Star Wars Prequels: Were they "Almost Universally Panned?"

[Elfdart]

What continuity problems was this guy bringing up? The backstory of the original trilogy was so vague that there was nothing to contradict. Anakin fought in something called the "Clone Wars" before turning into Darth Vader and wiping out the Jedi. That's basically all we got before the prequels, and those things all still hold true. It's not Lucas's fault if fans came up with their own preconceived fanon about the Jedi fighting clones of themselves or whatever. Nothing I saw in the prequels was as jarring as Luke and Leia suddenly being brother and sister in ROTJ.

Honestly, I think the saga holds up quite well including the prequels. Now, we have a multi-generational epic with the same common themes (resisting fear and poisonous hatred, breaking free and learning from the past generation's mistakes) being conveyed across six movies.

He wasn't focused on continuity errors, since the series doesn't really have any that you don't see in almost every other movie. The gist of his book is that Lucas somehow ruined the characters and stories and most fatuous of all, that Kaminski knows more about what the characters and story were supposed to be like than Lucas himself.

Anything that delusional moron (who thinks he knows more about what George Lucas was thinking than Lucas himself) writes needs to be taken with a truckload of salt.

It'd be great if somebody would for once back up those charges of delusion on his part.

I can't quote from his book since it's not online anymore, but he devotes quite a lot of it to his pet theory that Anakin and Vader were never meant to be the same character, then the devious George Lucas changed his mind sometime after the death of Leigh Brackett. His evidence is the fact that Lucas didn't include the surprise in Brackett's draft, and didn't (as far as anyone knows) write in down in personal notes or otherwise make a record of just when he decided to make the two characters one and the same. It's possible that Kaminski is right. It's much more likely that he's wrong for the following reasons:

* Artists usually don't footnote all their creative decisions, where they came from or when exactly the idea came to them.

* Two of the major influences on Star Wars (Wagner's Ring Cycle and The Searchers) feature the villain as the hero's long lost father/surrogate father -something that puts the hero in a real predicament: it's just not cool to kill your own dad. How does the hero handle this dilemma? This is Storytelling 101: Place the protagonist in a situation that is not easily resolved.

* Screenwriters, novelists and other writers of fiction are almost constantly changing characters, adding them, condensing them and deleting them. They even do this when adapting material from other writers.

Not that it matters: Lucas could have made his decision the day of the shoot, or it could have been lurking in the back of his mind when he started his first draft. Or he could have written different ideas on slips of paper and drawn them out of a hat.

The very idea that a person would insist that they know where, when, how and why an author came up with an idea is delusional in the extreme.

Anyway, can you blame him when Lucas is the one who has consistently lied about what he said in the past regarding his own movies? Changing your mind is one thing, pretending you never said the opposite of what you're saying now (and even not so subtly attacking the people who believed you in the first place), despite the public record, is another.

Hand-wringing over what Lucas may have said in the 1970s and acting as though the man owes you an explanation for his creative decisions is almost comical. So what if he said he was considering making nine, twelve or a hundred movies? Did he promise you more movies? Lucas decided to limit the series to six films 30 years ago. I think that's a long enough period for him to say "No, I wasn't ever going to make more than six films." even if he did kick around the idea of making more three decades ago.

And the fact is that he doesn't just "go after" Lucas either, as he problematizes certain comments made by the likes of Kurtz and Pollock as well.

This just shows Kaminski is obsessed. Who cares what Pollock thinks? Or Kurtz for that matter.

If Kaminski is a "delusional moron" for bringing these issues to light, I suppose then so is Jonathan Rinzler, because his latest works expose the falsehood of the whole "always intended" BS Lucas has been spouting for a little over a decade. But since he's licensed, maybe he should get a pass?

Does Rinzler repeatedly call Lucas a "liar" because he changed his mind about the number of sequels?

To the degree that Lucas changed his mind on stories and characters it was probably for the better. There aren't really any problems with the story or characters, except that many a middle-aged, disgruntled fanboy thinks Lucas should have told their stories and used their characters.

Spoken like another disgruntled fanboy? We're not talking about "the fan's stories" or "fan's characters" we're talking about Lucas' own stories. The reason people write fan fics today about "what might have been" is irrelevant, as is any nerd rage over some perceived slight to an EU character (if that's what you were implying there).

No, they're angry at Lucas for telling his stories his way. They think he should have told the stories their way, and when he didn't (and on top of that, decided to stop the series at six films -meaning no one else would make more), they became hysterical. That's why you have fanboys afflicted with Nerd Rage claiming the movies were "almost universally panned". It's also why delusional morons like Kaminski attack Lucas as a "liar" for changing his mind thirty years ago.

This is about the "always intended" revisionism BS. Many fans thought the older backstories would have been better. The first "plot twist" of turning Vader into Luke's father was one a lot of people loved, even though it screwed up the mythos.

How did it "screw up" the story? It added real depth to what were little more than comic book characters:

Luke can't just kill Vader
Obi-Wan is no longer a saint, but a conniver
Vader is more than just a Black Hat

You'd prefer Alan Dean Foster?

I don't think anyone is blaming him for that. But after that it seemed as if he wanted to throw in twists that make everybody related and reverse what was previously naturally presumed or established, just to do them. Now Leia is Luke's sister, Vader built C3PO, Vader is not only from Luke's home planet but his family still lives in the same house he visited during the Clone Wars when his mom died and also owns C3PO, R2D2 was owned by Luke's mom and was Vader's personal droid and good friends with himself and Obi-Wan and saved their lives in the old days, Chewbacca was war buddies with Yoda and helped him escape to Dagobah, etc. I mean c'mon, now Obi-Wan's master's master was a Sith Lord, the right hand man to the Emperor who masterminded the whole Clone War and personally fought Yoda. Thank heaven he stopped short of giving us kid Solo knowing Bail Organa or Palpatine being Anakin's father.

Hope you never read Shakespeare or Greek mythology.

So anyway, I wouldn't consider people who actually remembered the original films going in to somehow be at fault for noticing some issues. Who were these films made for, anyway?

I would -especially when those "issues" are trivial. Who gives a shit whether Anakin put C3PO together? Or if Yoda met Chewbacca?

The hackneyed/irrelevant plot twists are second only to the continuity gaffes they caused as a source of annoyance to people. Which do you think was more important to fans (not just "fanboys") of Star Wars? That nearly every possible reference to the old movies be randomly tossed in, regardless of consequences, or that they told a good story with likable characters in their own right that fit with the established continuity as well as possible?

What exactly are these "continuity gaffes"?

[Elfdart]

Are any of these elaborations really on the same level as Michael Corleone suddenly turning Scottish-Irish, or even inconsistent with anything?

Tom Hagen was Irish -though he could just as easily have been from any other ethnic group and it wouldn't have mattered.

[Kurgan]

I can't quote from his book since it's not online anymore, but he devotes quite a lot of it to his pet theory that Anakin and Vader were never meant to be the same character, then the devious George Lucas changed his mind sometime after the death of Leigh Brackett. His evidence is the fact that Lucas didn't include the surprise in Brackett's draft, and didn't (as far as anyone knows) write in down in personal notes or otherwise make a record of just when he decided to make the two characters one and the same. It's possible that Kaminski is right. It's much more likely that he's wrong for the following reasons:

That may be your problem right there. See, the PDF that Kaminski on had on his site for awhile is NOT what is printed in his book. The "book" he was working on went through three major revisions before it was printed (and last I checked, he only had a preview available). I don't see this as his "pet theory" simply fact, regarding the evolution of the character. Anakin/Luke's father = Vader was something that first appeared in 1978. If it were really something he always intended, surely there would have been some clue, in the behind the scenes material before that point. The usual argument made is that he was deathly afraid of spoilers so he didn't want to let it out. If that were the case, why did he release the novelization before the movie? And of course the other fact is that the internal scripts and screenplay drafts were not meant for the public anyway. So internal stuff doesn't reveal the secret, but external stuff does?

So there were actually some big errors in the first version, which have since been corrected and its been re-written.

Even so, the idea that Lucas planned "all along" for Vader and Anakin to be the same character and the father of Luke... well there's ZERO EVIDENCE for this being intact before 1978. The only person who says otherwise is Lucas himself (after the fact).

So now, you could say, well he had it in his mind all those years and he just never told anybody, knowing he was going to use it someday. It just seems unlikely to me (and it's nothing against Lucas to admit he came up with the idea later instead of was holding it in reserve all this time). None of those script drafts were meant for the public, and were not leaked out right away, plus his written notes were not meant for the public either. Why would Lucas write down so many irrelevant ideas, most of which were never used in ANY version of the films, but not this particular one? We see the evolution of the "Vader" and "Anakin" characters throughout the drafts, and yet there's never this connection of him being Luke's father. So either Lucas is misremembering, he's fibbing, or else he really did have it in mind for years and just never told anyone, not even his inner circle, and never wrote it down.

If Lucas had thought of it way back in the day, what would he have to lose now by producing those notes and showing everyone he had it planned out in advance? Yet, we get all these new books about the making of Star Wars and such, and it still seems to be "missing." That makes reasonable people think it probably never existed to begin with.

If it's a question of "believing Lucas" the question is, which Lucas do you believe, the one from the 1970's when he was a struggling indie filmmaker? The one from the 80's when Star Wars was building his media Empire? The 90's when he was making his big comeback to Star Wars? Or the Lucas of today?

* Artists usually don't footnote all their creative decisions, where they came from or when exactly the idea came to them.

Of course not, but if we are doing history, we can only go by what the evidence states. If a person says something, but all the documentation (and even testimony of others) contradicts what they say, which is more likely to be true?

* Two of the major influences on Star Wars (Wagner's Ring Cycle and The Searchers) feature the villain as the hero's long lost father/surrogate father -something that puts the hero in a real predicament: it's just not cool to kill your own dad. How does the hero handle this dilemma? This is Storytelling 101: Place the protagonist in a situation that is not easily resolved.

Sure, there are plenty of stories in which the villain and the hero are related. There's also plenty of stories in which the love interests are related. So what? That doesn't mean those myths automatically apply to Star Wars. I mean, would you watch ANH and honestly say that you can see that Vader is a Christ-figure? That idea is out there in storytelling, obviously, and it was applied to Star Wars later. So why not say it's part of that film?

The point is that we're not looking at this through suspension of disbelief, we're looking at how the Star Wars story evolved, based on the available evidence, not merely the creator's whimsy after the fact. He's an important source on the history, but his current statements are not the only source, nor is he infallible.

* Screenwriters, novelists and other writers of fiction are almost constantly changing characters, adding them, condensing them and deleting them. They even do this when adapting material from other writers.

Of course. And pointing this out is usually done to correct certain fans who believe that somehow Lucas had this "one giant story" in a big book 30+ years ago that he adapted into the six movies. But certain things Lucas has at times tried to claim he had always intended, like the much beloved "I am your Father" reveal.

Star Wars doesn't suddenly suck if we admit the reality that it evolved over time, rather than being "all thought of in advance." Lucas doesn't suddenly suck if he collaborated with others and drew inspiration from many sources, rather than just thinking of it all himself or only drawing from "the Hidden Fortress" and "the hero's journey."

Not that it matters: Lucas could have made his decision the day of the shoot, or it could have been lurking in the back of his mind when he started his first draft. Or he could have written different ideas on slips of paper and drawn them out of a hat.

Sure, it's possible. But all the evidence points to the idea not existing, until 1978 when it appeared in writing. There's certainly no hint of it before that.

The very idea that a person would insist that they know where, when, how and why an author came up with an idea is delusional in the extreme.

Then all literary historians are delusional, because that's why they try to pinpoint. We can't know with absolutely 100% certainty what a person was thinking at a given time, but then a person doesn't have 100% memory either. What we're doing is trying to piece together when it was most likely that they had the idea.

Maybe Lucas thought up Star Wars when he was 5 years old. I mean, how would we disprove such a notion?

Hand-wringing over what Lucas may have said in the 1970s and acting as though the man owes you an explanation for his creative decisions is almost comical.

It's not some personal vendetta. The point is that certain people act like Lucas never said anything about the backstory, meaning, there should have been no expectation about Episodes I-III until they came out. The argument was often made in the past that the Prequels should not be criticized, because they are merely Lucas' grand vision that he always intended for the characters, and it's not his fault that people didn't appreciate them. The expectations were built in part by Lucas himself, both through those interviews and through his allowing the EU writers to dabble in those areas (until he told them to stop, of course).

That doesn't make him evil, it just makes the argument that we should have had no expectations about the OT backstory silly, and it makes Lucas look a little odd for playing up these things and then dropping them without explanation.

It's not that he "owes" people an explanation, it's that people WANT one, because they're fans. Otherwise these are just some stupid movies, who cares about anything? (including defending him from criticism) All he had to do was say "I changed my mind" and boom, all is forgiven, right? Instead he made it out that the interviewers were twisting his words or taking him out of context, as if he either couldn't remember what he said, or wanted to hide it.

So what if he said he was considering making nine, twelve or a hundred movies? Did he promise you more movies? Lucas decided to limit the series to six films 30 years ago. I think that's a long enough period for him to say "No, I wasn't ever going to make more than six films." even if he did kick around the idea of making more three decades ago.

Considering how they turned out, I think many are happy he didn't make more than 6.
The point is that the whole "planned out in advance" mythology requires that he knows how many installments in the story there were. For a long time many fans BELIEVED (and not without reason) that Lucas had a stack of drafts sitting in his filing cabinet waiting to be made into new Star Wars movies. Even now Lucas admits that wasn't true. What I haven't seen him admit is that he (intentionally or unintentionally) mislead fans by feeding this rumor.

This just shows Kaminski is obsessed. Who cares what Pollock thinks? Or Kurtz for that matter.

Silly question. Who cares what Lucas thinks? Obviously, we care because Pollock was one of the few people who was granted such extensive behind the scenes material about the Star Wars movies as they were being made, and unprecedented access to Lucas himself during this period. And since he wasn't a lackey, presumably he could speak more freely about the material. That doesn't make him infallible either, but he gets a unique perspective. Why care about Kurtz? Because like so many of the other people involved with the original Star Wars movies (in his case, prior to ROTJ), he too has a unique perspective that other people who are just fans or who work for Lucas now, wouldn't have had.

Does Rinzler repeatedly call Lucas a "liar" because he changed his mind about the number of sequels?

Oh, so that's it? Can you point to any instances where Kaminski calls Lucas a "liar" for changing his mind?

The number of sequels is not the issue here, in fact it's a minor one in the list of instances where Lucas said one thing, and did another, then said the opposite of what he originally said. If that's not a lie, tell me what is.

Anyway, aren't literary and film historians are supposed to be obsessed with details, facts, and evidence?

If Lucas has somewhere admitted that in all these cases he simply changed his mind (rather than, people just misquoted him or made something up), that'd sure clear a lot of things up.

No, they're angry at Lucas for telling his stories his way. They think he should have told the stories their way, and when he didn't (and on top of that, decided to stop the series at six films -meaning no one else would make more), they became hysterical. That's why you have fanboys afflicted with Nerd Rage claiming the movies were "almost universally panned". It's also why delusional morons like Kaminski attack Lucas as a "liar" for changing his mind thirty years ago.

So we can't know what Lucas was thinking, but we can know what people who were disappointed with the Prequels were thinking? Interesting.

I don't think most people were upset only about the number of movies (though pointing out that Lucas changed his story a couple of times was confusing, to say the least), so much as him changing the backstory he'd told us existed already. One could quibble over HOW he told the story, but that's not some unique Lucas bashing thing.

If by "his way" you mean changing the backstory and putting in a lot of filler and contradictions, then sure, a lot of fans had a problem with that. But don't misread it as an ego thing, like "Star Wars fans think they're better film directors than GEORGE LUCAS how dare they." That's not it. A person doesn't have to be a better filmmaker in order to notice problems in a movie, or inconsistencies in story arc or characters.

How did it "screw up" the story? It added real depth to what were little more than comic book characters:

They're STILL comic book characters. What "depth" was added? Making Obi-Wan into a bigger liar than before? Making Yoda into a warmonger before he became a pacifist? Making everyone's memory of the past 25 years faulty?

The plot twists ruin some things yes. Before the interactions between Luke and Leia were kind of sweet, even romantic. Now they're just creepy and cringe inducing. Vader was the love-to-hate badass villain, who then had a trace of good still in him and ended up getting redeemed because one person (who had every reason to hate him) had faith in that goodness. So far so good. Now he's a pathetic whiner who turned evil because of his royal politician girlfriend's poor taste in men. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the original movies anymore, but if you "keep in mind" the prequels while watching these movies, and interpret them through this "Greater mythos" of the six part saga, they are diminished, for a lot of fans.

Some might find the Prequel Anakin more interesting. Many found him annoying. He's the perfect little Life Cereal kid, then suddenly he's a whiny teenage brat who flips out and kills people, then suddenly he's Vader. Instead of copying and pasting stereotypes, maybe Lucas could have told that story, if indeed he wanted that as the centerpiece of this new trilogy as he said so often, he could have told it in a more convincing and natural way, or at least stretched it out a bit.

You'd prefer Alan Dean Foster?

Not sure what he really has to do with this. I never said "fire Lucas" I'm arguing fans have some legitimate objections, and Lucas isn't infallible. I'm also questioning the Kaminski bashing. I think that much should be obvious.

Hope you never read Shakespeare or Greek mythology.

If Shakespeare went back and made sequels or prequels to his plays that screwed up the characters and continuity he'd already established, yeah, we could fault the Bard for that. Listen, no artist is above criticism. I didn't say we couldn't critique Greek or English writers, as if Lucas is some kind of special case.

I would -especially when those "issues" are trivial. Who gives a shit whether Anakin put C3PO together? Or if Yoda met Chewbacca?

The whole Star Wars franchise is trivial, in that sense, but that's not the point. Rather, the question is, since we're viewing this as popular entertainment art, do these things ADD or detract from the story, characters and overall experience and/or message the storyteller was trying to convey?

I loved the Matrix, but I think it had a few stupid things in it. Does that mean I actually hate it (or hate the Wachowski brothers for making it), or shouldn't talk about it, because it's just a dumb sci fi movie? Ditto with Lord of the Rings or whatever else it might be.

What exactly are these "continuity gaffes"?

I know people have come up with SOD explanations for these, but its clear that somebody didn't care much when creating the Prequels to keep it straight. Obviously the fans care, especially fans of the Prequels, so why not, let's have a look...

There are plenty of internal gaffes in the Original Trilogy, and between the Prequels, but I'll just rattle off some from the PT to the OT (ignoring the "Vader killed your father" bit since at least ROTJ tries to address that), which I'm sure you've heard before:

BEN: "For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic, before the Dark Times, before the Empire."

...

BEN: You will go to the Dagobah system.

LUKE: Dagobah system?

BEN: There you will learn from Yoda, the Jedi Master who instructed
me.
....

BEN: Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it. He was afraid you'd follow old Obi-Wan on a damned fool idealistic crusade like your father did.
....
EMPEROR: [examining Luke's lightsaber] Ah, a Jedi's weapon, much like your father's...
(you mean, much like Obi-Wan's?)

....

YODA: A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack.

(see footage of Yoda throwing lightning at Dooku, force blasting Palpatine around the room, force pushing red guards into the wall, hurling his lightsaber into the chest of a clone trooper, etc, never mind what the other senior Jedi do in the Prequels).

Han Solo seems ignorant of the Jedi and the Force who were central to galactic events a mere 20 years ago, despite having claimed to have traversed the galaxy, and traveling with a hero of the Clone Wars who fought alongside Yoda and saved his life.

Boba Fett never lets on that he has any memory of the past either. Why is he taking on a Jedi single handed with a blaster? Why is he working for a Jedi, who was on the same council as the guy who killed his dad?

R2D2 presumably remembers the past including such important details as the fate of Anakin Skywalker, the identity of Luke & Leia's mother, etc, but he never lets on and nobody thinks to ask him. Even when they probe his memory banks for the Death Star plans, nobody notices anything in there that might be useful or at least be curious to look?

What happened to all those battle droids? Seems like those Destroyers were pretty effective against Jedi, and once the Empire wins, why do they need to rely on Stormtroopers? If the clones were so great, why phase them out?

Leia says that Obi-Wan Kenobi served her father in the Clone Wars. No he didn't.

Anakin was described as a cunning warrior, a good friend, and the greatest star pilot in the galaxy. It would have been cool to see that in the movies.

When he first knew him, Obi-Wan was amazed at how strongly the Force was with Anakin, and took it upon himself to train him as a Jedi, thinking he could do as well as Yoda. Actually that was Qui Gon Jinn, the Jedi Master who instructed Obi-Wan.

Why no Force ghost for Qui Gon? Not even a voice or a mention from anyone?

If there are only ever two Sith at a time, why did Palpatine and Vader agree to have Luke turned to the Dark Side to "join us." If the real point was to replace Vader with Luke because he was younger and had fewer robotics, why would the Emperor's first reaction be to have Luke killed? And if Vader saw him as a threat, why would he seek to bring him to the Emperor in the first place instead of killing him?

Luke and Leia were born at the same time and place where their mother died, yet Leia remembers her real mother being "very beautiful, kind, but sad. She died when I was very young" and Luke has "no memory of my mother, I never knew her."

Owen and Beru don't remember the past? They're still living in the same house, despite supposedly hiding Vader's kid. Their family droid built by Anakin (meaning he must have had sentimental value to Shmi), disappeared the same day that Anakin showed up and the kind step-mother was brought back dead. Then the droid practically shows up on their doorstep twenty years later and all that's different is the color of his finish.

How come the Emperor, Obi-Wan and Vader don't flip around... did they forget how?

Why did the Death Star take at least 20 years to build and become operational, when the much larger and more powerful Death Star II could be operational (also in secret) in less than 3 years? It's not as if the technological level of the galaxy changed that much in two decades.

I'd also bring up the shape of the Death Star and the Tantive IV, but only geeks (like Curtis Saxton and the people on Star Wars forums) notice such things.

Anyway, that's not nerd rage or Lucas hate, that's just observation without the fan retcon shellacked on top. Again, I'm not saying he's evil for doing such things, only that surely there were other options, and it would have been nice if he'd been more honest about it.

Just because it's admitted that he made up the Prequels as he went along (as he did with the original trilogy) and it wasn't all based on some grand design from the early 70's ('planned out in advance') doesn't mean they suck. All that sucks is the false notion that this is how they came to be (especially if it's used as a club to bash people who didn't fully appreciate the PT).

Not everyone who disliked the prequels did so because of the continuity gaffes or loose ends, but I think that's just as legitimate a reason as any to have been disappointed with them. Maybe casual viewers won't care as much, but then why would non-fans care about "prequels" to a series they weren't invested in, in the first place? Does one group's opinion matter more than the other? Who were these movies supposed to be for? Maybe that was his mistake, trying to make them appeal to literally everyone... (except fans who had memorized the original movies)

[Kurgan]

One more thing, giving credit where credit is due: In at least one 21st century interview, Lucas admitted the "one big book" theory of Star Wars is false. He just didn't admit his part in feeding that rumor for years prior.

[Kurgan]

Bah, I shouldn't post before editing... this is the last one, seriously:

I admit there are inconsistencies throughout the Star Wars movies. From day one he was making it up as he went along. No problem there. It's just that if we act like those inconsistencies don't exist, or pretend that the story didn't evolve, or that we can't dare to question those creative decisions.. that's what I disagree with.

The prequels are a little unique case, because from 1976 to 1983, there were tidbits of the official back story put out... not just in interview spots with Lucas or Kurtz or whomever, but in the official novelizations (that began the whole concept of "canon" in Star Wars, if you will). So people naturally expected that this material would be incorporated into the Prequel films. So even putting aside the mythology that he dusted off his pre-written Scripts to turn into the Prequels (rather than taking a few random ideas from early drafts and notes and making up the rest basically from scratch), the Prequels were a new animal, produced after the fan base had had a chance to internalize those aspects of the backstory that had already been produced.

The whole revisionism and making-it-up-as-you-go-along thing and yarnspinning is something Lucas has always done. It's not something he just suddenly started doing for Episode I. So maybe one could see it as a criticism of Lucas. We criticize other directors here, so I don't see the big deal. That's not hating on the man, that's just a critique of his process, as it affects his products.

So yeah, all that aside, I don't think the Prequels were "almost universally panned" by critics when they first came out, unless you mean "top critics" (aka "cream of the crop," established/print media) then you could say they hated them all except Episode III.

[Channel72]

Anakin was described as a cunning warrior, a good friend, and the greatest star pilot in the galaxy. It would have been cool to see that in the movies.

The continuity problems aren't really that big of a deal, I guess. The real problem, I think, is that many people were just utterly disappointed with the implementation of these films. I can almost guarantee you that someone in this thread is going to defend the Prequels here by pointing out how Anakin was a cunning warrior, (he defeated Dooku, right?), a good friend (didn't Anakin and Obi-Wan have some friendly dialogue in the elevator or something?), and the greatest pod-racer star pilot in the galaxy (I guess he pulled off some "good tricks" at the battle of Naboo, right?).

So yeah, Anakin was all those things. So there's really no continuity problem. The real problem is, the way Anakin was actually portrayed doing these things totally sucked.

[Kurgan]

Sure, he could have made the PT without the continuity gaffes (and I obviously didn't list all of them), and still pulled it off in an unsatisfying way. They're not the only thing "wrong" with the Prequels, I agree. But we don't even get started if people won't acknowledge they exist in the first place (even if we can try to rationalize them later).

[Crazedwraith]

BEN: "For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic, before the Dark Times, before the Empire."

Where exactly is the continuity violation in this one?

[Jim Raynor]

I can almost guarantee you that someone in this thread is going to defend the Prequels here by pointing out how Anakin was a cunning warrior, (he defeated Dooku, right?),

Anakin was an asskicker by ROTS, and the one saving Obi-Wan all the time even when he was reckless and stupid in AOTC. So yeah, no contradiction there.

a good friend (didn't Anakin and Obi-Wan have some friendly dialogue in the elevator or something?),

Are you still on this? I dealt with all of this the last time we talked about it. It was one line, said once in one scene where Obi-Wan was lying. Actually, it wasn't even one line, but a sentence fragment: "a good friend." That's the extent of the "friendship" that Obi-Wan talked about in ANH before TESB showed that his "good friend" was an evil murderer. Nevermind how absolutely vague the word "friend" is, with an entire range of meanings. Anakin and Obi-Wan's relationship was strained at times, just like real big brother/little brother or father/son relationships are. You can still love someone even if you bicker with them. The movies also made it extremely blatant that Anakin was protective of his friends, and he saved Obi-Wan's ass time and again.

I find the idea that people are so hung up "continuity" with one sentence fragment in one lie to be really funny. TESB already took a shit all over that one scene in ANH thirty years ago.

[Jim Raynor]

BEN: "For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic, before the Dark Times, before the Empire."

Where exactly is the continuity violation in this one?

Probably the part where Palpatine said that he wouldn't let a Republic that has "stood for a thousand years" be split in two. ZOMG continuity error!

[Galvatron]

The continuity problems aren't really that big of a deal, I guess. The real problem, I think, is that many people were just utterly disappointed with the implementation of these films.

I can agree with that.

Interestingly, I think a lot of people would have been happier if George had simply filmed his earlier script for TPM in which Obi-Wan was the main protagonist and Qui-Gon didn't show up until they arrived at Coruscant. There was even a scene in which Obi-Wan talked little Anakin through using the Force to skillfully pilot the queen's ship through the blockade.

[Srelex]

Speaking of which, I've been reading over some of the scripts, and the dialogue is often slightly more complex and explaining than what was actually filmed--what, were the actors charging George by the word or something?

[Channel72]

I find the idea that people are so hung up "continuity" with one sentence fragment in one lie to be really funny. TESB already took a shit all over that one scene in ANH thirty years ago.

Did you read what I wrote? The whole point of that post was that continuity isn't the actual problem. When people complain about "continuity issues" regarding the Prequels, they're probably trying to express disappointment about how some element of the film was actually executed, in contrast to the expectations derived from the OT. There's a big difference between complaining that, for example, the Klingons in the newer Star Trek series look different than the Klingons in the old Star Trek series, and complaining that Anakin Skywalker turned out to be different than we expected. The first is just obsessive nitpicking, but the latter is a perfectly valid expression of disappointment. Based on Obi-Wan's nostalgic recollections, we were expecting and looking forward to seeing this likable, chivalrous war-hero, who was tempted and fell from grace. Instead, we were introduced to a barely-tolerable, peevish asshole with major emotional issues who nobody likes.

That's not something you can answer with some in-universe explanation like "Obi-Wan was lying" or whatever. The point is not that "there's a minor continuity glitch!", but rather "this movie sucks".

[Galvatron]

Based on Obi-Wan's nostalgic recollections, we were expecting this likable, chivalrous war-hero, who was tempted and fell from grace. Instead, we were introduced to a barely-tolerable, peevish asshole with major emotional issues who nobody likes.

It's amazing how well they manage to pull it off in the Clone Wars cartoon though. It's like his CGI self is a totally different character.

[Channel72]

It's amazing how well they manage to pull it off in the Clone Wars cartoon though. It's like his CGI self is a totally different character.

Yeah, the CGI Anakin is a lot closer to what I was hoping to see in the actual films. He actually comes off as a hero, rather than this self-centered whiner. Why Anakin was portrayed so loathsomely in the actual films is completely baffling to me. It's like George Lucas didn't understand the difference between "has a dark streak" and "is a completely bi-polar, borderline schizophrenic, creepy asshole".

[Galvatron]

Morever, it's sickening to think that Darth Vader from the OT was once the whiny dickhead that we saw in the PT. Yes, I read Luceno's Dark Lord book. It didn't help.

[Jim Raynor]

Did you read what I wrote? The whole point of that post was that continuity isn't the actual problem.

Oh, I understood that just fine. It was still a response to Kurgan who did raise it as a continuity problem that he didn't see in the prequels. You did lift that "Anakin and Obi-Wan's friendship amounted to a few nice words an elevator" thing from RedLetterMedia's bullshit review, which was arguing that their supposed lack of "friendship" was a continuity error.

Side Note: I cannot believe anyone thinks this guy is "insightful" and made a good analysis of the movies. During that last prequel discussion thread I actually watched his TPM review through and through at the suggestion of the people who had brought him up. The sheer stupidity and outright lies he told in his review turned what I thought would be a brief response into a long term project that's practically book length, that I'm still working on when I can find the time...

When people complain about "continuity issues" regarding the Prequels, they're probably trying to express disappointment about how some element of the film was actually executed, in contrast to the expectations derived from the OT. There's a big difference between complaining that, for example, the Klingons in the newer Star Trek series look different than the Klingons in the old Star Trek series, and complaining that Anakin Skywalker turned out to be different than we expected. The first is just obsessive nitpicking, but the latter is a perfectly valid expression of disappointment. Based on Obi-Wan's nostalgic recollections, we were expecting and looking forward to seeing this likable, chivalrous war-hero, who was tempted and fell from grace.

You have every right to be dissatisfied with the execution of the prequels, if that is your opinion. If you thought Anakin was an unlikable asshole, then fine. But I will question why you had these "expectations" of anything from ANH. Obi-Wan says a few very brief and vague things in one scene where he was lying. He doesn't focus on Anakin being "a good friend" at all, in fact he practically jumps right to giving Luke his first lightsaber to play with. In the context of TESB, Obi-Wan was clearly feeding Luke a whitewashed backstory in the hopes of recruiting him.

[Wyrm]

I personally think that anyone who thinks RedLetterMedia's reviews are serious reviews needs to get their head examined. It's clearly satire, start to finish. Not good satire, mind you, but it has the feel of a satirical piece.

[TOSDOC]

Quote:
When people complain about "continuity issues" regarding the Prequels, they're probably trying to express disappointment about how some element of the film was actually executed, in contrast to the expectations derived from the OT. There's a big difference between complaining that, for example, the Klingons in the newer Star Trek series look different than the Klingons in the old Star Trek series, and complaining that Anakin Skywalker turned out to be different than we expected. The first is just obsessive nitpicking, but the latter is a perfectly valid expression of disappointment. Based on Obi-Wan's nostalgic recollections, we were expecting and looking forward to seeing this likable, chivalrous war-hero, who was tempted and fell from grace.


You have every right to be dissatisfied with the execution of the prequels, if that is your opinion. If you thought Anakin was an unlikable asshole, then fine. But I will question why you had these "expectations" of anything from ANH. Obi-Wan says a few very brief and vague things in one scene where he was lying. He doesn't focus on Anakin being "a good friend" at all, in fact he practically jumps right to giving Luke his first lightsaber to play with. In the context of TESB, Obi-Wan was clearly feeding Luke a whitewashed backstory in the hopes of recruiting him.

It's not just what he says, it was how it was said. We're talking about one of our great actors of the 20th century, brought in to give this weird script some weight so it didn't tank, delivering a line with a depth of feeling that really strikes a chord into the viewer's mind so that 25 years later you're left going "WTF??? Where's the good friend???"

Obi-Wan didn't start lying until after the lightsaber is handed over, when Luke asked him directly how his father died, and you can see the change in him as he readies the lie for delivery. You get the feeling he's been working on what to say to Luke for 30 years, and is STILL reluctant to do so. Before that, everything he said about Anakin was from the heart, and utterly believable. I for one expected someone much more noble, friendly, and chivalrous, with a more dramatic fall from grace, than what we actually got.

[Kurgan]

1,000 years vs. over a thousand generations, yep, that's the one. I even spent time like everyone else trying to come up with a BS explanation for how that made sense, under SOD (other than, "everything Obi-Wan says about the past is a lie").

The strike against the new trilogy not that the story was changed, so much as it was changed to something stupider, apparently for sheer shock value, and pulled off in an unsatisfying fashion. Had it been good and done well, the continuity problems would be remembered more like "I am your Father."

I'm curious why we can't say there are continuity gaffes in the Prequels, we can only say we didn't like the plot twists. Apparently we can't even admit that the story in the OT, but that's another argument.

Is it because it implies that Lucas didn't know his own films as well as fans (or didn't care)?

[Galvatron]

Is it because it implies that Lucas didn't know his own films as well as fans (or didn't care)?

Yeah, basically. Take a look at this eight-year-old thread that I started and witness how much stronger the Lucas-apologia was back then.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1&p=232415

[Kurgan]

Thanks for the link! I'll defend Lucas' plot twists under SOD, but don't expect me to do so outside of SOD. The point is that he didn't "always intend" (or at least there's no evidence for it in most cases and it begins to play off like Steve Urkel falling down the stairs and then saying "I meant to do that"). The whole idea that Lucas made it up as he went along and changed his mind more than once about the development of the saga (not just the Prequels) seems clear as a bell today, and not just because Michael Kaminski says so (I'm bemused by the hate against him though, reminds me of people hating Saxton).

Side note: This wasn't from Lucas, but does anybody remember the "Ask the Jedi Council" question about how "yah tay yah tay yoo too" can mean so much in Ubese? The answer was either a joke on the person for asking about a goofy thing in a movie, or proof that you can explain anything away with enough creativity (the answer is that the language of Ubese has all these sounds that can't be picked up by the human ear that subtly influence the meaning, which C3PO's sensitive audio receptors can pick up and interpret).

Anyway, The Flanneled One has the moral right as the owner and principle creator of his story and characters to interpret them as he sees fit, but that doesn't prevent him from making stupid decisions or even making mistakes, I would say (and as plenty of folks have admitted here in discussions of "what is canon").

[Elfdart]

Even so, the idea that Lucas planned "all along" for Vader and Anakin to be the same character and the father of Luke... well there's ZERO EVIDENCE for this being intact before 1978. The only person who says otherwise is Lucas himself (after the fact).

And? Obviously you've never written fiction, where authors think of many things they don't write down. They also swap characters, names, plots and sub-plots. An idea the author might not think worthy of being written down at one point is shunted aside, then brought back later. Or an idea the author really likes, but doesn't quite have the nerve to try (maybe he or she is worried others will hate it) at one point is put back in play. This is the creative process at work. And yes, it does in fact mean the writer had it in mind from the beginning.

So now, you could say, well he had it in his mind all those years and he just never told anybody, knowing he was going to use it someday. It just seems unlikely to me (and it's nothing against Lucas to admit he came up with the idea later instead of was holding it in reserve all this time). None of those script drafts were meant for the public, and were not leaked out right away, plus his written notes were not meant for the public either.

Again, you're assuming an author writes down every idea that pops into his head. They don't.

Why would Lucas write down so many irrelevant ideas, most of which were never used in ANY version of the films, but not this particular one?

Several reasons:

1) He didn't think he could pull it off.

2) It would be a rather obvious steal from movies like Chinatown (where Faye Dunaway is both the mother and sister of another character), and The Searchers (where it's clear that Ethan is Debbie's father, and it's strongly implied that he's Martin's father, too.

3) He had the idea so firmly lodged in his head that he didn't feel the need to write it down any more than David Mamet has to jot down notes reminding himself to put the word fuck into every sentence in one of his screenplays.

If Lucas had thought of it way back in the day, what would he have to lose now by producing those notes and showing everyone he had it planned out in advance? Yet, we get all these new books about the making of Star Wars and such, and it still seems to be "missing." That makes reasonable people think it probably never existed to begin with.

There's nothing reasonable whatsoever in assuming that because someone didn't write something down until 1978 that they weren't thinking of it before.

If it's a question of "believing Lucas" the question is, which Lucas do you believe, the one from the 1970's when he was a struggling indie filmmaker? The one from the 80's when Star Wars was building his media Empire? The 90's when he was making his big comeback to Star Wars? Or the Lucas of today?

This question assumes that the 1970s Lucas said he didn't want Anakin and Vader to be the same person until 1978. There's no evidence for this assumption.

* Artists usually don't footnote all their creative decisions, where they came from or when exactly the idea came to them.

Of course not, but if we are doing history, we can only go by what the evidence states. If a person says something, but all the documentation (and even testimony of others) contradicts what they say, which is more likely to be true?

There's no evidence proving that Lucas wasn't thinking of making Vader Luke's father before 1978. You're claiming the early drafts prove a negative when in fact there's no contradiction whatsoever.

* Two of the major influences on Star Wars (Wagner's Ring Cycle and The Searchers) feature the villain as the hero's long lost father/surrogate father -something that puts the hero in a real predicament: it's just not cool to kill your own dad. How does the hero handle this dilemma? This is Storytelling 101: Place the protagonist in a situation that is not easily resolved.

Sure, there are plenty of stories in which the villain and the hero are related. There's also plenty of stories in which the love interests are related. So what? That doesn't mean those myths automatically apply to Star Wars.

How many of those other stories were as influential on Star Wars as The Searchers? It's not just similarities with plot and characters: Lucas copied a number of scenes from the film almost shot-for-shot.

I mean, would you watch ANH and honestly say that you can see that Vader is a Christ-figure?

When Ben described him, I immediately thought of the Devil, who was supposedly an angel who turned bad; and arrogant Greek heroes who were killed/disfigured for getting too full of themselves.

That idea is out there in storytelling, obviously, and it was applied to Star Wars later. So why not say it's part of that film?

Anakin/Vader is a Christ figure?

The point is that we're not looking at this through suspension of disbelief, we're looking at how the Star Wars story evolved, based on the available evidence, not merely the creator's whimsy after the fact. He's an important source on the history, but his current statements are not the only source, nor is he infallible.

On the subject of "What was George Lucas thinking before 1978?", the only source worth examining is Lucas himself. Everything else would be hearsay, conjecture or outright horseshit.

The very idea that a person would insist that they know where, when, how and why an author came up with an idea is delusional in the extreme.

Then all literary historians are delusional, because that's why they try to pinpoint. We can't know with absolutely 100% certainty what a person was thinking at a given time, but then a person doesn't have 100% memory either. What we're doing is trying to piece together when it was most likely that they had the idea.

Maybe Lucas thought up Star Wars when he was 5 years old. I mean, how would we disprove such a notion?

You tell me -you're the claiming he can prove a negative about what Lucas was or was not thinking.

It's not some personal vendetta. The point is that certain people act like Lucas never said anything about the backstory, meaning, there should have been no expectation about Episodes I-III until they came out. The argument was often made in the past that the Prequels should not be criticized, because they are merely Lucas' grand vision that he always intended for the characters, and it's not his fault that people didn't appreciate them. The expectations were built in part by Lucas himself, both through those interviews and through his allowing the EU writers to dabble in those areas (until he told them to stop, of course).

Is that why so many Nerd Ragers shit themselves over trivial matters in the films?

That doesn't make him evil, it just makes the argument that we should have had no expectations about the OT backstory silly, and it makes Lucas look a little odd for playing up these things and then dropping them without explanation.

I can't think of anyone claiming you should have "no expectations about the OT backstory". They're pointing out (rightly) that most of what disgruntled fanboys consider "plot holes" or changes in the characters are nothing of the kind. At best they are nitpicking and at worst a sign of delusional thinking.

It's not that he "owes" people an explanation, it's that people WANT one, because they're fans.

If you need to have the story, plot and characters of Star Wars explained to you, and you are not a small child, then you are a retard.

Otherwise these are just some stupid movies, who cares about anything? (including defending him from criticism) All he had to do was say "I changed my mind" and boom, all is forgiven, right? Instead he made it out that the interviewers were twisting his words or taking him out of context, as if he either couldn't remember what he said, or wanted to hide it.

I can see where he's coming from. More bullshit is written about George Lucas and his movies than any other filmmaker and/or their films. I can still remember when Jet Li was supposed to be Boba Fett and Charlton Heston was going to be Yoda. Oh wait a minute -they weren't!

Considering how they turned out, I think many are happy he didn't make more than 6.

The point is that the whole "planned out in advance" mythology requires that he knows how many installments in the story there were.

You do realize there's this custom practiced in the screenwriting trade called Editing, right? You know -where material is left out for one reason or another?

For a long time many fans BELIEVED (and not without reason) that Lucas had a stack of drafts sitting in his filing cabinet waiting to be made into new Star Wars movies. Even now Lucas admits that wasn't true. What I haven't seen him admit is that he (intentionally or unintentionally) mislead fans by feeding this rumor.

So now Lucas is responsible because some of the less intelligent fans of his movies thought he had scripts pre-written and ready to go? And when every interview with Lucas mentions his notebooks with his handwritten treatments?

No, they're angry at Lucas for telling his stories his way. They think he should have told the stories their way, and when he didn't (and on top of that, decided to stop the series at six films -meaning no one else would make more), they became hysterical. That's why you have fanboys afflicted with Nerd Rage claiming the movies were "almost universally panned". It's also why delusional morons like Kaminski attack Lucas as a "liar" for changing his mind thirty years ago.

So we can't know what Lucas was thinking, but we can know what people who were disappointed with the Prequels were thinking? Interesting.

Because their neuroses stick out like sore thumbs.

How did it "screw up" the story? It added real depth to what were little more than comic book characters:

They're STILL comic book characters. What "depth" was added? Making Obi-Wan into a bigger liar than before?

That's just it: Obi-Wan wasn't a liar in ANH (as far as anyone knew, anyway). Making him a flawed character and a bit of an asshole makes him more interesting.

Making Yoda into a warmonger before he became a pacifist?

When did Yoda become a pacifist?

Making everyone's memory of the past 25 years faulty?

Oh for fuck's sake! In the real world American voters forgot who bankrupted the country in less than two years! People cannot or will not remember things accurately from 25 years ago.

The plot twists ruin some things yes. Before the interactions between Luke and Leia were kind of sweet, even romantic. Now they're just creepy and cringe inducing.

You have a point here, and the Luke/Leia as literally brother/sister thing really does suck. It did seem obvious to me when TESB came out that Leia was the other Yoda mentioned, since Luke could talk to her with telepathy.

Vader was the love-to-hate badass villain, who then had a trace of good still in him and ended up getting redeemed because one person (who had every reason to hate him) had faith in that goodness. So far so good. Now he's a pathetic whiner who turned evil because of his royal politician girlfriend's poor taste in men.

Explain how the two are in any way contradictory -especially when Anakin is a pussywhipped, sulking emo kid when it comes to Padme, who is conspicuously absent from the OT.

That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the original movies anymore, but if you "keep in mind" the prequels while watching these movies, and interpret them through this "Greater mythos" of the six part saga, they are diminished, for a lot of fans.

I thought they added real depth (at least as far as space opera is concerned) to some of the scenes on the OT: the funeral in AOTC makes the scene in ROTJ where Luke tells Vader to let go of his hate somewhat touching. The scene where Leia describes her mother as sad is also illuminated by the way Padme died of a broken heart.

Some might find the Prequel Anakin more interesting. Many found him annoying. He's the perfect little Life Cereal kid, then suddenly he's a whiny teenage brat who flips out and kills people, then suddenly he's Vader.

He didn't "suddenly" flip out and start killing, he was having nightmares about his mother for ten years and when he found her dying, he blamed himself and vowed never to allow such a thing to happen again, Jedi bylaws be damned. What's more, he was now willing to kill anyone who got in his way. Lucas spent the first half of the movie practically beating the audience over the head with Chekhov's Gun and laying the groundwork for what was going to happen.

What exactly are these "continuity gaffes"?

I know people have come up with SOD explanations for these, but its clear that somebody didn't care much when creating the Prequels to keep it straight. Obviously the fans care, especially fans of the Prequels, so why not, let's have a look...

There are plenty of internal gaffes in the Original Trilogy, and between the Prequels, but I'll just rattle off some from the PT to the OT (ignoring the "Vader killed your father" bit since at least ROTJ tries to address that), which I'm sure you've heard before:

BEN: "For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic, before the Dark Times, before the Empire."

It's one line from Ben and a couple of lines in the prequels. Trivial and not relevant to the story.

BEN: You will go to the Dagobah system.

LUKE: Dagobah system?

BEN: There you will learn from Yoda, the Jedi Master who instructed
me.

OBI-WAN: Master Yoda taught us to be mindful of the future.

Yoda did in fact instruct Obi-Wan Kenobi.

BEN: Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it. He was afraid you'd follow old Obi-Wan on a damned fool idealistic crusade like your father did.

Ben assumed that's what Anakin wanted. On the second point, it's more than likely that Ben is telling the truth. Owen was present when (a) Anakin ran off to find his mother and (b) when C3PO informed everyone that Obi-Wan had signaled Anakin -at which point Anakin ran off to join him. From Owen's point of view, Anakin should have never left Tattooine and the fact that Anakin and Padme are dead and he's raising their orphaned son confirms this idea.

EMPEROR: [examining Luke's lightsaber] Ah, a Jedi's weapon, much like your father's...
(you mean, much like Obi-Wan's?)

They're both lightsabers aren't they?

YODA: A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack.

(see footage of Yoda throwing lightning at Dooku,

Which Dooku shot at him first.

force blasting Palpatine around the room, force pushing red guards into the wall, hurling his lightsaber into the chest of a clone trooper, etc, never mind what the other senior Jedi do in the Prequels).

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ! We're in David Brin territory now. Who do you think is the aggressor in the prequels?

Han Solo seems ignorant of the Jedi and the Force who were central to galactic events a mere 20 years ago, despite having claimed to have traversed the galaxy, and traveling with a hero of the Clone Wars who fought alongside Yoda and saved his life.

He said he didn't believe in the Force, not that he didn't believe in Jedi Knights.

Boba Fett never lets on that he has any memory of the past either. Why is he taking on a Jedi single handed with a blaster? Why is he working for a Jedi, who was on the same council as the guy who killed his dad?

When does Boba Fett work for a Jedi?

R2D2 presumably remembers the past including such important details as the fate of Anakin Skywalker, the identity of Luke & Leia's mother, etc, but he never lets on and nobody thinks to ask him. Even when they probe his memory banks for the Death Star plans, nobody notices anything in there that might be useful or at least be curious to look?

Because the Rebel military, looking for ways to attack the Death Star is going to be looking for baby pictures left over from a previous owner. By the way, how exactly is R2 going to know Padme's twins are Luke and Leia? He wasn't in the delivery room and he has no way of recognizing them 20 years later.

What happened to all those battle droids?

They were shut down. Did you watch ROTS?

Seems like those Destroyers were pretty effective against Jedi, and once the Empire wins, why do they need to rely on Stormtroopers?

They don't need Jedi-killing robots, since they're all dead or in hiding.

If the clones were so great, why phase them out?

Who says they were?

Leia says that Obi-Wan Kenobi served her father in the Clone Wars. No he didn't.

Kenobi served the Republic, which at least in name was governed by the Senate, which Bail Organa was a leading member of.

Anakin was described as a cunning warrior, a good friend, and the greatest star pilot in the galaxy. It would have been cool to see that in the movies.

If you had actually watched the movies you would have.

When he first knew him, Obi-Wan was amazed at how strongly the Force was with Anakin, and took it upon himself to train him as a Jedi, thinking he could do as well as Yoda. Actually that was Qui Gon Jinn, the Jedi Master who instructed Obi-Wan.

In TPM, he was amazed by Anakin's off-the-charts midichlorian count. Qui-Gonn wasn't even cremated yet and Obi-Wan was telling Yoda and the Jedi Council he was going to train Anakin himself whether they approved or not.

Why no Force ghost for Qui Gon? Not even a voice or a mention from anyone?

Did you sit through Revenge of the Sith with your head up your ass? Yoda says he was contacted by Jinn's ghost and learned some new special powers (referring to the ability to appear as a ghost: immortality in spirit form) which he was passing on to Obi-Wan to practice as he remained in hiding.

If there are only ever two Sith at a time, why did Palpatine and Vader agree to have Luke turned to the Dark Side to "join us." If the real point was to replace Vader with Luke because he was younger and had fewer robotics, why would the Emperor's first reaction be to have Luke killed? And if Vader saw him as a threat, why would he seek to bring him to the Emperor in the first place instead of killing him?

If you watched the movies you would know that Palpatine is eager to discard older, worn-out underlings when a candidate with less mileage turns up. You would also know that Vader was looking to bump off and replace Palpatine even before his kids are born. Each Sith sees Luke as a chance to knock off the other. The quote about there being two Sith is a rule of thumb like "Two's company, three's a crowd", not a law of physics. If it were, when Vader suggested recruiting Luke he would have said "No, we can't do that. Only two Sith at a time!", and Sidious would have instantly acquired a new apprentice when Darth Maul was killed.

Luke and Leia were born at the same time and place where their mother died, yet Leia remembers her real mother being "very beautiful, kind, but sad. She died when I was very young" and Luke has "no memory of my mother, I never knew her."

So?

Owen and Beru don't remember the past? They're still living in the same house, despite supposedly hiding Vader's kid.

They're hiding Anakin's kid, and a homestead in the middle of nowhere is the ideal place to hide him -especially since no one is looking for him.

Their family droid built by Anakin (meaning he must have had sentimental value to Shmi), disappeared the same day that Anakin showed up and the kind step-mother was brought back dead. Then the droid practically shows up on their doorstep twenty years later and all that's different is the color of his finish.

The first scene with C3PO in ANH shows him standing next to another droid just like him except a different paint job. Apparently it's a common model.

How come the Emperor, Obi-Wan and Vader don't flip around... did they forget how?

Did they need to?

Why did the Death Star take at least 20 years to build and become operational, when the much larger and more powerful Death Star II could be operational (also in secret) in less than 3 years? It's not as if the technological level of the galaxy changed that much in two decades.

Building the first of anything is always going to be difficult because of the R&D and the inevitable headaches that occur when building something new. Once it's completed it can be copied much more easily.

Just because it's admitted that he made up the Prequels as he went along (as he did with the original trilogy) and it wasn't all based on some grand design from the early 70's ('planned out in advance') doesn't mean they suck. All that sucks is the false notion that this is how they came to be (especially if it's used as a club to bash people who didn't fully appreciate the PT).

Let's put this bullshit to rest, shall we? Dale Pollock claims to have actually seen Lucas' outlines and no one could accuse him of being a tool for Lucasfilm:

Washington, D.C.: I feel that Lucas' claim that he wrote Episodes I through III before he wrote the old movies is bogus, self-serving tripe, and that he simply had a very rough outline of those stories before 1999. What do you think?

Dale Pollock: I never saw actual screenplays for Episodes I-III, but there were very detailed story outlines, with certain character names, but not all. I think he started in the middle because of the excruciating set-up we all witnessed in Episodes I and II. If he had started there, we wouldn't all be on this chat room now.

[Darth Yan]

anakin kills the evil overlord at the cost of his own life, and achieves redemption by embracing his good side and sacrificing himselrf to kill the evil overlord. that's why he's called a christ figure. At least as far as i know

[adam_grif]

anakin kills the evil overlord at the cost of his own life, and achieves redemption by embracing his good side and sacrificing himselrf to kill the evil overlord. that's why he's called a christ figure. At least as far as i know

Yeah, the part where Jesus slaughters the children in the temple was always my favorite part of the bible.