Star Wars: The Force Awakens (12/18/15)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I have always felt there were a few things Lucas could have done to greatly improve the PT.

Many would consider this the understatement of the millennium.

But seriously, the rest of your post makes some great points.

However Lucas, despite his tendency to change his mind, would have always had essentially the same back story in his mind. And he was competing with a 16-year build-up of fan expectation and imagination.
 
The whole killing kids thing - we don't forgive child killers in real life, why would we do so here. Terrible decision by Lucas to depict something like this.

sure we can.

its the KFC/ kiddie fakkers club that's beyond redemption.

as far as i know, vader doenst have a functional popo....that's punishment enough as far as karma goes.
 
''Vader did not deserve redemption''

Very interesting talking point. I agree, based on the PT he definitely didn't deserve it. He was never likeable. That's a major problem, first if you want it to feel in any way unexpected and tragic that he becomes a villain and second if, like Luke, you still want to see the good in him and ultimately redeem him.

Unfortunately his moaning and crying in AOTC and his villainy in ROTS were never counterbalanced by any characteristics to make him a Luke or a Han for these films. He was written to have the charisma of a spoon and acted accordingly by Christensen.

The whole killing kids thing - we don't forgive child killers in real life, why would we do so here. Terrible decision by Lucas to depict something like this.

Now that immediately raises the question of Vader in ANH overseeing the destruction of Alderaan. He didn't personally do it, just didn't do anything to stop it...but is that enough to give him a pass and say that he could still be redeemable? If you pretend the prequels didn't happen and reset one's perception of Vader right back to 1983 and everything we had up to that point, was the OT Vader reasonably redeemable?

I get what Lucas TRIED to do though. Anakin's weakness was his fear, fear of losing the people he loved. His mother, and then the ultimate obsessive love of his life Padme. In a classic story telling sense what he did made complete sense. He made an old fashioned pact with the devil, he became a monster in order to save the one he loved. Of course he was betrayed and intoxicated by the Devil. He really did become his right hand man.

Not saying Lucas got this across successfully on film. But that was his intention, it harkens back to Joseph Campbell and numerous other mythological stories. The redemption of a devil to become saviour. Unfortunately Lucas tried to do all this in two hours, he should have spread this story across 3 movies. Anakin did not need to appear on screen as a small child. And he could have given it some depth. As it stands Anakin goes from moody hero to child killer in about 60 minutes which feels uneven and unbalanced.

So yeah, the child killing aspect comes across as totally unredeemable. He didn't just set out to kill the kids though, he set out to kill every jedi. There is a big tonal difference there. And something already suggested by the original Star Wars movie, we know Vader and The Emperor had wiped out the Jedi, it goes without saying that included youngsters and force trained kids. That is unfortunately something which has been done repeatedly throughout our own history by countries, leaders and politicians who were later portrayed as heroes and champions.
 
Last edited:
Spoiler Spoiler:
 
The biggest problem with the Prequels is a poorly conceived story arc followed by atrocious writing. Other than both Lloyd and Christensen and Anakin, the cast was pretty solid. Sure they were CGI heavy, but most of it still holds up. The art direction and design are probably the strongest points and they are gorgeous, although in many respects they don't match the look of the OT. Essentially the prequels are pretty to look at but lacking of any soul. They were probably doomed from the start because Lucas had close to zero passion for the project. I remember watching some of the featurettes, and he just seemed to be going through the motions. Whenever he was directing a scene he's leaning back and lounging in his chair. Of if he was picking out a design or making a creative decision, he's browsing through choices like he's in a department store. Whereas if you watch the OT featurettes he's always leaning forward, engaged and 100 percent into it. There was an urgency and even though the budgets got bigger, there was always a bit of an indy edge to it. It has less to do with age. There are plenty of directors in their 50s, 60s, and 70s who direct with passion and zeal. The studio didn't care, they just wanted to make money. I still think there is a single epic 2-hour movie that could be made by re-editing, remastering, and some reshooting. Given all of the special editions that have been done with Lucas's endless tinkering, why shouldn't Disney hire a hot shot director, give him $50M to produce the ultimate edition prequel movie that gets rid of pod racing, midichloreans, Trade blockades, JarJar and the gungans, talking battle droids, and all the other nonsense, and instead tells the story of a promising and powerful young Jedi who lost his way, turned to the dark side, and helped a tyrannical Sith Lord enslave the Galaxy. Desaturate and weather the color palette, remaster some of the CGI designs, redub the dialogue and that alone would give it some edge.
 
Last edited:
It's really funny AND sad to see same people talkin' crap about PT while bein' excited for the new JarJar's film and praising "Age of Ultra Fail" and "Jerkassic World". Hope I'll be alive 10 years from now to see same people posting crap about all the 2015 blockbusters, Ant-Man included. :lol
 
Phantom Menace is a great film. Devon Michaels should have been Anakin but there you go, he was too expensive. Lesson learned.

Had George just let go a little bit on the other two like he wanted to initially they would have been great films, better scripted, better directed. It all just got bogged down dreadfully quickly because he didn't have a Kurtz figure to reign in him and talk sense. He was surrounded by Yes men much to the detriment of the movies.

I like the PT. Sure there are elements that I'm not a fan of but at the core they are still the story that George had in mind in 1974.
 
My main problem though is that not enough time passes between II and III.

That should also have been a 10 year gap. A 10 year galactic war is going to take some strain both on the republic and the people of the republic also Anakin and Padme having to hide a marriage for 10 years is going to take it's toll on moody pants.
 
''Vader did not deserve redemption''

Very interesting talking point. I agree, based on the PT he definitely didn't deserve it. He was never likeable. That's a major problem, first if you want it to feel in any way unexpected and tragic that he becomes a villain and second if, like Luke, you still want to see the good in him and ultimately redeem him.

Unfortunately his moaning and crying in AOTC and his villainy in ROTS were never counterbalanced by any characteristics to make him a Luke or a Han for these films. He was written to have the charisma of a spoon and acted accordingly by Christensen.

The whole killing kids thing - we don't forgive child killers in real life, why would we do so here. Terrible decision by Lucas to depict something like this.

Now that immediately raises the question of Vader in ANH overseeing the destruction of Alderaan. He didn't personally do it, just didn't do anything to stop it...but is that enough to give him a pass and say that he could still be redeemable? If you pretend the prequels didn't happen and reset one's perception of Vader right back to 1983 and everything we had up to that point, was the OT Vader reasonably redeemable?

Great point.. I think we give Vader a pass with the blowing up of a planet because we don;t get to see or know the victims. Plus the films were just better and Vader was a better and cooler character.. An almost root for the bad guy type character.

I totally agree with this. If only you'd been allowed to make the prequels ...

I tried to tell Lucas... But Noooooooo :)

Thank you

:) No problem.

I get what Lucas TRIED to do though. Anakin's weakness was his fear, fear of losing the people he loved. His mother, and then the ultimate obsessive love of his life Padme. In a classic story telling sense what he did made complete sense. He made an old fashioned pact with the devil, he became a monster in order to save the one he loved. Of course he was betrayed and intoxicated by the Devil. He really did become his right hand man.

Not saying Lucas got this across successfully on film. But that was his intention, it harkens back to Joseph Campbell and numerous other mythological stories. The redemption of a devil to become saviour. Unfortunately Lucas tried to do all this in two hours, he should have spread this story across 3 movies. Anakin did not need to appear on screen as a small child. And he could have given it some depth. As it stands Anakin goes from moody hero to child killer in about 60 minutes which feels uneven and unbalanced.

So yeah, the child killing aspect comes across as totally unredeemable. He didn't just set out to kill the kids though, he set out to kill every jedi. There is a big tonal difference there. And something already suggested by the original Star Wars movie, we know Vader and The Emperor had wiped out the Jedi, it goes without saying that included youngsters and force trained kids. That is unfortunately something which has been done repeatedly throughout our own history by countries, leaders and politicians who were later portrayed as heroes and champions.

Having kids being ripped from their families to be trained as Jedi is a stupid idea also (another reason Jedi council sucks).. In the OT when they talked about the kiling of the jedi I never pictured children.

It's really funny AND sad to see same people talkin' crap about PT while bein' excited for the new JarJar's film and praising "Age of Ultra Fail" and "Jerkassic World". Hope I'll be alive 10 years from now to see same people posting crap about all the 2015 blockbusters, Ant-Man included. :lol


WTF Riddick. You are such a negative Nelly :) .. I have nothing against the bashing of AOU and JW (though I thought JW was fine) but neither film should be compared with the PT. PT has always been given a rash of crap... Granted people wanted to like them...... So there was some forgiveness. But they do not stand up to repeat viewings at all. I would say that AOU will be looked at with some disdain in the future. I see IM3 is finally starting to get recognized as the crap film it is. AOU has too many flaws to stand up to OT type repeat viewing IMO... Of course I thought it sucked to begin with but it does keep getting worse the 2nd and 3rd time I gave it a chance :)

As for the New Jar Jar films... There is nothing in those trailers to make me think this will be a bad film in the same realm as Jar Jar.
 
Back
Top