Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 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.

@ Kid_Kyoto

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.

greatest work of our time?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Original Trilogy is much more in need of a re-make than the prequels.

This is wrong.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It by now is so old and so outdated, it is barely even watchable anymore.

This is also wrong.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is boring and feels awkward, like most movies from that era.

The wrong streak continues unabated.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Scrap the Ewoks please

I believe it was originally supposed to be the Wookies but it was overly expensive and problematic to execute.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
but at least they have great effects that make them enjoyable to watch.

The effects have held up even worse than the originals in almost all areas; it is wall to wall green screen and painfully obvious.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I also feel that the basic storyline of the prequels is pretty promising, just really badly executed.

Any bad movie would be better if it were executed better. All this really says is that if things were different they would be different.

Ahtman speaks Truth to Power.

To the OP: I think we have an appropriate 40K phrase for them: Purge them with fire.

 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.

@ Frazzled

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

Yes, Leia got her royal credentials on Alderaan.

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:





Too smooth and shiny imo.

 Future War Cultist wrote:



Too smooth and shiny imo.

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I like that.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


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.

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

Heckuva way to get even!

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)

A long, long time ago...

@ xraytango

Yes yes and double yes.

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

There's always the danger of the politics and intrigue getting in the way of the action.

 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.