Doesn't half annoy me/make me sigh when people assume that EVERYONE hated the prequels. Someone commented on a DS story the other day that they are "universally disliked". Except people are generally much more likely to moan about a film they hated online than gush about a film they enjoyed, especially when it's 14 years later. The silent majority liked the prequels just fine. All three are rated fresh on RT by critics and the public. Episodes II and III were very big financial hits, years after everyone had made their minds up about Episode I. They are not unpopular films. There is no evidence at all to suggest they are except a bunch of OT fans going on and on and on about it and the attitude from many others that it's shameful to admit to liking them, when in fact the majority of viewers do. The prequels are also shown on ITV all the time because they get VERY high ratings for afternoon films.The merchandise also sold like mad. They kept the franchise going to the extent that three more movies have been commissioned. Anakin Skywalker, Darth Maul and Queen Amidala are household names and iconic characters who everyone recognises. They are well-liked movies. So much evidence to back it up. Let's discard this "everyone hates the prequels" idea once and for all, eh?
Good to see a positive spin on things. However...
Episodes II and III were very big financial hits, years after everyone had made their minds up about Episode I.
There was a considerable decline in box-office revenue with 'Clones - $649m to Phantom's $915m, suggesting something had gone amiss. Some claim the new twin giants of Potter & LOTR were to blame, but the re-introduction of Vader for 'Sith put things back on track - $849m.
Though in some ways, of course, yes. Whatever problems Star Wars has, the villian of the piece isn't one of them. Vader was a cinematic bullseye that no other blockbuster has ever quite matched. Sadly, Jedi took the first steps in destroying his considerable mystique, something Lucas carried out quite comprehensively with the prequels of course.
Agreed. How the creator of a character so unique and so memorable could go about systematically dismantling it and reducing it to a "Nooooooooooo" moment of pure hilarity is beyond me. Sad. So very, very sad.
The set-up was there too. Obi-Wan Kenobi's intriguing description of "the best star pilot in the galaxy, a cunning warrior, and a good friend" in Star Wars promised so much. The fall from grace should have been monumental and tragic, but would only work if Anakin was heroic and likeable in the first place, instead of a petulant, sulky pipsqueak.
The Anakin in "ROTS" showed slight promise, but again was reduced to the most ridiculous and stilted dialogue, that plagued the prequels. It's almost as if Lucas got to the end and thought "Oh sheesh, I need to get Anakin into the Vader suit. Er, they have a fight, he gets his arms and legs cut off, he's all burned and that will be the end"
And where was the Clone War? That's right, we don't get an epic trilogy with this legendary conflict as the backdrop as fans clamoured for, no, save that for a cartoon set between Episodes II and III.
Agreed. How the creator of a character so unique and so memorable could go about systematically dismantling it and reducing it to a "Nooooooooooo" moment of pure hilarity is beyond me. Sad. So very, very sad.
The set-up was there too. Obi-Wan Kenobi's intriguing description of "the best star pilot in the galaxy, a cunning warrior, and a good friend" in Star Wars promised so much. The fall from grace should have been monumental and tragic, but would only work if Anakin was heroic and likeable in the first place, instead of a petulant, sulky pipsqueak.
The Anakin in "ROTS" showed slight promise, but again was reduced to the most ridiculous and stilted dialogue, that plagued the prequels. It's almost as if Lucas got to the end and thought "Oh sheesh, I need to get Anakin into the Vader suit. Er, they have a fight, he gets his arms and legs cut off, he's all burned and that will be the end"
And where was the Clone War? That's right, we don't get an epic trilogy with this legendary conflict as the backdrop as fans clamoured for, no, save that for a cartoon set between Episodes II and III.
It's often dismissed because it's a cartoon, and I can't blame anyone for being dismissive, but funny thing is The Clone Wars had the better portrayal of Anakin. He was cunning, cocky, likeable, he had a presence, and a genuinely dark side, often crossing the line. You could actually see that version of the character going on to become Vader. It's a shame we never saw that in the actual movies. I certainly don't hate the prequels, but imo the best thing to come out of that era was the Clone Wars series. I'm also looking forward to Rebels. (I just hope they can find a way to resolve some of the CW loose threads).
There was a considerable decline in box-office revenue with 'Clones - $649m to Phantom's $915m, suggesting something had gone amiss. Some claim the new twin giants of Potter & LOTR were to blame, but the re-introduction of Vader for 'Sith put things back on track - $849m.
An allegory to the rise and fall of empires was always going to be less interesting to 10 year old's that a science fiction version of most fantasy tails complete with Dragon (Death Star) St George (Luke) on his horse (X-wing) and a Princess in distress (Leia).
The political sub-text in the prequels and the old power corrupts absolutely was always going to pass over the children Star Wars was primarily aimed at.
Ridley has stated in the past that the two films that influenced him most to create Alien, were Star Wars & The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - and, he nailed it - its a gr8 fusion of the two!
Far from me to contradict Ridley Scott, who should know what his inspirations were, but surely Dark Star and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have been a more apt choice? Dark Star has a crew in space for a long time, in a ship that's a bit industrial, and at one point a creature lurking in its labyrinth. Dark Star came out a few years before Star Wars, but admittedly wasn't as popular. Still, one would have thought that Ridley would have known about it.
Far from me to contradict Ridley Scott, who should know what his inspirations were, but surely Dark Star and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have been a more apt choice? Dark Star has a crew in space for a long time, in a ship that's a bit industrial, and at one point a creature lurking in its labyrinth. Dark Star came out a few years before Star Wars, but admittedly wasn't as popular. Still, one would have thought that Ridley would have known about it.
Dan O'bannon wrote both , so of course he knew about it , but DS was a comedy , so I imagine Scott was talking about influences ina different way .
Alien was 79, Bladerunner was early 80s. I remember their release well, but Star Wars was there first and to this day i still wonder if they had not made Star Wars if films like Bladerunner would ever have been made.
Not sure I agree entirely. Sci fi adventures were not a new thing, take classics like This Island Earth or War of the Worlds (Pal version).Lets also not forget 2001 which blew the minds of the viewers (and fried them too) with the visuals and the themes.
Agreed. How the creator of a character so unique and so memorable could go about systematically dismantling it and reducing it to a "Nooooooooooo" moment of pure hilarity is beyond me. Sad. So very, very sad.
The set-up was there too. Obi-Wan Kenobi's intriguing description of "the best star pilot in the galaxy, a cunning warrior, and a good friend" in Star Wars promised so much. The fall from grace should have been monumental and tragic, but would only work if Anakin was heroic and likeable in the first place, instead of a petulant, sulky pipsqueak.
The Anakin in "ROTS" showed slight promise, but again was reduced to the most ridiculous and stilted dialogue, that plagued the prequels. It's almost as if Lucas got to the end and thought "Oh sheesh, I need to get Anakin into the Vader suit. Er, they have a fight, he gets his arms and legs cut off, he's all burned and that will be the end"
And where was the Clone War? That's right, we don't get an epic trilogy with this legendary conflict as the backdrop as fans clamoured for, no, save that for a cartoon set between Episodes II and III.
I have often thought that the best way Lucas could have handled the scene where Vader received news of Padme's death was by filming a scene with no sound but for that of the respirator. The menacing breathing sound people came to fear. Then Vader simply turns on his heels and walks away with nothing spoken. Proof positive that the turn to the darkside was complete. To me, Vader crying "noooooo" fatally destroyed any of the menace that he would bring when we see him for the first time coming through the airlock of the rebel blockade runner. I know this Vader is still Annikin reeling from the injuries and having to get used to the suit, but I still don't buy it at all. To me It destroyed the frightening image of Vader forever. Then that idiot removes Sebastian Shaw from the end of ROTJ and we get that petulant teenager's mug forever more.
Dan O'bannon wrote both , so of course he knew about it , but DS was a comedy , so I imagine Scott was talking about influences ina different way .
Ah, thanks for the info, because I didn't realise that. Mind you, some would consider Star Wars, in parts, comedic and fairly light, while Dark Star, despite being essentially a comedy, darker and heavier fare (although the killing of an entire planet's population does tend to poo-poo that argument to some extent). I still feel that Dark Star is nearer to Alien than Star Wars, comedy or not, particularly as they share, as you pointed out, the same writer and the various themes I mentioned in the other post. Still, as you say, Ridley might have meant it in a different way.
I wasn't asking if you like the films, I was asking what made them great...people might like Howard the Duck, doesn't mean it is great though. I like Star Wars, Empire was far better though.
And no it is not to disagree with you, I just wanted to know why the films themselves are considered great, and I'm not on about it's influence or anything like that...I just mean the films as films.
One reason would be 'legacy'....much like Citizen Kane is great because of the legacy it left behind.
ILM, the visual effects house is still going strong today and was created so that Lucas could develop the fantastic SFX seen in the original films....and a quick look at the filmography of ILM will tell you that the innovation seen throughout the original productions has played a big part in the success of other greats like Raiders, ET, Star Trek II, Back to the Future, The Goonies, Ghostbusters, Forrest Gump, Jurassic Park.....I could go on...
I have often thought that the best way Lucas could have handled the scene where Vader received news of Padme's death was by filming a scene with no sound but for that of the respirator. The menacing breathing sound people came to fear. Then Vader simply turns on his heels and walks away with nothing spoken. Proof positive that the turn to the darkside was complete. To me, Vader crying "noooooo" fatally destroyed any of the menace that he would bring when we see him for the first time coming through the airlock of the rebel blockade runner. I know this Vader is still Annikin reeling from the injuries and having to get used to the suit, but I still don't buy it at all. To me It destroyed the frightening image of Vader forever. Then that idiot removes Sebastian Shaw from the end of ROTJ and we get that petulant teenager's mug forever more.
I agree about the disastrous removal of Sebastian Shaw. It was a poignant scene, because what it did I felt, was give Luke (and the audience) a glimpse of the man his father would have been, had he not succumbed to the Dark Side. Instead, we get Hayden Christensen and his manic stare.
I never particularly bought into Anakin's motivation either, that of this need to protect his wife. She ends up dead, so whatever motivation he had for his actions is now gone, and yet he presses on with his new mate Palpatine. It kind of doesn't make sense?
I also think that Lucas missed a trick in not putting in a love triangle between Anakin, Obi-Wan and the female lead. It is those kind of relationships that make close friendships go bad, due to jealousy and distrust. But Lucas can't do romance, he's totally useless at it.
Doesn't half annoy me/make me sigh when people assume that EVERYONE hated the prequels.
Disliked is probably the wrong word, I'd go with Universally disappointed. The prequels have some good moments and a few great moments, but sadly are weighed down by long winded storylines of little interest (Phantom Menace I'm looking at you), weak characters (Jar Jar Binks the chief culprit) and poor casting choices, with Christenson numero uno.
By the time Menace came around the originals had become so monolithic in film-lore & popular culture they were an impossible act to follow.
Doesn't necessarily make them bad, but really, how can you follow up The Mona Lisa or The Creation Of Adam in The Sistine Chapel?
Also just as a footnote, it's never really a good idea to remove the mystique from enegmatic characters. Did we really need to see Boba Fett's origins, or Vader's for that matter? Takes away all the magic. When you're a kid seeing Episode 4 for the first time, you don't need to know every detail of why Vader has become what he has. He's just Vader, and his enigma is part of his menace & appeal. Now we will forever see Christenson under the mask, being called "Annie" :D
I agree about the disastrous removal of Sebastian Shaw. It was a poignant scene, because what it did I felt, was give Luke (and the audience) a glimpse of the man his father would have been, had he not succumbed to the Dark Side. Instead, we get Hayden Christensen and his manic stare.
I never particularly bought into Anakin's motivation either, that of this need to protect his wife. She ends up dead, so whatever motivation he had for his actions is now gone, and yet he presses on with his new mate Palpatine. It kind of doesn't make sense?
I also think that Lucas missed a trick in not putting in a love triangle between Anakin, Obi-Wan and the female lead. It is those kind of relationships that make close friendships go bad, due to jealousy and distrust. But Lucas can't do romance, he's totally useless at it.
in some early drafts of Revenge there was a touch of jealousy going on where Anakin was suspicious of why Obiwan had been to see Padme when he was away , its kinda hinted at in the film .
but he dropped it .
my problem with the reason anakn turns is that Palpatine explcitly tells him he has the power to save Padme , so Anakin kills Mace , then straight after that Palpatine says he doesn't actually have the power ! at which point anakin should be going WTF!!!? but no , he just agrees to go and murder some kids , again proving what a doofus he is .
I also think that Lucas missed a trick in not putting in a love triangle between Anakin, Obi-Wan and the female lead. It is those kind of relationships that make close friendships go bad, due to jealousy and distrust. But Lucas can't do romance, he's totally useless at it.
And how exactly would this of worked?
Jedi are not supposed love or have romantic relationships as emotion is a pathway to the Dark Side, which is the whole point of Anakin's story.
And how exactly would this of worked?
Jedi are not supposed love or have romantic relationships as emotion is a pathway to the Dark Side, which is the whole point of Anakin's story.
Yes, attachments were seen as dangerous. Of course, that only highlights how oppressive and dictatorial the Jedi Order was. They separated Force sensitive children from their families, who had no choice in the matter, and forced them into an emotionless life full of violence.
Same goes for the clones. A whole population of sentients created for one sole purpose, to be soldiers, to fight and to die.
As much as love Star Wars, I have to say, confronting ethics was never one if its strong points.
About the new movies, assuming Luke has created a new Jedi Order, it will be interesting to see how different his version is to the previous Order.
And how exactly would this of worked?
Jedi are not supposed love or have romantic relationships as emotion is a pathway to the Dark Side, which is the whole point of Anakin's story.
It would have worked the same way as midichlorians should have worked, i.e. not have been a plot point at all. It wasn't an apparent issue in the original trilogy. The Jedi should have been a bit like any Knights, not miserable celibates.
It would have worked the same way as midichlorians should have worked, i.e. not have been a plot point at all. It wasn't an apparent issue in the original trilogy. The Jedi should have been a bit like any Knights, not miserable celibates.
When in the original trilogy was there anything remotely similar?
It would have worked the same way as midichlorians should have worked, i.e. not have been a plot point at all. It wasn't an apparent issue in the original trilogy. The Jedi should have been a bit like any Knights, not miserable celibates.
There are hints in the OT that the Jedi saw attachment as vulnerability. Particularly in Empire, when Yoda and ghost Obi Wan try to discourage Luke from abandoning his training in favour of going to Han and Leia's aid.
When in the original trilogy was there anything remotely similar?
It wasn't really ever mentioned that Jedi couldn't get involved with people, that was the point. In fact, in Jedi, when ghostly Obi-Wan is telling Luke about "The Emperor knew as I did, that if Vader were to have any offspring..." I always interpreted that as perhaps being pretty normal for Jedi to marry / have kids etc
There are hints in the OT that the Jedi saw attachment as vulnerability. Particularly in Empire, when Yoda and ghost Obi Wan try to discourage Luke from abandoning his training in favour of going to Han and Leia's aid.
I always thought he was being asked to "honour what they fight for" in that their sacrifice and suffering were enabling Luke to complete the training required to topple the Emperor.
I always thought he was being asked to "honour what they fight for" in that their sacrifice and suffering were enabling Luke to complete the training required to topple the Emperor.
He was. Essentially they were trying to convince him that his training was more important than his emotional attachment to his fiends. They also wanted him to let go of that attachment because they knew Vader would try to manipulate him. And then in RotJ they tried to convince Luke to let go of his feelings for his father because they knew the Emperor would try to use those feelings to his advantage.
It all hints at what we saw in the prequels, that the Jedi viewed attachment as vulnerability. They believed that with attachment comes fear of loss, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to...you know the rest.
It wasn't really ever mentioned that Jedi couldn't get involved with people, that was the point. In fact, in Jedi, when ghostly Obi-Wan is telling Luke about "The Emperor knew as I did, that if Vader were to have any offspring..." I always interpreted that as perhaps being pretty normal for Jedi to marry / have kids etc
Then you interpreted it wrong then, It wasn't normal for Jedi to marry or have kids, Anakin was the first and broke the rules.
Obi-Wan said this during the reveal of Lukes twin sister "To protect you both from the Emperor, you were hidden from your father when you were born. The Emperor knew, as I did, if Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him. That is the reason why your sister remained safely anonymous."
That was how the old Jedi order wanted things, but in the new Jedi order that Luke starts he actually marries Mara Jade and they have a son called Ben.
The fall from grace should have been monumental and tragic, but would only work if Anakin was heroic and likeable in the first place, instead of a petulant, sulky pipsqueak
Indeed. We never get the sense of contrast between who he was and who he became, and surely that was where the drama of the character lay. Empire did a terrific job of expanding on Vader, giving him a haunted quality that countered his deviance and suggested much turmoil (along with that revelation, of course). You can question the wisdom of shedding light on such a mystery, but there was obviously much to explore. Sadly, Lucas just wasn't up to the task.
An allegory to the rise and fall of empires was always going to be less interesting to 10 year old's that a science fiction version of most fantasy tails complete with Dragon (Death Star) St George (Luke) on his horse (X-wing) and a Princess in distress (Leia).
The political sub-text in the prequels and the old power corrupts absolutely was always going to pass over the children Star Wars was primarily aimed at.
True. In all fairness, Lucas was aiming for something a touch more complex with the prequels, but his muddy plotting, bad characterisation etc were always going to scupper this.
Thing is, it's the simplicity of Star Wars that's one of its plus points - a newcomer could watch it with the sound off and still follow it with little confusion. A few snooty critics moaned about this, of course, but Lucas had introduced pure, visual storytelling back into the mainstream - one of its most influential aspects.
Perhaps the prequels weren't quite so suited to this approach, but that's not to excuse the shocking lack of clarity Lucas often shows with them.
By the time Menace came around the originals had become so monolithic in film-lore & popular culture they were an impossible act to follow.
Doesn't necessarily make them bad, but really, how can you follow up The Mona Lisa or The Creation Of Adam in The Sistine Chapel?
Ah, yes....but there still could've been great pleasures in a glorious, heroic failure rather than the piecemeal disappointments we got.
And I'd rather have a film world that picks up the gauntlet than shy away from it.
Comments
There was a considerable decline in box-office revenue with 'Clones - $649m to Phantom's $915m, suggesting something had gone amiss. Some claim the new twin giants of Potter & LOTR were to blame, but the re-introduction of Vader for 'Sith put things back on track - $849m.
But not like they thought:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/616623.stm
Three million out of thirteen million printed aint good in publishing, Also, interesting 'Clones era article in NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/29/movies/the-force-returns-with-caution.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Some fabulous hubris there: ''There is no doubt that this film will do over a billion dollars worldwide,'' - ouch!
Agreed. How the creator of a character so unique and so memorable could go about systematically dismantling it and reducing it to a "Nooooooooooo" moment of pure hilarity is beyond me. Sad. So very, very sad.
The set-up was there too. Obi-Wan Kenobi's intriguing description of "the best star pilot in the galaxy, a cunning warrior, and a good friend" in Star Wars promised so much. The fall from grace should have been monumental and tragic, but would only work if Anakin was heroic and likeable in the first place, instead of a petulant, sulky pipsqueak.
The Anakin in "ROTS" showed slight promise, but again was reduced to the most ridiculous and stilted dialogue, that plagued the prequels. It's almost as if Lucas got to the end and thought "Oh sheesh, I need to get Anakin into the Vader suit. Er, they have a fight, he gets his arms and legs cut off, he's all burned and that will be the end"
And where was the Clone War? That's right, we don't get an epic trilogy with this legendary conflict as the backdrop as fans clamoured for, no, save that for a cartoon set between Episodes II and III.
It's often dismissed because it's a cartoon, and I can't blame anyone for being dismissive, but funny thing is The Clone Wars had the better portrayal of Anakin. He was cunning, cocky, likeable, he had a presence, and a genuinely dark side, often crossing the line. You could actually see that version of the character going on to become Vader. It's a shame we never saw that in the actual movies. I certainly don't hate the prequels, but imo the best thing to come out of that era was the Clone Wars series. I'm also looking forward to Rebels. (I just hope they can find a way to resolve some of the CW loose threads).
An allegory to the rise and fall of empires was always going to be less interesting to 10 year old's that a science fiction version of most fantasy tails complete with Dragon (Death Star) St George (Luke) on his horse (X-wing) and a Princess in distress (Leia).
The political sub-text in the prequels and the old power corrupts absolutely was always going to pass over the children Star Wars was primarily aimed at.
Far from me to contradict Ridley Scott, who should know what his inspirations were, but surely Dark Star and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have been a more apt choice? Dark Star has a crew in space for a long time, in a ship that's a bit industrial, and at one point a creature lurking in its labyrinth. Dark Star came out a few years before Star Wars, but admittedly wasn't as popular. Still, one would have thought that Ridley would have known about it.
Dan O'bannon wrote both , so of course he knew about it , but DS was a comedy , so I imagine Scott was talking about influences ina different way .
Not sure I agree entirely. Sci fi adventures were not a new thing, take classics like This Island Earth or War of the Worlds (Pal version).Lets also not forget 2001 which blew the minds of the viewers (and fried them too) with the visuals and the themes.
I have often thought that the best way Lucas could have handled the scene where Vader received news of Padme's death was by filming a scene with no sound but for that of the respirator. The menacing breathing sound people came to fear. Then Vader simply turns on his heels and walks away with nothing spoken. Proof positive that the turn to the darkside was complete. To me, Vader crying "noooooo" fatally destroyed any of the menace that he would bring when we see him for the first time coming through the airlock of the rebel blockade runner. I know this Vader is still Annikin reeling from the injuries and having to get used to the suit, but I still don't buy it at all. To me It destroyed the frightening image of Vader forever. Then that idiot removes Sebastian Shaw from the end of ROTJ and we get that petulant teenager's mug forever more.
Ah, thanks for the info, because I didn't realise that. Mind you, some would consider Star Wars, in parts, comedic and fairly light, while Dark Star, despite being essentially a comedy, darker and heavier fare (although the killing of an entire planet's population does tend to poo-poo that argument to some extent). I still feel that Dark Star is nearer to Alien than Star Wars, comedy or not, particularly as they share, as you pointed out, the same writer and the various themes I mentioned in the other post. Still, as you say, Ridley might have meant it in a different way.
One reason would be 'legacy'....much like Citizen Kane is great because of the legacy it left behind.
ILM, the visual effects house is still going strong today and was created so that Lucas could develop the fantastic SFX seen in the original films....and a quick look at the filmography of ILM will tell you that the innovation seen throughout the original productions has played a big part in the success of other greats like Raiders, ET, Star Trek II, Back to the Future, The Goonies, Ghostbusters, Forrest Gump, Jurassic Park.....I could go on...
"Star Wars begat modern Sci-Fi"
I agree about the disastrous removal of Sebastian Shaw. It was a poignant scene, because what it did I felt, was give Luke (and the audience) a glimpse of the man his father would have been, had he not succumbed to the Dark Side. Instead, we get Hayden Christensen and his manic stare.
I never particularly bought into Anakin's motivation either, that of this need to protect his wife. She ends up dead, so whatever motivation he had for his actions is now gone, and yet he presses on with his new mate Palpatine. It kind of doesn't make sense?
I also think that Lucas missed a trick in not putting in a love triangle between Anakin, Obi-Wan and the female lead. It is those kind of relationships that make close friendships go bad, due to jealousy and distrust. But Lucas can't do romance, he's totally useless at it.
Add a scene of Thrawn flattening Naboo and all fandom will rejoice.
Disliked is probably the wrong word, I'd go with Universally disappointed. The prequels have some good moments and a few great moments, but sadly are weighed down by long winded storylines of little interest (Phantom Menace I'm looking at you), weak characters (Jar Jar Binks the chief culprit) and poor casting choices, with Christenson numero uno.
By the time Menace came around the originals had become so monolithic in film-lore & popular culture they were an impossible act to follow.
Doesn't necessarily make them bad, but really, how can you follow up The Mona Lisa or The Creation Of Adam in The Sistine Chapel?
in some early drafts of Revenge there was a touch of jealousy going on where Anakin was suspicious of why Obiwan had been to see Padme when he was away , its kinda hinted at in the film .
but he dropped it .
my problem with the reason anakn turns is that Palpatine explcitly tells him he has the power to save Padme , so Anakin kills Mace , then straight after that Palpatine says he doesn't actually have the power ! at which point anakin should be going WTF!!!? but no , he just agrees to go and murder some kids , again proving what a doofus he is .
.
Jedi are not supposed love or have romantic relationships as emotion is a pathway to the Dark Side, which is the whole point of Anakin's story.
Yes, attachments were seen as dangerous. Of course, that only highlights how oppressive and dictatorial the Jedi Order was. They separated Force sensitive children from their families, who had no choice in the matter, and forced them into an emotionless life full of violence.
Same goes for the clones. A whole population of sentients created for one sole purpose, to be soldiers, to fight and to die.
As much as love Star Wars, I have to say, confronting ethics was never one if its strong points.
About the new movies, assuming Luke has created a new Jedi Order, it will be interesting to see how different his version is to the previous Order.
It would have worked the same way as midichlorians should have worked, i.e. not have been a plot point at all. It wasn't an apparent issue in the original trilogy. The Jedi should have been a bit like any Knights, not miserable celibates.
There are hints in the OT that the Jedi saw attachment as vulnerability. Particularly in Empire, when Yoda and ghost Obi Wan try to discourage Luke from abandoning his training in favour of going to Han and Leia's aid.
It wasn't really ever mentioned that Jedi couldn't get involved with people, that was the point. In fact, in Jedi, when ghostly Obi-Wan is telling Luke about "The Emperor knew as I did, that if Vader were to have any offspring..." I always interpreted that as perhaps being pretty normal for Jedi to marry / have kids etc
I always thought he was being asked to "honour what they fight for" in that their sacrifice and suffering were enabling Luke to complete the training required to topple the Emperor.
He was. Essentially they were trying to convince him that his training was more important than his emotional attachment to his fiends. They also wanted him to let go of that attachment because they knew Vader would try to manipulate him. And then in RotJ they tried to convince Luke to let go of his feelings for his father because they knew the Emperor would try to use those feelings to his advantage.
It all hints at what we saw in the prequels, that the Jedi viewed attachment as vulnerability. They believed that with attachment comes fear of loss, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to...you know the rest.
Obi-Wan said this during the reveal of Lukes twin sister "To protect you both from the Emperor, you were hidden from your father when you were born. The Emperor knew, as I did, if Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him. That is the reason why your sister remained safely anonymous."
That was how the old Jedi order wanted things, but in the new Jedi order that Luke starts he actually marries Mara Jade and they have a son called Ben.
True. In all fairness, Lucas was aiming for something a touch more complex with the prequels, but his muddy plotting, bad characterisation etc were always going to scupper this.
Thing is, it's the simplicity of Star Wars that's one of its plus points - a newcomer could watch it with the sound off and still follow it with little confusion. A few snooty critics moaned about this, of course, but Lucas had introduced pure, visual storytelling back into the mainstream - one of its most influential aspects.
Perhaps the prequels weren't quite so suited to this approach, but that's not to excuse the shocking lack of clarity Lucas often shows with them.
Ah, yes....but there still could've been great pleasures in a glorious, heroic failure rather than the piecemeal disappointments we got.
And I'd rather have a film world that picks up the gauntlet than shy away from it.