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

[Metahive]

Not to forget the twenty years of satanic reign that Jesus helps to bring about. That part kicks ass. Also the part where Jesus finallly has a change of heart and kills Satan at the cost of his life...wait a moment! That's works slightly different in the Bible, although Jesus is ultimately described as going on a (verbose) killing spree at the end of days.

Come on people, not every guy who throws his life away to safe someone else (or for the greater good) automatically merits a Jesus comparison. That's all part of a more basic, heroic archetype, isn't it?

EDIT: I forgot, the most important difference, Jesus willingly let himself be executed to atone for the sins of others, Vader atoned pretty much just for his own sins.

[Dooey Jo]

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: You will go to the Dagobah system.

LUKE: Dagobah system?

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

BEN: But also I was instructed by another guy called Qui-Gon Jinn, but he's dead now and maybe can't turn into a ghost like me, but even if he could you wouldn't know who he was, but anyway he was trained by a rich bastard called count Dooku, who was a proper padawan, that's what we used to call you student Jedis by the way, to Yoda...

LUKE: Ben, I'm dying here, I can't write all this exposition down when you're talking so fast.

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

What?

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 seems to know what the Force is supposed to be, he just doesn't believe in it.

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?

Boba Fett has like two, short, lines. As far as anyone knows, Vader's also the guy who got that council killed, so maybe that helps.

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?

Maybe they are a bit short on time with the Death Star approaching to murder them all. (Disregarding that R2 is a robot that may in fact not have such memory (maybe that's why they didn't care to erase it).)

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.

Who also died five minutes after he was forbidden to train Anakin, so that would be relevant.

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?

It's probably because the Emperor is a scheming bastard and Vader is conflicted.

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.

And they seem to care so deeply for their droids, too; always talking about that droid that was returned to its owner.

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

The Emperor sits in a turning chair when he's not walking ceremoniously, why would he flip around? Should he do cartwheels to inspire his troops? Would they really want to see what's under his robes? Maybe the others are old guys and robots fighting in cramped spaces.

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.

It seems more like it's you asking random questions no-one cares about, because they have pretty obvious answers. You mean more honest about the fact that it's possible tell different stories in different ways? Maybe he just sort of assumes that everyone understands that.

[Kurgan]

That and I was thinking of the whole "virgin birth" and "prophecy" and "chosen one" thing (quick, Elfdart, jump in and remind me that they never describe Shmi as a "virgin").

Heck, in the Ep3 trailers Anakin was shown being raised on that medical platform with his arms raised, almost like he was being crucified (the close ups were changed in the actual release as you don't see his hands, perhaps because people commented that Hayden Christiansen's hands looked tiny in those shots).

So the image of Anakin as a failed Christ or anti-Christ was kind of a cool idea, even if it wasn't handled as well as it might have been. People still talk about how much they hate the idea of him being "conceived by the midichlorians" and many are only too happy to adopt the idea that these midichlorians were "influenced by Darth Plagueis the Wise."

Point is, if we tried to read the Anakin-Christ imagery back into the original trilogy, reasonable people would balk at the blatant retcon. If Lucas came out and said "well I always intended to do this but didn't think I could pull it off back then" should we believe him? After all, there were notions of a "chosen one" and prophecies in the early backstory as presented in the '76 novel (referring to Luke, not Anakin, of course). If we're going to treat the Anakin-Father-Vader thing as being always intended, why not the other plot twists? Maybe the sister-Leia thing was always there and he just didn't write it down because he wasn't sure if he wanted to use it. Maybe they were all in his head just like he implied?

Now if the backstory of the movies wasn't important, or in fact was not meant to noticed or heaven forbid, analyzed (except by delusional fanboys), I wonder why Lucas made these as prequels to the most famous sci fi films of all time? It's because Star Wars is a cash cow, right? (this is the only situation where it's cool to imply Lucas is money grubbing)

Presenting the backstory to the original films was the primary selling point of the Prequel Trilogy!

Clearly the "analyze the movies and think about them" crowd is not some anomaly, nor some mob of crazies that Lucasfilm isn't try to provoke. Each movie was accompanied for the release of "tech" books, RPG stats, novelizations and EU expansions, to precisely encourage the kind of fanboy nitpicking that we're talking about. Clearly LFL recognizes this as a viable market, not something that is supposed to be ignored. People are paid to feed into this, like the staff at StarWars.com, Steve Sansweet, Leeland Chee and all that. They hire geekboys like Curtis Saxton to write books for them, and this is the last forum on earth that should ever try to argue that these folks and their opinions on Star Wars don't matter.

It's publicity to make money, we know. But if those folks matter so much to Lucas and his guys, why should we adopt the attitude that such people aren't a worthy part of Star Wars fandom and should be ignored? That's as much an insult to Lucas as it is to those "fanboy nerds."

I feel like I had this conversation ad nauseum back when Enterprise was still on... people were saying that you shouldn't criticize it so much, because that's just nerds complaining and it wasn't meant for you it was meant for casual non-fans... so why hype it as a prequel to one of the most popular sci fi franchises known for its "geeky" following? At least they could try to fall back on the excuse that G-Rod was dead (and after 24+ seasons and 9 movies, they'd run out of ideas).

[Darth Yan]

His redemption was similar to christs redemption. He was not christ like in episode 3. In return of the jedi, i can see the resemblence

[Kurgan]

And I'd argue if anyone is a Christ figure in the OT, it's Luke. But Episode I makes it out to be Anakin. He fails, so his son has to take over. It's actually more like Le Morte D'Arthur (Lancelot fails, Galahad succeeds and saves him, in a sense) than the Bible, but still.

[Stofsk]

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

What?

Luke carried Anakin's old lightsabre around until he got his hand chopped off by Vader in ESB. Then he made a new lightsabre, one which looks a lot like Obi-wan's. So the Emperor saying 'much like your father's' makes literally no sense, unless he was being super-general in saying 'ah yes, a lightsabre, much like your father's, who also has a lightsabre despite it looking completely different.'

Kurgan can correct me if I'm wrong about what he's talking about.

[Jim Raynor]

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???"

What depth of feeling? He simply says "a good friend," then immediately shifts his eyes to the lightsaber and jumps at the chance to give it to Luke. The entire talk up until then had absolutely nothing to do with Anakin's nobility or chivalry:

He was the best star-pilot in the galaxy, and a cunning warrior. I understand you've become quite a good pilot yourself. And he was a good friend. Which reminds me...

Everything Obi-Wan said about Anakin had to do with his combat ability. He even stops in the middle of it to praise Luke's piloting skills as well. Basically, the gist of it was "your father was awesome and so are you Luke, so don't waste your life on a farm like your uncle wants." Obi-Wan mutters a sentence fragment about Anakin being a friend, and then immediately changes the subject to the lightsaber.

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.

Obi-Wan looks away from Luke and pauses for a moment when asked about Anakin's death. I might believe that that's him readying the lie, if he hadn't been doing that for the entire scene. During his description of Anakin he looks away to reminisce over each separate detail. He notably paused and looked away moments earlier when he recalled "the dark times" of the Empire's rise. Seems like he was looking away the whole time because of all the painful memories from decades ago.

As I've said before, if people would have liked Anakin to be a more friendly guy, that's one thing and it's perfectly fine. But it's another to have "expectations" which aren't actually supported by anything said in the original movie. Holding onto every last word and criticizing later movies for not fulfilling things that weren't there in the first place.

So the image of Anakin as a failed Christ or anti-Christ was kind of a cool idea, even if it wasn't handled as well as it might have been. People still talk about how much they hate the idea of him being "conceived by the midichlorians" and many are only too happy to adopt the idea that these midichlorians were "influenced by Darth Plagueis the Wise."

God the EU is retarded. The movies are quite blatant with Anakin's Christ-like nature in TPM. His fall in AOTC and ROTS is supposed to mirror the temptation of Christ by Satan, only Satan succeeds.

If Darth Plagueis created Anakin as a secret weapon/Anti-Christ, then why did he leave him unattended on Tatooine for so many years? Where Anakin lived as a slave with a bomb implanted inside of his body, was passed around by Hutt gangsters, and got himself into dangerous pod races? Why would Palpatine leave him there instead of training him like Darth Maul? Getting the boy young would ensure the quality of his training and indoctrination. If Anakin was meant to destroy the Jedi Order from within, why would Palpatine let him age beyond the limits that the Jedi were comfortable with beginning training at?

If this idea was ever intended for the movies, it was thankfully left out in the final copy. Anakin never questions if Plagueis had a hand in his birth. The thrust of the scene was that Plagueis, and by extension the Dark Side, had amazing powers that were beyond the Jedi's (if Anakin's birth was a miracle of the Force, then Plagueis was badass for being able to do similar things himself). In the movies that we did get, Anakin is someone who was destined for greatness but tragically failed to live up to it until the end, when he "redeemed" himself at the cost of his own life. Going by this alternative that's apparently being pushed by the EU now, he was doing what he was created for in the first place.

[Darth Yan]

from what i have read of the eu they don't imply that. Other then the occasional retard at tfn, it's never been stated in the eu. Sideous may have suspected his boss of trying to replace him, but no one knows if pleigus succeed in doing so. and with the plaeguis novel being released in 2012, some clarification might be given. and the reason me and my family didn't view anakin is noble is because haydn christenson can't act for shit. We expected a flawed, but fundamentally decent guy. Haydn's bad acting made him seem like a petulant child, and after the tusken slaughter, he comes across as a sociopath (again, the tuskens are violent, but killing women and children is inexcusable, and Anakin doesn't seem to feel any guilt) Scenes with the potential to be touching or charming come across as creepy or whiny, and he sounds like a whiny little bitch. "WHA WHA WHA OBI WAN DOESN'T RESPECT ME. I'M STRONG." If the actors had been remotely competant, I might see what you're trying to say, but because they aren't any potential strength is missed.

[Jim Raynor]

We expected a flawed, but fundamentally decent guy. Haydn's bad acting made him seem like a petulant child, and after the tusken slaughter, he comes across as a sociopath (again, the tuskens are violent, but killing women and children is inexcusable, and Anakin doesn't seem to feel any guilt)

Your opinions on his acting aside, how can you say this? He cries and can't even stand up, and even says that he's a Jedi and should be "better than this." His guilt was pretty clear.

[Srelex]

In fairness, I guess it was the tone of voice and infliction Hayden used--I don't think people can argue that maybe his delivery couldn't have been improved.

[Elfdart]

That and I was thinking of the whole "virgin birth" and "prophecy" and "chosen one" thing (quick, Elfdart, jump in and remind me that they never describe Shmi as a "virgin").

Many of the heroes in ancient myths were born to a virgin mother who was knocked up by the Holy Ghost, Odin, Zeus or some other divine being. I guess that makes Heracles, Sigmund, Perseus et al "Christ figures".

[Kurgan]

That and I was thinking of the whole "virgin birth" and "prophecy" and "chosen one" thing (quick, Elfdart, jump in and remind me that they never describe Shmi as a "virgin").

Many of the heroes in ancient myths were born to a virgin mother who was knocked up by the Holy Ghost, Odin, Zeus or some other divine being. I guess that makes Heracles, Sigmund, Perseus et al "Christ figures".

If Shmi had been knocked up by some awesome Jedi or Sith Lord, yeah, that might be parallel to those stories. Maybe Darth Plagueis turned himself into a molten shower of midichorians and impregnated her using Sith alchemy? We can only hope a new novel clarifies this mystery in such an awesome fashion. The "Christ figure" is a well known archetype in Western narrative.

You know what I'm talking about. I wonder what they were going for with the William Wallace death scene in Braveheart... Pyraechmes? Prometheus?

Vader on the slab is also obviously like Frankenstein's creature. Just because he doesn't have visible bolts sticking of his neck, it's an obvious inspiration. Of course the "monster" himself is a parallel to Adam. And if you think of Christ as the New Adam, well there you go. Kevin Bacon.

[Darth Yan]

it was more haydn's delivery. Srelex actually summed it up. I felt the delivery could have been better.

[TOSDOC]

TOSDOC wrote:
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???"


What depth of feeling? He simply says "a good friend," then immediately shifts his eyes to the lightsaber and jumps at the chance to give it to Luke. The entire talk up until then had absolutely nothing to do with Anakin's nobility or chivalry:

I guess it comes down to a matter of viewer perspective. I took "a good friend" to mean just that. I totally understand where you're coming from here, I just totally didn't get Anakin as Obi-Wan's "good friend" as depicted in the prequels (I haven't seen the Clone Wars cartoon).

Obi-Wan looks away from Luke and pauses for a moment when asked about Anakin's death. I might believe that that's him readying the lie, if he hadn't been doing that for the entire scene.

Not being argumentative, just curious--what else was Obi-Wan lying about in the whole scene besides Vader killing Anakin? It didn't sound like you thought Obi-Wan was lying to Luke about Anakin's combat ability or "The Dark Times".

[Jim Raynor]

Not being argumentative, just curious--what else was Obi-Wan lying about in the whole scene besides Vader killing Anakin? It didn't sound like you thought Obi-Wan was lying to Luke about Anakin's combat ability or "The Dark Times".

You're right. He didn't really lie before that, so much as just omitting all the bad things about Anakin. I just don't think that scene is justification for all the "expectations" about Anakin being noble and chivalrous and all that, since those things weren't even mentioned and Obi-Wan was instead talking about how skilled he was.

[Elfdart]

Not being argumentative, just curious--what else was Obi-Wan lying about in the whole scene besides Vader killing Anakin? It didn't sound like you thought Obi-Wan was lying to Luke about Anakin's combat ability or "The Dark Times".

You're right. He didn't really lie before that, so much as just omitting all the bad things about Anakin. I just don't think that scene is justification for all the "expectations" about Anakin being noble and chivalrous and all that, since those things weren't even mentioned and Obi-Wan was instead talking about how skilled he was.

More so in the next movie when Yoda says: "There is much anger in him -like his father." Clearly implying that Anakin was reckless and prone to act on his emotions.

People are just bashing because they had their own fan fiction version of what things would be like.

[Darth Yan]

not quite; It's partially because haydn didn't fully deliver up. My friend once said that if James Franco or another actor had been anakin the character would have been a lot more likeable. The delivery gave us a bad impression of anakin as a character, hence why many fans were disillusioned.
The occasional bits of horrible dialouge didn't help either.

[Channel72]

Not being argumentative, just curious--what else was Obi-Wan lying about in the whole scene besides Vader killing Anakin? It didn't sound like you thought Obi-Wan was lying to Luke about Anakin's combat ability or "The Dark Times".

You're right. He didn't really lie before that, so much as just omitting all the bad things about Anakin. I just don't think that scene is justification for all the "expectations" about Anakin being noble and chivalrous and all that, since those things weren't even mentioned and Obi-Wan was instead talking about how skilled he was.

The expectations about Anakin came not only from the fond, nostalgic manner in which Alec Guinness delivered the line about their friendship, but also I'd argue that the entire premise of the Prequel trilogy naturally suggests these expectations. I mean, Anakin's story is supposed to be a tragedy, right? So unless I'm sorely mistaken, the story of Anakin Skywalker is supposed to actually invoke the sort of emotions associated with tragedy, isn't it? Otherwise, what's the point?

The bare plot elements were pretty much laid out since Episode V: Anakin and Obi-Wan were friends, Anakin betrayed Obi-Wan and turned to the Dark Side. Now, you or I can bring whatever expectations we want to that bare plot skeleton, but apart from the awesome spaceships and lasers involved, why should we actually care about this story unless there's something really likable about Anakin that makes it actually hurt when he betrays his good friend? If he was never particularly likable, where's the tragedy in his fall, and where's the triumph in his redemption?

So I'll grant you that technically the scene between Luke and Obi-Wan in A New Hope doesn't really give us much to go on, nor does it justify any really specific expectations about the Prequels. But I think most movie-goers and OT fans would expect a priori certain qualities from Anakin based on the premise here. The Prequels' failure to meet those expectations is sort of like what happened with Star Trek: Voyager. That show had a great premise (two politically-opposed crews stranded far away from home and forced to work together), and you could easily defend that show by arguing that technically it lived up to that premise. I mean, they were lost in space, right? And there must have been at least one or two episodes where the two different crews didn't get along very well, right?

But I think any sensible viewer would argue that the show didn't come even close to properly taking advantage of that premise. I think the Prequels failed in a similar way: we all sort of assumed Anakin and Obi-Wan would have this great friendship, (because that's the most likely gold to mine when writing a story like this), but ultimately the way it was actually portrayed didn't even come close to what was anticipated. A large part of that was, doubtlessly, the fact that it's difficult to imagine wanting to be friends with Anakin in the first place.

[Darth Yan]

Pretty much; there wasn't really an impression of friendship; what scenes had the potential lacked the delievery and impact. Likewise between Padme and Anakin. If no one had known the backstory they would not see love between them (padme never seemed attracted and anyone who says otherwise is living a lie.)

[Kurgan]

You know, maybe I was wrong. The story and characters all seem to fit together just great after all. These contradictions don't seem to exist anymore, and maybe it is just because fans were bitter and angry because their imaginations wanted a different story back then that they came up with this stuff to complain about.

Maybe Lucas really DID have it all planned out in advance after all....?




Nah.

It's not about being happy we got something rather than nothing, or projecting credit for the good parts of the story onto the bad parts, it's whether there's good evidence to support that the plot threads and characters weren't made up as he want along, and that mistakes weren't made in the process (or a certain company might call them "deliberate creative decisions"). Heck, the Yoda character wasn't even original to the story, and now he's a pretty central part. By ESB, the cat is out of the bag as far as contrived plot twists and such, but that's not as if everything after that makes perfect sense. I generally love Hitchcock stories, and I love the plot twists... not merely because they're twists, but because looking back you could have guessed the ending by the clues given along the way. Ever see a 90's movie called "Wild Things"? This flick felt like it was trying to duplicate that convention, but it really didn't pull it off properly. It just tricked you and then tricked you again, and again, just to say it had tricked you.

[Channel72]

Maybe Lucas really DID have it all planned out in advance after all....?

I don't understand why you care whether or not Lucas changed his mind at some point during the ~25 year development process. I'm sure he changed his mind hundreds of times about various plot elements over the years. But the only thing that matters is the quality of the final product. With the OT, the quality was very high, and with the Prequels it was much less, but this really has little to do with how often Lucas changed his mind.

[Jim Raynor]

The bare plot elements were pretty much laid out since Episode V: Anakin and Obi-Wan were friends, Anakin betrayed Obi-Wan and turned to the Dark Side. Now, you or I can bring whatever expectations we want to that bare plot skeleton, but apart from the awesome spaceships and lasers involved, why should we actually care about this story unless there's something really likable about Anakin that makes it actually hurt when he betrays his good friend? If he was never particularly likable, where's the tragedy in his fall, and where's the triumph in his redemption?

How likable Anakin is is entirely up to a person's opinion. But whether it worked for you or not, the prequels covered that. He's a caring, enthusiastic kid in TPM, who kids are supposed to identify with and parents are supposed to sympathize with. He has big dreams about growing up into a hero and fixing the universe. He grows much darker during the ten years between that and AOTC, but he still retains his heroic ambitions. AOTC also makes it very clear how protective he is toward his friends, both in what he says and what he does in combat. He dislikes the Republic's politics and wishes for simple solutions to get things done. This is like many actual people out there. Anakin's "whininess" (the main thing many people bring up against him) is really no different and no worse than what a lot of real teenagers have said. That too is something that connected him to another segment of the audience.

But I think any sensible viewer would argue that the show didn't come even close to properly taking advantage of that premise. I think the Prequels failed in a similar way: we all sort of assumed Anakin and Obi-Wan would have this great friendship, (because that's the most likely gold to mine when writing a story like this), but ultimately the way it was actually portrayed didn't even come close to what was anticipated. A large part of that was, doubtlessly, the fact that it's difficult to imagine wanting to be friends with Anakin in the first place.

Anakin and Obi-Wan were never peers. In ANH he calls Obi-Wan an "old man." So just that should have steered people away from any expectations of them being buddies. Theirs was a mentor/student relationship, and the prequels added to that by portraying them as big brother/little brother or father/son. Lots of fathers have had to put up with crap from their sons while trying to raise them right. And lots of fathers would probably think it tragic if something happened to their sons, even if their sons were complete jerks.

[Kurgan]

Maybe Lucas really DID have it all planned out in advance after all....?

I don't understand why you care whether or not Lucas changed his mind at some point during the ~25 year development process. I'm sure he changed his mind hundreds of times about various plot elements over the years. But the only thing that matters is the quality of the final product. With the OT, the quality was very high, and with the Prequels it was much less, but this really has little to do with how often Lucas changed his mind.

Tons of people care about where stories came from, who wrote what and when, how films are put together, what inspired the creator(s), etc. It's not really hard to imagine why people care about such things, though not everyone does. In the end though, there's a question of historical accuracy in the creation of that product.

If something bit of data about the creative process is lost and unknowable, fine. I'm talking about whether something Lucas says jibes with the facts. I think we can agree on this. If Lucas had said "I originally intended Yoda to be blue" and we found say, that the early McQuarrie artwork depicted him as blue instead of green, that would be evidence to substantiate the claim. If such artwork existed and he said "I always intended Yoda to be green" then we would reasonably think that either he's losing his memory, or else McQuarrie was the one who decided on the color, and Lucas ignored his suggestion.

We might ask, why is it important to people that Lucas conceived of the Vader/Anakin/Father of Luke connection before 1978, or the Leia/Sister/Other connection before Jedi's script was written? I think the "what if" question must matter to people too, because the way some people talk, you'd think they believed the Prequels could not have been done any other way (and still been as successful as they were).

Btw, to clarify something, I don't believe I ever said, nor do I think, that if only Lucas had stuck to his original plan that it would have meant the movies would have been guaranteed to be better. I think some of his discarded ideas were good (some even better than we got), others it's probably better that he didn't try to use them. Had they been successful you'd have people defending them, obviously because "they worked."

The issue for me is not that he changed his mind, as if it wasn't moral to do so, it's the notion that he didn't change his mind about certain central plot twists and characters within the saga. It seems that some people really want the plot twists they like to have been intended all along. I don't see what's wrong with some of those having come later. Lucas can change his mind all he likes when it comes to writing his fantasy stories, he just can't change history, that's all.

[Kurgan]

Some of us just think that the return on the risk with changing the story so drastically in Empire got him to thinking it was going to pay off every time, to increasing diminishing returns. If so, that might explain a lot of the contrived connections between the stories. I think if it were some fan who grew up and became a director making the Prequels, maybe the fan critics would be more forgiving. But Lucas fed the mythology that he was this great storyteller that drew everything out and brought it to life at once, rather than this organic, rather ordinary process with a lot of collaboration. Looking back you can see that at times he was much more open about the process, but over time the parts that were remembered most were when he was talking about the pre-planned grand vision of things.

I think he'd have upset certain fans less if he was just up front about changing the backstory and making it up as he went along for his own creative reasons and changing outlook on the series and characters.

Some of the apologism I can understand and even sympathize with. People feel like George is under personal attack and fanboys are just impossible to please. But to others, Star Wars has become too much of a sacred cow. But there are legitimate criticisms to be made here like with any other set of stories.

[Kythnos]

Not to get into the whole quagmire of what I personally think of the Prequals, but along this line I thought I have a few comments.

We might ask, why is it important to people that Lucas conceived of the Vader/Anakin/Father of Luke connection before 1978,

I think we can say for sure that the answer is No. If I remember right the original movie did not have the opening crawl stating that this was part 4, only after the massive success started to role in was it added. I have seen an interview where George stated that the first movie was complete. Not saying that he might have had some back-story in mind for the characters but it is safe to say it changed massively when he realized that further movies where now a possibility.

or the Leia/Sister/Other connection before Jedi's script was written?

This on the other hand I think is Yes, at the end of ESB. Yoda says "There is another" or maybe "Another there is"

But again I think his thoughts died at the end of RoJ, with little thought as to where it all began. I conclude this from his backhanded comment of "the Tech is not good enough to do the story I want", as there was very few spots in the OT where the tech was Lacking. And most of those was based on expedience more than true tech limits. (IMO)