Revenge of the Sith Revenge of the Sith Apreciation Thread

[BatLobster]

I don't disagree that the Jedi Order and what it means to be a Jedi should change in a post ROTJ-world, but I think it's a lot more interesting and satisfying from a broader story perspective that the old Jedi order that falls is one that was hampered by its old rigidity and aloofness and therefore must evolve in order to survive.

If the Jedi in the PT were portrayed just the same in they were as the OT then there is 0 progression there. It's no longer about growing and gaining greater wisdom, it's just about removing the bad guys from power and reestablishing the old status quo. Much less interesting. Besides, making the Jedi monk-like hardly seemed like such a big stretch, considering the Buddhist influences that were always there.

It's not like I could picture characters like Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda or Mace Windu with wives or romantic subplots in the prequels anyhow. It would be an entirely different situation if Jedi were having families of their own. Makes the idea that the Jedi and their teachings had all but disappeared a bit harder to swallow. Having romantic love forbidden in the Jedi code just makes explicit what would've likely been implicit anyhow, plus enhances the "forbidden love" aspect with Anakin and Padme. And makes their children literally the only "Jedi offspring" in the galaxy, which is pretty cool and consistent with the OT.

 

[HarryOsborn]

I don't disagree that the Jedi Order and what it means to be a Jedi should change in a post ROTJ-world, but I think it's a lot more interesting and satisfying from a broader story perspective that the old Jedi order that falls is one that was hampered by its old rigidity and aloofness and therefore must evolve in order to survive.

If the Jedi in the PT were portrayed just the same in they were as the OT then there is 0 progression there. It's no longer about growing and gaining greater wisdom, it's just about removing the bad guys from power and reestablishing the old status quo. Much less interesting. Besides, making the Jedi monk-like hardly seemed like such a big stretch, considering the Buddhist influences that were always there.

It's not like I could picture characters like Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda or Mace Windu with wives or romantic subplots in the prequels anyhow. It would be an entirely different situation if Jedi were having families of their own. Makes the idea that the Jedi and their teachings had all but disappeared a bit harder to swallow. Having romantic love forbidden in the Jedi code just makes explicit what would've likely been implicit anyhow, plus enhances the "forbidden love" aspect with Anakin and Padme. And makes their children literally the only "Jedi offspring" in the galaxy, which is pretty cool and consistent with the OT.

It didn't seem like they could have romantic subplots because of the way they were portrayed, and frankly i could see Qui-Gon having a wife and family- he was the closest thing to a chivalrous, adventurous knight. Also there's no reason Ben Kenobi wouldn't have had a family in his past years. Not to mention Luke and Leia were established to be such a threat because of Midiclorians and force potential, so it wasn't even because they were "Jedi Off-Spring". It's much easier to relate to characters that have normal human qualities. Luke in Return of the Jedi was wise, confident, and heroic; which is exactly what I Jedi should be. All the while he was infuriated by Vader's taunts and the Emperor was able to prod his emotional vulnerabilities. The only reason he didn't kill Vader was because he was horrified at the reflection of his father he saw in himself through his severed hand. At the end of the conflict he tossed his sword because he was mature and noble. What Lucas did with the Jedi Knight in the prequels seemed more like what a man with a massively inflated ego would write after he was disillusioned with love following a divorce. Since he didn't really have anyone to pull him back down to reality he blamed love for his agony, rather than accepting it was the way he handled his love that caused it instead. It would be different if the story was about how Anakin mishandled his love for Padme, but from the 2002 interview he said "They choose to follow their love and for that they will be punished" like dude get over it, women aren't evil you just had a bad breakup.

Whatever Luke does it should feel more human and be more about serenity and following the moral righteous path, and trusting in force in times that require bravery. Falling in love is one of the most difficult things person can do, this should be an act of bravery that's applauded in his order. I guarantee you it would make Star Wars seem a lot less like a sexless nerds fantasy to women and on the fence viewers.

 

[Mad Ones]

I agree, HarryOsborn.

I think Lucas just assumed "forbidden love" was an easy way to get the audience to care about a romance. Turns out decent writing is actually the trick.

 

[HarryOsborn]

I completely agree, but really it backfired. The thing is love and heartbreak are some of the most universal and powerful emotions a storyteller can employ. When you see a friend who's always cheery and optimistic break down into tears because they were just left or cheated on, it's not only jarring, but it's a feeling most people have had at one time.

Frankly if Lucas wanted to channel his divorce woes into the prequels he should have had Anakin be left by Padme, or better yet maybe she leaves him for Obi-Wan. Then setting up their conflict and his discovery of the power of anger and raw passion in his depression. Maybe he even just like cuts himself off emotionally and his transformation into a cyborg is sort of symbolic for a broken man operating his day to day duties despite being emotionally destroyed- becoming detached and robotic (ahhh see what I did there?)

That's besides the point though. The issue is I don't disagree with Anakin and Padme's relationship, I don't disagree with love. I've had my heart broken many of times and it's one of the hardest things to deal with. Sometimes it makes you feel so sick you just want to get up and when it really sinks in, regardless of where you are. Thing is though, I'm not arrogant and pompous enough to overlook my faults and my wrongs that lead up to the heartbreak. George Lucas though is a billionaire with a fan base that spans all living generations, and has made him one of the most recognizable directors of all time. Most likely he doesn't have someone to bring him back down to earth when he gets arrogant or things don't go his way- so he seems to have rationalized his marriage failed during the production Return of the Jedi because falling in love is somehow wrong; rather than because of their personal issues or his high levels of stress from the years spend pouring his heart into creating the biggest franchise in film and his own production company.

 

[BatLobster]

Qui-Gon is the only one I could see having a wife and kids, cause you're right- he was the "hippie", rogue Jedi. I really didn't mind the Jedi code as an element in the prequels though- again, because it gives the Jedi somewhere to go in the future.

The rest of what you're saying, eh, I don't know...is Romeo and Juliet and "anti-love" story too? Or just a tragic love story? There's a difference. If you want to look for parallels with Lucas' personal life, Anakin's "We can rule the galaxy together" speech with Padme's "You're going down a path I can't follow" response could be seen as reminiscent of how Marcia felt about Lucas' growing wealth and obsession with his company and eventual decision to leave him. Lucas has been fairly open and self-aware about how he became the thing he fought against, so I think it's kind of unfair to make too many assumptions about how he has processed his divorce all these years later. My parents are divorced, and I can tell you that each of them accepts their share of the blame now, 20 years after the fact. Padme is essentially portrayed as a saint in the prequels, and certainly an innocent victim in ROTS. The only thing that would've brought that into question was the hint of a love-triangle with Obi-Wan in earlier drafts, which was entirely removed ultimately. It's an ill-fated love because it's the ultimate human attachment and Anakin has major fear of loss issues. I really don't think the Jedi 'attachments' policy was Lucas trying to make a negative statement about romantic love. I think it's more about a need for a "middle way". Anakin was way too possessive and intense in his feelings of attachment. The Jedi were cold and aloof in their complete shunning of it. Mixing these two extremes was a recipe for disaster, and why the council was so against training him from the start.

Not to mention Luke and Leia were established to be such a threat because of Midiclorians and force potential, so it wasn't even because they were "Jedi Off-Spring". It's much easier to relate to characters that have normal human qualities.

Isn't that splitting hairs a bit though? The whole "The Force is strong in my family..." thing. Call it what you want, Jedi were trained in the first place because of midiclorian count, so it's essentially the same end result. It could be reasoned that if the thousands of Jedi in the Jedi Order were procreating, there'd probably be a bunch of "Lukes" and "Leias" running around in the OT, kind of contradicting the Luke and Leia were the only two hopes for the galaxy. Sure, the Empire would've tried to hunt them all down, but we have to assume they would've been scattered and hidden. I don't know, I just think it's a good thing that there aren't a lot of bloodlines with ties to the old Jedi order. It makes the Skywalkers more unique.

Anyhow, I don't disagree that the Jedi were not relatable, or even always likable in the PT. I don't disagree that they should be portrayed as more human going forward. But I don't begrudge the way they were portrayed in the PT, because it was the story of their downfall and it's much more rich thematically for them to be undone by some of the inherent shortcomings of their own system rather than just losing because the dark side is stronger. There are lessons to be learned this way, and it offers more moral complexity to the saga.

 

[Brother Jack]

I think portraying the Jedi Order as a rigid dogma brought down in part due to its misguided views is a good idea on paper that didn't really pan out in the films. Largely because of the uniformity and bland character building that just made them boring. It would have been better to show the council behaving in dogmatic ways while having the lower-tier knights showing individuality. Qui-Gon being counterculture to the Jedi traditions should have been taken further. You can have the Jedi being stuck up and less than purely good while still making them more interesting than the cardboard cutouts they were.

 

[BatLobster]

For me, when discussing the ideas present in the prequels it's pretty much a given that a lot of elements could've been executed better. But the execution wasn't the topic of discussion here, it was more of a philosophical discussion about what the Jedi Order should and shouldn't be and the reasons Lucas may or may not have constructed the story the way he did.

I agree though, the idea could have been explored more. Getting to know some of the lower-tier knights would've been a nice potential remedy for that. Characters like Ahsoka...just another example of where Clone Wars filled in the cracks.

 

[Snow Queen]

I think portraying the Jedi Order as a rigid dogma brought down in part due to its misguided views is a good idea on paper that didn't really pan out in the films. Largely because of the uniformity and bland character building that just made them boring. It would have been better to show the council behaving in dogmatic ways while having the lower-tier knights showing individuality. Qui-Gon being counterculture to the Jedi traditions should have been taken further. You can have the Jedi being stuck up and less than purely good while still making them more interesting than the cardboard cutouts they were.

The summary for most of the prequel trilogy.

 

[Brother Jack]

For me, when discussing the ideas present in the prequels it's pretty much a given that a lot of elements could've been executed better. But the execution wasn't the topic of discussion here, it was more of a philosophical discussion about what the Jedi Order should and shouldn't be and the reasons Lucas may or may not have constructed the story the way he did.

I agree though, the idea could have been explored more. Getting to know some of the lower-tier knights would've been a nice potential remedy for that. Characters like Ahsoka...just another example of where Clone Wars filled in the cracks.

The summary for most of the prequel trilogy.

Yeah, I guess that's what it comes down to.

 

[BatLobster]

My perspective on it has always just been, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater with regards to the PT. Star Wars to me is far more than just a series of movies at this point, it is a truly unique thing in that it's a true mythology unto itself that transcends film. I evaluate Star Wars content in that respect on one hand, and then as a film on the other. I think most of us can agree that there are plenty of elements of the prequels that sucked b***s in terms of basic moviegoing/enjoyment perspective, but it's very possible to also leave the entertainment factor aside for a moment and discuss how the ideas presented tie into the larger mythology- as if they were canon prequel novels or something. And to me, in that regard the re-contexualization of the OT is actually pretty damn cool in some key areas, which is really the main reason the prequels even exist beyond George wanting to dive into the digital age of filmmaking.

I also don't think the Jedi were a total loss in the PT. Qui-Gon was fantastic, Obi-Wan was the most reliable and likable character of the whole trilogy. Yoda was Yoda, more formal than the OT, but still recognizable. Mace was really the only of the 'mains' on the council who came across as utterly unlikable, arrogant and wooden to me...which is so strange to say considering it's Sam mothaf'n Jackson haha. I also really enjoyed Count Dooku as a fallen/ex-Jedi who had become disillusioned.

 

[Marvolo]

The thing is being a Jedi didn't use to be like being a priest. In the original trilogy it was a lot more like Buddhism or Hinduism in many ways. Becoming a Jedi wasn't achieving a certain rank, or getting the seat you wanted- it was about a personal journey of enlightenment, like reaching nirvana. Luke wasn't a Jedi when he was deemed one by his masters, he was a Jedi once he confronted Vader because atonement with his father was his own personal journey. Once he was willing to resist temptation, accept selflessness, he was a Jedi.

There's reasons Jedi that look like this:

are more interesting than some robed monks. They have character and a story of their own- personal lives included. I can assure you Disney is not going to keep this no romance story up, not because of any loopholes, but because they want these stories to be accessible, and aside from retconning the past, they can do whatever they want. I don't think Luke will be married since he sounds like a hermit, but you can bet Finn and Rey will have romances with someone, and frankly these are not "lower ranked Jedi".

Buddhists and Hindus that are trying to reach nirvana or true enlightenment give up all personal attachment. That's why I didn't just say priests. So the argument still stands. Anyone serious about becoming truly one with the Force or dedicating themselves to it entirely wouldn't want to allow the distractions of love and a spouse. Everyone puts the person they love before all else. That's why Jedi shouldn't get tangled up in love. It's too likely to distract them.

So while I can believe a young impetuous Jedi might fall in love at a certain point when theyve grown wise even they will have to realize that it's a distraction and a hindrance.

 

[Mad Ones]

A lot of the arguments supporting the decision to make the Jedi council a detached, cultish organization do make sense. But it really just supports the argument that this story just didn't need to be told since it cannot be told in a way that connects with the audience.

 

[drod1985]

Just re-watched this on Friday night. ROTS gets a lot of things right that the previous two prequel films didn't, but still suffered from quite a few of the same shortcomings. I think Lucas was slowly learning what worked and what didn't over the course of the three prequels, and ROTS benefitted the most from that.

The entire opening sequence through the crash landing is pure Star Wars gold, minus the part where Dooku should've shattered Obi-Wan's hip.

 

[BatLobster]

A lot of the arguments supporting the decision to make the Jedi council a detached, cultish organization do make sense. But it really just supports the argument that this story just didn't need to be told since it cannot be told in a way that connects with the audience.

I do think with some better acting, writing and directing, it could have connected a bit more. At least I'd like to think so. This story was never going to have the same inherent charm as the story of a ragtag group of rebels taking down the big bad Empire in a grubby, lived-in world. In fact the prequels probably needed to have BETTER writing//directing/acting in order to properly convey the weighty, portentousness of it all and make what are essentially political dramas more dynamic and engaging. So obviously when it fell short across the board there, you end up with what we got. But even Lucas' quotes about the prequel trilogy from as early as 1981 are basically saying it's a "Machiavellian costume drama in space", so I do honestly think he made the movies he wanted to make, for better or worse. All the green screen was really the death knell, because at that point you really need great direction to keep the actors engaged, and it's been widely known since the 70s that directing actors was not one of Lucas' strong points. So the prequels are not one of these "Where did it all go wrong?!" situations, because it's very easy to identify the factors that made it what it is (namely Lucas writing/directing).

The prequels were never essential because the original trilogy stood on its own just fine, and there was a reason those were the movies made first. But at the very least, I do think when you get the full scope of how evil Palpatine truly is, how he manipulated everything and basically stole Anakin's life, for me it does make the ending of ROTJ that much more satisfying, and kind of beautiful in that he turns to the dark side because he wants to save a loved one and turns back to the light with the final act of saving a loved one. So, considering it was the bond between a father and son that saved the galaxy I highly doubt any future Jedi Order would be just like the old one.

I apologize for all the rants. I'm in all-around Star Wars hype mode these days and I guess I am exorcising some prequel demons to clear my system for TFA.

 

[Mad Ones]

I just think a Star Wars story where the characters are either detached cultish Jedis, senators, CGI creatures, or child killing fascists just didn't need to be told.

 

[Brother Jack]

I also don't think the Jedi were a total loss in the PT. Qui-Gon was fantastic, Obi-Wan was the most reliable and likable character of the whole trilogy. Yoda was Yoda, more formal than the OT, but still recognizable. Mace was really the only of the 'mains' on the council who came across as utterly unlikable, arrogant and wooden to me...which is so strange to say considering it's Sam mothaf'n Jackson haha. I also really enjoyed Count Dooku as a fallen/ex-Jedi who had become disillusioned.

I really missed the playfulness of Yoda in the PT. It's hard to realize now but it was kind of a genius decision to have the fabled Jedi master be a feeble-looking little creature and have him come off as a goofy old man initially. Because it was a moment of levity and apparent enjoyment from Yoda himself while being a disguised part of Luke's training. I say that to say that Yoda was made to be less interesting in the PT with the removal of those other shades. He wasn't even ornery and "impossible" like he was in the OT. One of the weirdest character decisions for me in the prequels is Yoda agreeing to let Obi-Wan train Anakin when he had every reason not to. That didn't jive with the strict and aloof teacher we had come to know.

I apologize for all the rants. I'm in all-around Star Wars hype mode these days and I guess I am exorcising some prequel demons to clear my system for TFA.

Haha, I can relate.

 

[Bim]

Well, i always see the Yoda from the PT as a different one than from the OT. Like Obi-Wan, it's natural for them to be different than how we saw them in the PT. The events in the PT had to show them evolving to what we see in the OT; they had to change after all of that!. Order 66 alone must have dealt a huge blow to Yoda

 

[Lord]

During the clone wars toons we did see some playfulness out of him. The thing in the original trilogy is that after Yoda stoped fooling Luke, he got realy serious, i don't think he joked around in any other scene, in the Prequels he wasn't all that different from the serious Yoda from Empire and Return.

 

[Brother Jack]

During the clone wars toons we did see some playfulness out of him. The thing in the original trilogy is that after Yoda stoped fooling Luke, he got realy serious, i don't think he joked around in any other scene, in the Prequels he wasn't all that different from the serious Yoda from Empire and Return.

Well the spiritualism wasn't really in the prequels and there's the whole thing with Yoda wielding a lightsaber and fighting in a way that goes against the "always for defense" mantra.

 

[HarryOsborn]

I just think a Star Wars story where the characters are either detached cultish Jedis, senators, CGI creatures, or child killing fascists just didn't need to be told.

The thing is they really didn't need to be. In the original trilogy we're told this:

Anakin was the greatest star pilot in the galaxy. He was strong in the force, which caught the attention of the heroic chivalrous General and Jedi Knight, Obi-Wan Kenobi- who was sure he could train this young man as well as his master had trained him. He wanted Anakin to come along, learn to become a Jedi, and fight in the war, but Owen thought he should have stayed home and not gotten involved. The two were good friends, went on many adventures, but Anakin was seduced by the dark side. Obi-Wan once thought as Luke did; hoping to rekindle the waining good in Anakin, and redeem his once friend. However it became clear he was beyond salvation, and thus he lost hope. Meanwhile watching this all- Anakin's lover who helped to raise her daughter without the man who'd help to conceive her. This woman was beautiful in her final days, but very sad and afraid.


This is a strong outline for a series of very personal, intimate films, with a cast of a young/inexpirienced Ben Kenobi, the adventurous Anakin Skywalker, the disapproving Uncle Owen and his slightly starstruck/naive lover Beru, Anakin's loving wife, 3P0, and R2. All of whom are in the midst of a galactic conflict with a name as interesting as the Clone Wars. Really you have your rag-tag group in place, as well as your dark foreboding atmosphere- that's possibly even more ominous simply because we know what tragedy is coming. There was no reason everyone had to be all weird and detached or why we had to totally ditch this outline in favor of Lucas's more boring, heavy in questionable political dialogue, version of the story.

The biggest mistake Lucas made was transcending the fantasy genre of Star Wars and pushing it a little too far into Sci-Fi. Everything in the prequels seemed more suited for some sort of a niche, nerdy, sci-fi series with a cult following rather than a cultural phenomenon.The best way I can illustrate this with pictures:

You notice Luke and Han don't have weird cult braids, they have normal 1970s haircuts. They look like normal guys in space- even when Luke begins the journey to becoming a Jedi, he doesn't have some stupid braid. He looks like a normal guy. You see just show these two pictures to any non-fan, and you'll see they're able to connect with one a lot more. This might seem like a knit pick, but the visuals are huge in making the story relatable! It just highlights a bigger problem of George making these people too weird and too alien, to the point where they don't click with us anymore. Be honest, were these the guys you were picturing when you heard Obi-Wan and Vader talk about the old days? I can barely remember a time before Phantom Menace, I was like 4, but still I can remember having a hard time connecting that movie with the rest of the franchise largely because of the visuals. I think the fact we had no feudal Chinese painted women or protagonists with weird overly alien looks really helped Episode III:

Finally we have normal looking protagonists. Obi-Wan doesn't look like some sort of cult victim or 1970s viking cosplayer anymore, he's well groomed, all business, and let's his personality convey his youthfulness. Anakin his long unkempt hair, which was popular in the mid 2000s, and it conveys his youthful, rebellious attitude, and his adventurous personality. Little changes like this make them look more like regular guys in a space movie, rather than some niche sci-fi movie only very in the know fans would understand. When you look at the concept art for the prequels you see things almost got even worse.

Another big issue was Lucas deciding to remove any individuality from anything and everything. i.e. ALL the clones are Jango Fett, and Boba is his clone too. ALL the Jedi (minus Mace) have blue or green lightsabers. ALL the Padawans look like idiots. Worst of all, ALL the Jedi are generals. The whole "General Kenobi" thing was always so interesting because it showed a different side to the old monk like hermit, and gave him character without going into any detail. It was like Leia was going to him because of his brave service in the war as a general, not because he was a Jedi. Now of course we know all you had to do to lead an army was be strong in the force, and you were leading an army of Clones rather than fearful, unpredictable individuals experiencing the horrors of war.

I could go on, but this point is going to be long enough.

 

[HarryOsborn]

During the clone wars toons we did see some playfulness out of him. The thing in the original trilogy is that after Yoda stoped fooling Luke, he got realy serious, i don't think he joked around in any other scene, in the Prequels he wasn't all that different from the serious Yoda from Empire and Return.

Which is why in hindsight it would have been better to keep him on the swamp. He seemed like a wise old creature that looked for the answers in solitude and through unconventional means, rather than structure. He could be serious, but he had to test those who came before him to see if they were worthy.

 

[HarryOsborn]

Buddhists and Hindus that are trying to reach nirvana or true enlightenment give up all personal attachment. That's why I didn't just say priests. So the argument still stands. Anyone serious about becoming truly one with the Force or dedicating themselves to it entirely wouldn't want to allow the distractions of love and a spouse. Everyone puts the person they love before all else. That's why Jedi shouldn't get tangled up in love. It's too likely to distract them.

Okay dude... this isn't the real world...you're taking this way too seriously. The government shouldn't allow the Avengers to operate, SHIELD shouldn't be able to exist, most movies are filled with assaults/relationship ending cheating, soldiers who's hair isn't regulation, police officers who become vigilanttes in hopes of getting their badges back. Just because something makes sense when you think about it in the real world, doesn't mean it works for the sake of the story. Treating the Jedi like a real religion, just isn't the right way to go about it. Most people want heroes who have emotions and attachments, it's human.

 

[Brother Jack]

Which is why in hindsight it would have been better to keep him on the swamp. He seemed like a wise old creature that looked for the answers in solitude and through unconventional means, rather than structure. He could be serious, but he had to test those who came before him to see if they were worthy.

I never thought of that before but, yeah, that's a great point. Yoda and Dagobah are almost symbiotic in a lot of narrative ways. I don't think it was necessarily a mistake to put him amongst other Jedi within the Order, the council itself is actually mentioned in the OT. But it would have been cool to have him be at a distance from everyone, the kind of wise teacher that a person gets summoned to go and speak with, not someone who has to be at the forefront all the time. And he certainly shouldn't have been a military general. Yes, the story around him in Empire is that he's a "great warrior" but that's a title Yoda pointedly rejects and could have been interpreted any number of ways in the PT.

 

[Snow Queen]

Perhaps they could have even had Yoda reject the militarization of the Jedi that occurs in the PT, which leads him to willingly going to Dagobah where he can focus on what's really important rather than war.

 

[Brother Jack]

Perhaps they could have even had Yoda reject the militarization of the Jedi that occurs in the PT, which leads him to willingly going to Dagobah where he can focus on what's really important rather than war.

That would have fit in nicely with the critique of the Jedi Lucas tried to incorporate into the story.