we already knew about by that point (although a surprising number of people got all the way to Episode 3 before accepting that Palpatine and Sidious were the same person...).
Having said that, I would have preferred to skip Padme's lame 'Oh look, she just died because reasons' ending... Have her die from the injuries Anakin inflicted on her, but with Obi Wan spiriting her body away to a med facility where the babies are saved but not named at that point. Finish with Obi Wan taking the babies off into the sunset to undisclosed destinations.
The frustration for me is that there are a lot of good threads in a prequels, they're just played out badly. Particularly, Anakin and Padme's romance is never really believable in the same way as Han and Leia's was, and the movies focus too much on Petulant Apprentice Anakin and not enough on Anakin the 'good friend'... so you never really care enough when he suddenly decides to be a bad guy.
Having said that, I still enjoy the prequels... I never had any particularly high expectations from them other than spaceships, explosions and laser sword fights with the occasional amusing one-liner, and on that front at least they deliver.
The frustration for me is that there are a lot of good threads in a prequels, they're just played out badly. Particularly, Anakin and Padme's romance is never really believable in the same way as Han and Leia's was, and the movies focus too much on Petulant Apprentice Anakin and not enough on Anakin the 'good friend'... so you never really care enough when he suddenly decides to be a bad guy.
Didn't most people find the Anakin and Padme romance creepy as hell? Who the hell falls for someone they knew as a little kid when they were significantly older?
I agree with the point on Anakin there. Should've been less friction between Anakin and Obi-wan early on. Also, the sudden change is ludicrous. Why did they even have him kill all the Jedi younglings (stupid word to use as well!)? It makes so sense that he'd go that swiftly. I stopped a Jedi from executed someone. Well, better kill a bunch of kids. It's not as if clone troopers wouldn't have been able to handle it either. Or hell, frame the Jedi for it so you don't have the awkwardness of explaining why you killed a load of kids.
Didn't most people find the Anakin and Padme romance creepy as hell? Who the hell falls for someone they knew as a little kid when they were significantly older?
She wasn't really 'significantly older' though. He was 9, and she was 14. Bit of a gap when they met, but nothing at all significant when they re-encountered each other as adults.
What made it creepy was just grown-up Anakin being distinctly unsettling when he went into full-on stalker mode.
I agree with the point on Anakin there. Should've been less friction between Anakin and Obi-wan early on. Also, the sudden change is ludicrous. Why did they even have him kill all the Jedi younglings (stupid word to use as well!)? It makes so sense that he'd go that swiftly. I stopped a Jedi from executed someone. Well, better kill a bunch of kids. It's not as if clone troopers wouldn't have been able to handle it either. Or hell, frame the Jedi for it so you don't have the awkwardness of explaining why you killed a load of kids.
Exactly. There should have been a longer period where he was starting to do Palpatine's dirty work and where you would get occasional glimpses of the anger and insecurity lurking inside an otherwise seemingly normal Jedi... and then have him forced to take sides when Order 66 kicks in.
Instead, his morals melted as quickly as Palpatine's face, and it was all just a bit jarring.
Exactly. There should have been a longer period where he was starting to do Palpatine's dirty work and where you would get occasional glimpses of the anger and insecurity lurking inside an otherwise seemingly normal Jedi... and then have him forced to take sides when Order 66 kicks in.
Instead, his morals melted as quickly as Palpatine's face, and it was all just a bit jarring.
This. He could have been used as Palpatines assassin, taking out separatist leaders without trial or chance to surrender throughout the films. He is still contributing to the war, which would allow for him to think he was doing good, and it allows Palpatine to start dripping his views on power and the weakness of the senate when it comes to doing what needs to be done into Anakins head.
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote: Also, the sudden change is ludicrous. Why did they even have him kill all the Jedi younglings (stupid word to use as well!)? It makes so sense that he'd go that swiftly. I stopped a Jedi from executed someone. Well, better kill a bunch of kids. It's not as if clone troopers wouldn't have been able to handle it either. Or hell, frame the Jedi for it so you don't have the awkwardness of explaining why you killed a load of kids.
If they had to include the Jedi kids getting killed at all, it should have been once Anakin had become Vader. Anakin should have been unstable and dangerous, but not a ruthless psycho. He was still dangerous, and Obi Wan still had to defeat him.
But it is only when he is reborn as Vader that he becomes a ruthless slaughterer.
I whole heartily with everything you're all saying. And if we can stop that whinny 'I should be the greatest Jedi' bollocks then all the better.
Should a future actor playing anakin try to match Vader's speech and manners more? Because I can't believe that that guy we see in the prequels becomes Vader.
I've been watching the originals on TV and they're riveting from start to finish. The prequels have flash but no substance. The levelling of acting, dialogue, character development and interaction etc. in the prequels is...well, garbage. 
