• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What Are the Ways the Star Wars Prequels Could Be Improved???

Which is not my position at all, but I appreciation the elucidation.
So, your position is not to reduce the outcome to being the Jedi's fault? You said that you see it that "the outcome of the PT is basically the Jedi's fault." How is that different? And, more to the point, how could the Jedi necessarily have done anything to stop the Emperor's rise to power, even if they had been more sympathetic etc.?

The Jedi were certainly seriously flawed, but to reduce the outcome to being their fault, as if characters such as Darth Sidious had no agency and therefore no culpability, is a ridiculous position.

The problem, as I see it, and others, is that the outcome of the PT is basically the Jedi's fault. The Jedi are entirely unsympathetic, and their imperfections were not just expanded upon, but were rarely, if ever, balanced out by any positives.
 
So, your position is not to reduce the outcome to being the Jedi's fault? You said that you see it that "the outcome of the PT is basically the Jedi's fault." How is that different? And, more to the point, how could the Jedi necessarily have done anything to stop the Emperor's rise to power, even if they had been more sympathetic etc.?
I will attempt to be more clear. I am not trying to deprive the Emperor of agency, but more that the Jedi aided him as well. They are unsympathetic towards Anakin and his plight and make several poor choices that result in him moving towards the Dark Side more than he already was heading there. They're basically surprised he fell even though there was plenty of signs and Jedi have left the order before. Again, it's short sighted and ignorant of what he needed from what were essentially his new parent figures.

I think the Jedi should have been shown to investigate both Maul, and his interactions with the Trade Federation or the Clone Army. They conclude at the end of TPM that the SIth are back, but indicate no progress or attempt to discover any of the conspiracy. Same thing with the deletion of Kamino. Even if it doesn't stop Palpatine, it would have demonstrated something proactive by the Jedi and not reactive.
 
It does seem like between TPM and AotC there's ten years of the Jedi sitting on their hands with regards to investigating the Sith
 
It does seem like between TPM and AotC there's ten years of the Jedi sitting on their hands with regards to investigating the Sith
And, to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying the Jedi have to win, but the idea that they haven't done anything, even by implication (not assumption) is a removal of agency that bothers me. Basically, ten years is a long freaking time, and it sounds like the Jedi did very little on the matter. Which, strikes me as oddly complacent that not one person, even Obi-Wan, would go, "Hmmm?"
 
Just wash out the saturation a bit and increase the contrast, or go full on sepia if you have the option. That's a neat trick.
 
Just wash out the saturation a bit and increase the contrast, or go full on sepia if you have the option. That's a neat trick.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
By the way, what are "dark" tendencies? Why does anything "dark" always have to be a metaphor for evil? And why does anything "light" always have to be a metaphor for good? Come to think of it, why do so many pop culture fans and geeks cling to the use of "dark" and "light" when discussing morality? They don't even use "good" and "evil" anymore. It's damn disturbing.
I would guess that it probably goes back to night and day. The night is dark and dangerous, it's when the worst of the predators come out, and you can't always tell what's around you. Day on the other hand tends to be safer.
 
I would guess that it probably goes back to night and day. The night is dark and dangerous, it's when the worst of the predators come out, and you can't always tell what's around you. Day on the other hand tends to be safer.
Really thrives on humans more primal fears.
 
Our biological history shapes our psychology which in turn shapes our language. It's no coincidence that darkness has always been symbolic of fear, danger and evil. Darkness used to contain nasty things with teeth and claws that would drag people off at night, or hide pitfalls and other hazards while walking through the night. In the light of day, or by the light of the fire we created to keep the darkness back, we at least had a chance to see the bastard things coming: hence the torch being a common symbol for knowledge. Hell, just the etymology of the word "enlightened" should be self evident enough to illustrate this.

Had we evolved from a nocturnal, subterranean or deep sea species then this would probably be reversed with light being a fearful, blinding thing. But we did not, so here we are and this is how we think.
 
More characterisation would've made the prequels very much better. Improved dialogue and interaction between the cast/characters would've done wonders. As it was, whatever was happening off in the distance, in the background shots always seemed much more fun & interesting, frankly, than the "story" we were being subjected to. The prequels could've been storied pretty much as they were PROVIDED that the cast was entertaining to watch, in the same way the old cast was. But Lucas had long-since lost his "stuff" as a director ...
 
I appreciate what you're saying, fireproof, but let's not forget something, here: George Lucas wrote AND directed STAR WARS '77 where the acting and interactions betwixt the cast was engaging and entertaining. American Graffiti is also well-acted. It's not like George Lucas couldn't direct actors, ever. That's a crock of shite, but I do love how he deflects criticism of the STAR WARS prequels with this excuse of "Oh! What are you complaining about? I NEVER directed actors well ... that's nothing new." He just lost interest in it, or lost his talent in it, or both. But he didn't want to have to come out and admit that, especially when the prequels were still being released -- who would? And with so much of his own money vested into the project, there was no way he was going to let a more capable director take all of the credit for THE RETURN of STAR WARS -- it had to be Lucas' handiwork, unfortunately. The Phantom Menace seems to have gotten the most attention, script-wise, from George and it's incredibly thin and derivative. All of that time he had to work on it and it comes across like something he wrote on the shitter, for the better part of an hour. This shocks the living hell out of me, considering all of the hype it had to receive.

A NEW HOPE is not a deep movie, but it's treated like it's really happening. Its believability is helped out enormously by the fact that so much of it happens on real locations. Tatooine is being represented by a real desert. Uncle Owen's unusual household is a real location, it's not a set. Yavin is a real location. The temple there, if I'm not mistaken, is real. The costumes of Vader, stormtroopers, the robots ... all of it looks futuristic, yet practical. Yes, you can tell that 3PO's a sort of Knight's outfit, but as a robot, the suit's still very believable. The landspeeder really bobs and stuff, when Luke's getting on and off of it and looks right. And when we do go to artificial environments, they are not overdone, they are low-key ... basically, just a lot of big, open areas with a lot of lights and sliding doors. Best of all, most of this could be interacted with in a very convincing way, because it was real. The CGI in the STAR WARS prequels looks quite real, at times -- especially the matte paintings -- but its very nature made it impossible to have convincing interactions with the cast. Physical contact is rarely required in the films. The aliens are goofy-looking and off-putting, for the most part. And where Lucas finds ILM doing something wildly successfully, like showing CGI terrain speeding along like actual terrain, on-camera ... it becomes a movie, within itself, because Lucas wants to show it off. Had he shown this much interest in the characters, as he had to do with A NEW HOPE, the prequels would've been frigging' phenomenal. There still would've been stupid shite in it, like Annie being a little slave boy and obviously computer-generated, retarded-looking aliens, BUT ... it would've been much more fun to watch. Especially with that cast.
 
It's not like George Lucas couldn't direct actors,
I'm not going to respond to the whole thing, because I kind of agree that Lucas lost interest.

The only point of my post was that directing actors was a "challenge" for him, not that he "couldn't" do it.

That's all :techman:
 
I've been wondering for a while now if Lucas would have been better off with a co-director. Someone that could handle the actors and storytelling stuff, while Lucas handled all of the more technical stuff that he likes.
 
I've been wondering for a while now if Lucas would have been better off with a co-director. Someone that could handle the actors and storytelling stuff, while Lucas handled all of the more technical stuff that he likes.
I think so, but I also think Lucas struggled with feeling he could be in control of his baby. I think SF Debris did a video series on the history of Star Wars and its creation, but Lucas suffered from a lot of mental breakdowns over the stress of the different films. I think he felt like he ceded too much control to Kershner in ESB and that's why we ROTJ take shape the way we did.

However, that might be misremembering.
 
So far as I'm aware, Lucas offered the job of directing RotJ to Kershner, but he turned it down stating that he just didn't want to dedicate another two whole years of his life to the project. I think he ended up doing a Bond movie instead (one that actually managed to do worse than 'Octopussy')...then a few years later 'Robocop 2'...Make of that what you will.

And I think I've pointed this out before, but Lucas actively sought other directors for the prequels, but just couldn't find someone that 1) he felt he could work with and 2) wanted to do it. IIRC both Spielberg and Zemeckis turned him down.
The thing about movie directors is that they're typically very keen on being the ones in charge of the creative side of things. Very few of the really good ones are willing to invest time and effort that could be spent doing their own projects into someone else's.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top