• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Would You Have Saved The Star Wars Prequels?

Interesting thread.

For Ep. I:

I would ditch the whole original Ep 1 storyline and start off Anakin and Obi Wan at around the same age and as Jedi apprentices under Qui Gon. I would already put them at war against a separatist faction led by Count Dooku. Sidoius and Maul will be secretly controlling them. Anakin could meet Padme at this point and they get secretly married in the end. There would be no Jar Jar Binks.

Ep. 2-3

I would keep the Revenge of the Sith storyline but stretch it out over two movies so that it would be a gradual fall for Anakin rather than right away.

Honestly, that might very well be the best way to do it. Drop the "Chosen One" pretext entirely and simply have Anakin start off as a Padawan (maybe with Obiwan already being a Knight, and Quigon being the Master in charge of the trio) so you don't have to waste an undue amount of screen time on the obligatory "pleasantries" of training, and can get right to the action.

He becomes a Knight, hooks up with Padme in the process of helping her make her escape, and maybe even loses a hand to Maul before the end credits roll, and it's all downhill from there.

Hell! Maybe they can even pose as the crew of Spice freighter at some point, as a mythology gag of sorts. :2razz:

While I might quibble over a point or two, I think your ideas plugged into the Lucasfilm machine would have made some really good movies. :)

Thanks! :mrgreen:

Yeah... I'll hardly claim to be any kind of screen writer, and I'll freely acknowledge that anything I came up with would probably need a Hell of a lot of tweaking and more than a few rewrites before it really could be said to be coherent. However, the fact that even some random dude spit-balling ideas over the internet comes off as a substantial improvement over Lucas' original work is probably saying something in and of itself. lol

The guy put next to no effort into the story of any of the movies beyond Ep 1. Frankly, even then, as I understand, most of that was ripped off of some samurai movie anyway. :doh
 
Mmm, it's easy to dismiss something we take for granted as simplistic, but at the time even small things like leah's hair, vader's costume, light sabers, all that was far more original than anything in phantom menace. Sure, the story arch itself is all presaged in "hero of 1000 faces," but yoda still makes for a rather original 'wise man' character. Again this is superior to anything in the 2nd trilogy

I feel like once lucas reached his creative limits, his focus shifted to cash-in gimmicks and cheap laughs - ewoks/jar jar/kid anakkin, and blind han solo accidentally killing off bad guys. It's like a crutch

I actually think, probably cause it was the swan song and unavoidably dark, Revenge at least made an honest attempt to steer away from that, but again, he had reached his creative limits and so just fell back on endless light saber battles. The dramatic interludes were so awkward, it's easy to see why

A New Hope was more original, sure. And for the time, it was ground-breaking, but it was mostly ground-breaking in terms of special effects. The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith all pushed the envelope on cinematic effects --but by then, you couldn't really get away with saying "My CGI is the best!" and still expect to make a significant cultural impact. I think that's still true for the original trilogy, those special effects aren't even remotely impressive anymore. So whilst I think it's cool that Lucas could do what he could do way back in 1977 and it's an extremely profound point in the history of film, it's not a piece of film where if you take it out of it's context, it stands on it's own as a great cinematic masterpiece (it's still good, all of the Star Wars films are passable movies for the most part.) Avatar was also something that fit a similar niche role of pushing special effects and not much else. I think films that people still love watching (e.g. Alfred Hitchcock) are films that were innovative in story-telling, plot-devices, dialogue, etc. Those pass the test of time usually a bit better, in my opinion anyways.
 
The OT and NT are nothing alike.

At its core the original trilogy was about the people, a vast array of characters, situations and they felt like real people, people we grew to care about.

The NT is about shoving in as much crap as possible that they could make into toys, and all the computers in the world couldn't generate the most basic thing that the NT needed, an emotional connection with the audience.

I've had this argument too many times on this thread and on the other thread. The original trilogy is better in specific, important ways. However, it's still pretty crap if we're at all interested in character depth, dialogue, logical cohesiveness, and so on. It's better at these things (usually) than the prequel trilogy, but overall still pretty middling. I find it hard to argue that while that the original trilogy was really based on characters more than the prequel trilogy was. Luke was still an exceedingly 1-D character, even if Anakin was a 0-D character.
 
Nothing is going to ever beat the original trilogy to me, because the original was something really new and different.



I grew up watching all the old sci-fi films, from drivel like It Came From Outer Space, to The Blob, to the far more intelligently written Forbidden Planet, as well as reading Heinlein, Asimov, Niven, etc.


1977 I was about twelve, and Star Wars came out. All I knew was it was about war in space, and I wanted to see it.


Well see it I did, and in the first minute I realized This Was Different.


This wasn't some cheesy production with cheap models on wires like some Ed Wood Saturday-afternoon movie. It wasn't even a better production like Forbidden Planet with just one spaceship and very few actual space-scenes. This movie was actually trying to depict a whole GALAXY of space travel, alien races, interstellar societies, intrigue and war. It was HUGE, it was bigger than anything anyone had ever attempted before, it was a watershed moment, an Everything Changes From Here movie that set a new standard that is still hard to beat.

To a kid who grew up on Battle Beyond the Stars and Forbidden Planet, even the starscape and planetary orbit scene and the Corellian Cruiser that went by so fast was an impressive effect.... THEN the Star Destroyer starts going by and just KEEPS ON going by.... and by the time the scene cuts again, I KNEW that THIS was going to be different. And it was.


You only get a feeling like that from a movie a few times in a lifetime. Sequels can bring that feeling back to some degree, to a point, but eventually it just isn't quite the same.


I liked the second trilogy too, mainly because it returned me to a favorite sci-fi setting and some of the scenes recaptured that feeling a little, but the wooden-manniken-Anakin and stilted dialog detracted a lot... and it just wasn't quite NEW anymore, you see.


But I still love it, and although I haven't been back to see the new movie a second time yet I plan to. I aim to enjoy the good parts and ignore the bad as much as I can, because I want to enjoy the show. :)
 
What made Ep. IV, V and VI good was the fact that they were telling story. I,II and III were pretty much just reciting history. There were no great archetypes driving the story, no real emotional connection to the characters. It was pretty much a historical re-enactment. They could have fixed this by presenting them as stories in their own right, instead of just prequels. Most of the story elements weren't that bad, they were just so dry and detached that it was hard to connect to the characters. Yoda came across as being arrogant, Obi Wan was simply sad and frustrated, Annakin was a lost little boy that most of couldn't less about and Amidala was kind of creepy for the most part. I made more of a connection to Maul than I did to Qui Gon. He at least had some character.
 
Shoot ep 1 in 35 mm. If you watch ep 1 on bluray it really has not aged well. Probably the same for the other two for consistency's sake mixed with some degree of future-proofing for future formats.

Spread chronology out. Have kid Anakin and teenage Anakin in episode 1.

Most of the work would be in ep 2

Cast a different Anakin

Reduce intergalactic trade politics to a minimum.

Cgi plus puppetry,

Less whiny baby Anakin

Spread romance out through ep 2&3.

Get rid of the sound of music Padme and Anakin scene. Padme should not be frolicking through the damn flowers and go "oh no Annie" when he falls or whatever.

Keep Jar Jar, but highlight how he became a political pawn instead of only using him to fulfill the most basic of plot points surrounding the end of the Senate. I know a lot of folks hated him, but giving into that disdain put the writers in a bad position. They had to use him but "had to" keep him away from the viewers. That was a stupid compromise.
 
Last edited:
I never thought all three movies sucked but parts did...There was a space racer scene that was not cool but for the tech people who get into sound that stretched 30 seconds of story into something like 8 minutes, there were some super boring droid wars. Jar Jar I liked, I have a crush on Natalie Portman, the Senate stuff I liked a lot...

WTF is supposed to be the root problem with these movies?

wow you actually liked jar jar....then again, i guess donald trump probably doesn't like jamaicans either
 
I would like a quick-ish backstory to Anakin becoming an apprentice. First 10-15 minutes could be strictly about that. Add some sort of dark, scary element to establish some psychological torment and go into him being an adolescent in the order.

When we see Finn's backstory, it accomplished that quite well. It was some appropriately brutal stuff that pushed him into a new "act" if you will. But instead of a quick turn around we say "some time later...." and kick it into adolescent Anakin.
 
A New Hope was more original, sure. And for the time, it was ground-breaking, but it was mostly ground-breaking in terms of special effects. The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith all pushed the envelope on cinematic effects --but by then, you couldn't really get away with saying "My CGI is the best!" and still expect to make a significant cultural impact. I think that's still true for the original trilogy, those special effects aren't even remotely impressive anymore. So whilst I think it's cool that Lucas could do what he could do way back in 1977 and it's an extremely profound point in the history of film, it's not a piece of film where if you take it out of it's context, it stands on it's own as a great cinematic masterpiece (it's still good, all of the Star Wars films are passable movies for the most part.) Avatar was also something that fit a similar niche role of pushing special effects and not much else. I think films that people still love watching (e.g. Alfred Hitchcock) are films that were innovative in story-telling, plot-devices, dialogue, etc. Those pass the test of time usually a bit better, in my opinion anyways.

I agree with you that time is what legitimizes art, which is one reason i mostly only read older books. Thing is, it's been 40 years and still people of all ages love watching the OT so....will they enjoy the NT 30 years from now? I highly doubt it. Already i can only stand watching the darth maul fight

I really don't think the OT relied on special effects and gimmicks to capture an audience the way avatar or the NT tried to. As you say, those 70s effects aren't impressive any more, but again, the movies still have a massive following, and probably always will
 
wow you actually liked jar jar....then again, i guess donald trump probably doesn't like jamaicans either

I thought that Lucas is on record as saying that Jar Jar is him....he said something to that effect.

EDIT: Here it is:

In an interview with Vanity Fair this week, the creator of the galaxy far far away was asked who he would be if he had to be a Star Wars character. He paused for a moment, equivocating, before offering an absolute truly worthy of a Sith. "Jar Jar Binks," he said, the corners of his mouth curling into a wry smirk.
George Lucas wants to be Jar Jar Binks | The Verge

Oh well, my memory is not perfect...Ya, I remember Jar Jar, and I dont remember being annoyed by Jar Jar, so that character was a win with me.
 
Last edited:
Ya Ok, so WTF is the problem? Do we have some issues with flashbacks to Battle Star Galactica that we need to deal with?

That did not bother me.

because suspension of disbelief is critical to enjoying any movie, and it's just too absurd for me to scarf down like it's a bucket of popcorn

i would have preferred Na'vii type language with english subtexts, so sue me
 
I thought that Lucas is on record as saying that Jar Jar is him....he said something to that effect.

really, george lucas has a thick jamaican accent? Interesting
 
because suspension of disbelief is critical to enjoying any movie, and it's just too absurd for me to scarf down like it's a bucket of popcorn

i would have preferred Na'vii type language with english subtexts, so sue me

I agree with you, that is one of my problems with the Rey character, but I dont want anything to get in the way of the relationship between the art and the observer...and stuff that makes my brain work constantly to process that is not required to better the art is a bad choice in my view. For instance if someone right now makes a picture about Putin's military in Syria, a good old fashioned war movie, I don't want the characters to speaking a dozen different languages with translation in text at the bottom, just have everyone speak english, as jarringly unreal as that would be. There was a brief time when WW2 movies would have the Germans speaking in German, but they got away from that, and I think they did it for the reason that in hindered the enjoyment of the pictures.
 
I agree with you, that is one of my problems with the Rey character, but I dont want anything to get in the way of the relationship between the art and the observer...and stuff that makes my brain work constantly to process that is not required to better the art is a bad choice in my view. For instance if someone right now makes a picture about Putin's military in Syria, a good old fashioned war movie, I don't want the characters to speaking a dozen different languages with translation in text at the bottom, just have everyone speak english, as jarringly unreal as that would be. There was a brief time when WW2 movies would have the Germans speaking in German, but they got away from that, and I think they did it for the reason that in hindered the enjoyment of the pictures.

the reason for that is most americans are barely literate. It doesn't reflect highly on filmmakers when they succumb to that

i don't find it difficult, actually far more enjoyable, to watch a movie like Downfall with actual german actors speaking german, as compared to mass production tripe like valkyrie
 
Back
Top Bottom