DarthStarkiller
New Member
What if the Star Wars prequels were made in the 90s and were based on the Pre-PT EU? Who would you cast? How different Anakin would have been?
What was your image of Anakin Skywalker before the prequels were made? His arc, look, relationships
- Thread starter DarthStarkiller
- Start date
Analyzer
Master Member
I'd take most of phantom menace and turn it into a prologue, or a 5 minute scene and start with teen anakin and the whole Maul thing should have been moved to Attack of The Clones time frame. Revenge of the Sith should have been the second movie in the trilogy, and there should have been a third movie showing the rise of Vader?
People may hate, but I think Kylo Ren was what Anakin should have been
most importantly get rid of the I hate sand nonsense dialog as well
People may hate, but I think Kylo Ren was what Anakin should have been
most importantly get rid of the I hate sand nonsense dialog as well
But Anakin hating sand was my favorite part! 
I kid.
I remember back in the early 90's there were rumors floating around that Mark Hamill would play the part of Anakin in the Prequels. My early teen brain thought this was cool, but thinking back it's just as absurd as it sounds. Realistically who should have been cast in the roles seems tough to imagine, if only for the fact that Lucas was smart enough to cast relative unknowns for the leads of Star Wars and it was one of the smartest moves he made. In a time before the internet, this would make it difficult to even conceive of who to cast because the only actors I would have been aware of would have been big name stars. I do recall some of the early casting rumors like Morgan Freeman as a Jedi, Ralph Fiennes and young Obi-Wan, Leonardo DiCaprio as Anakin, etc.
I kind of pictured Anakin as a Han Solo type. Hotshot pilot, brave warrior, not eager to follow the rules, but his heart was always in the right place and he was loyal to the death with his friends. He wouldn't have been exactly like Solo, who was always a reluctant warrior, but Anakin would have been perfectly fine with getting into a scrape, though his eventual Jedi training under Obi-Wan would have tempered his eagerness to fight with better judgement. Ultimately his anger and impatience would have been his undoing. Being a natural daredevil, I saw him as also being like Luke- but with a more brash temperment- bucking the authority of the Jedi Council- but unlike in the films- having much more selfless reasons for disobeying orders.
One of the things that I loved about the Revenge of the Sith novelization was that it was very clear that Anakin would risk everything to save his friends, even if it meant putting the lives of soldiers at risk. So while his judgement wasn't always sound- his loyalty would never falter. If anything this lent to his tragic nature as a character and one I wish we saw the films.
I kid.I remember back in the early 90's there were rumors floating around that Mark Hamill would play the part of Anakin in the Prequels. My early teen brain thought this was cool, but thinking back it's just as absurd as it sounds. Realistically who should have been cast in the roles seems tough to imagine, if only for the fact that Lucas was smart enough to cast relative unknowns for the leads of Star Wars and it was one of the smartest moves he made. In a time before the internet, this would make it difficult to even conceive of who to cast because the only actors I would have been aware of would have been big name stars. I do recall some of the early casting rumors like Morgan Freeman as a Jedi, Ralph Fiennes and young Obi-Wan, Leonardo DiCaprio as Anakin, etc.
I kind of pictured Anakin as a Han Solo type. Hotshot pilot, brave warrior, not eager to follow the rules, but his heart was always in the right place and he was loyal to the death with his friends. He wouldn't have been exactly like Solo, who was always a reluctant warrior, but Anakin would have been perfectly fine with getting into a scrape, though his eventual Jedi training under Obi-Wan would have tempered his eagerness to fight with better judgement. Ultimately his anger and impatience would have been his undoing. Being a natural daredevil, I saw him as also being like Luke- but with a more brash temperment- bucking the authority of the Jedi Council- but unlike in the films- having much more selfless reasons for disobeying orders.
One of the things that I loved about the Revenge of the Sith novelization was that it was very clear that Anakin would risk everything to save his friends, even if it meant putting the lives of soldiers at risk. So while his judgement wasn't always sound- his loyalty would never falter. If anything this lent to his tragic nature as a character and one I wish we saw the films.
Analyzer
Master Member
agreed
That is also was why someone like Samuel L Jackson just seemed really odd as a Jedi choice and a bit distracting
There were prominent rumors at the time that Kenneth Branagh was going to be Obi-Wan Kenobi in the prequels. IIRC, he had to address these rumors on television, something like, "The Force is not with me, yet"But Anakin hating sand was my favorite part!
I remember back in the early 90's there were rumors floating around that Mark Hamill would play the part of Anakin in the Prequels. My early teen brain thought this was cool, but thinking back it's just as absurd as it sounds. Realistically who should have been cast in the roles seems tough to imagine, if only for the fact that Lucas was smart enough to cast relative unknowns for the leads of Star Wars and it was one of the smartest moves he made. In a time before the internet, this would make it difficult to even conceive of who to cast because the only actors I would have been aware of would have been big name stars. I do recall some of the early casting rumors like Morgan Freeman as a Jedi, Ralph Fiennes and young Obi-Wan, Leonardo DiCaprio as Anakin, etc.
I kind of pictured Anakin as a Han Solo type. Hotshot pilot, brave warrior, not eager to follow the rules, but his heart was always in the right place and he was loyal to the death with his friends. He wouldn't have been exactly like Solo, who was always a reluctant warrior, but Anakin would have been perfectly fine with getting into a scrape, though his eventual Jedi training under Obi-Wan would have tempered his eagerness to fight with better judgement. Ultimately his anger and impatience would have been his undoing. Being a natural daredevil, I saw him as also being like Luke- but with a more brash temperment- bucking the authority of the Jedi Council- but unlike in the films- having much more selfless reasons for disobeying orders.
One of the things that I loved about the Revenge of the Sith novelization was that it was very clear that Anakin would risk everything to save his friends, even if it meant putting the lives of soldiers at risk. So while his judgement wasn't always sound- his loyalty would never falter. If anything this lent to his tragic nature as a character and one I wish we saw the films.
Overall, the kid Anakin storyline (who is actually younger than Amidala) just doesn’t work for me. We didn’t need to see that. You could have lost the character of QuiGon; as much as I like Liam Neeson, it would not have affected the story at all, except for the fact that they brought QuiGon back for the Obi-Wan TV miniseries.
I would much rather have seen Anakin as a Baylin Skoll type figure: a bit older, a man with a commanding presence/more gravitas, who has been a Jedi Knight for many years and is now somewhat disillusioned. Sensing a call to something greater that could end the cycle of "light versus dark."
Baylin made a better Anakin, than the Anakin we got. Sorry Hayden.
Last edited:
Sebastian Shaw
THAT was the other actor I couldn't recall. Kenneth Branagh as Obi-Wan. Honestly he could have been hit or miss for me. Sometimes he's really bad, and in other roles he's incredible. His version of Hamlet from the late 90's, while filmed with gorgeous cinematography, was hampered by an over the top performance that kept taking me out of the story. It felt indulgent and self centered, which was a shame because he absolutely nailed his part in Henry the Fifth almost a decade prior, a film in which he was also the lead. Seriously if you haven't seen his Henry the Fifth, do yourself a favor and check it out.
I agree that the decision to make Anakin a child in the first film was an odd choice. Honestly the entire back story that Anakin came from slavery and was taken at an early age to become a Jedi could have worked, but it also could have been told through some expository dialog just as easily because so much screentime was given to filler that didn't amount to much in the end. I also would have nixed the whole Chosen One prophecy nonsense. It put so much emphasis on Anakin becoming Vader and now the entire franchise hangs on this concept and it only makes the galaxy feel very small and limited. If Anakin had been an everyman who ended up becoming famous for his mastery of the Force and ultimate fall from grace to become Vader- it would have been far more powerful than to have the fate of the galaxy predestined by a prophecy.
Just having the events play out by people unaware of what was to come makes them feel more human. The only reason the audience embraced the idea of a Chosen One is because the meta context is that they knew he was going to become Vader and every set up in the films was centered on that, rather than letting the story play out without this extraneous neccesity to add in a Messianic figure. Even in the original treatments, George initially never intended Vader to be much more than a henchman. The importance was heaped on the character once audiences saw him in the original film and went absolutely gaga for him. Naturally he leaned into that idea and Vader became who he did.
Ultimately I think so much of the Prequel films suffer from filler. There were some really interesting ideas presented and had George trusted the skills of other writers like he did with the original films, I think they could have helped him hone his vision into better focus to maximize the story potential. You can tell there were so many instances where George knew there were certain plot points that had to be addressed, but so much of his scripts sort of meandor loosely with half baked intellectual concepts, to get from one point to the next. The idea of symbiotic relationships in TPM, and the idea of a Chosen One, and the Council's minds being clouded by the Dark Side, all of these are interesting ideas, but they feel like an essay that lacks focus. Like the student has these interesting concepts but can't stick to one and use the plot/ characters to illustrate them.
There's a lot of potential in those films and while they frustrate me, I wouldn't say they were entirely bad because that potential was very, very real. My problem with them really boils down to their execution more than anything else.
I agree that the decision to make Anakin a child in the first film was an odd choice. Honestly the entire back story that Anakin came from slavery and was taken at an early age to become a Jedi could have worked, but it also could have been told through some expository dialog just as easily because so much screentime was given to filler that didn't amount to much in the end. I also would have nixed the whole Chosen One prophecy nonsense. It put so much emphasis on Anakin becoming Vader and now the entire franchise hangs on this concept and it only makes the galaxy feel very small and limited. If Anakin had been an everyman who ended up becoming famous for his mastery of the Force and ultimate fall from grace to become Vader- it would have been far more powerful than to have the fate of the galaxy predestined by a prophecy.
Just having the events play out by people unaware of what was to come makes them feel more human. The only reason the audience embraced the idea of a Chosen One is because the meta context is that they knew he was going to become Vader and every set up in the films was centered on that, rather than letting the story play out without this extraneous neccesity to add in a Messianic figure. Even in the original treatments, George initially never intended Vader to be much more than a henchman. The importance was heaped on the character once audiences saw him in the original film and went absolutely gaga for him. Naturally he leaned into that idea and Vader became who he did.
Ultimately I think so much of the Prequel films suffer from filler. There were some really interesting ideas presented and had George trusted the skills of other writers like he did with the original films, I think they could have helped him hone his vision into better focus to maximize the story potential. You can tell there were so many instances where George knew there were certain plot points that had to be addressed, but so much of his scripts sort of meandor loosely with half baked intellectual concepts, to get from one point to the next. The idea of symbiotic relationships in TPM, and the idea of a Chosen One, and the Council's minds being clouded by the Dark Side, all of these are interesting ideas, but they feel like an essay that lacks focus. Like the student has these interesting concepts but can't stick to one and use the plot/ characters to illustrate them.
There's a lot of potential in those films and while they frustrate me, I wouldn't say they were entirely bad because that potential was very, very real. My problem with them really boils down to their execution more than anything else.
Last edited:
Exactly.
George was/is an idea man, a visionary who sees a big-picture concept but needs talented "others" to parse through his story elements, refine them, and keep things focused. There's a lot of fat that's needs trimming.
-Lots of filler
-The man can't write natural dialogue
-I'm NOT convinced he can direct. Yes, THX1138 (slog) and American Graffiti, but Star Wars (ANH) I am firmly convinced WAS "saved in the edit."
He produced (but did not direct) the Indiana Jones movies.
FWIW as far as the Prequels go, what we got was 100% George, exactly what he wanted, with no push back. My guess is that, based on pass success and $$$$, he was surrounded by talented people, but many of whom were "yes men"
I loved both THX-1138 and American Graffiti. I think George is a capable director and talented, but he's inexperienced compared to his peers. Had he directed more films, and films other than SW, that talent might have been more apparent. He's more an editor than director or writer, even by his own admission.
Here's something you'd never expect:
During 'American Graffiti' George actually was the director that SW fans think he isn't capable of being. The 'Graffiti' actors recall George encouraging them to improvise their dialogue lines instead of saying exactly what he wrote. He was doing extra takes of scenes just to see if he could get one that caught something unexpected or more natural.
George was never naturally good at writing for actors. But he did understand the value better acting/dialogue. In the early days he did make efforts to get it.
But then he quit bothering with it a few years later. I dunno why.
Like a lot of us, I think George gets really fascinated with the pursuit of something and then he gets "over it".
Look at SFX in the prequels. Say what you want about Ep#1 but that movie looked amazing, visually. But then in #2-3 we were already starting to see sloppy CGI shots that I don't think George would have tolerated in Ep#1.
During 'American Graffiti' George actually was the director that SW fans think he isn't capable of being. The 'Graffiti' actors recall George encouraging them to improvise their dialogue lines instead of saying exactly what he wrote. He was doing extra takes of scenes just to see if he could get one that caught something unexpected or more natural.
George was never naturally good at writing for actors. But he did understand the value better acting/dialogue. In the early days he did make efforts to get it.
But then he quit bothering with it a few years later. I dunno why.
Like a lot of us, I think George gets really fascinated with the pursuit of something and then he gets "over it".
Look at SFX in the prequels. Say what you want about Ep#1 but that movie looked amazing, visually. But then in #2-3 we were already starting to see sloppy CGI shots that I don't think George would have tolerated in Ep#1.
Last edited:
That's a good observation too. Perhaps some of it comes down to him having limited interests in terms of subject matter for his films. I mean compare the breadth of work with Steven Speilberg to George and Lucas is essentially a beginner by comparison. Steven has done Sci-Fi, Comedy, Action Adventure, Drama, Romance, Period films, you name it. Lucas has only directed literally a handful of movies. Most of the credits to his name have been producing and he's had a hand in the technology to get the movie filmed and finished.
George likes to dabble in different things related to film, but I get the sense he doesn't have enough interest to really get his hands dirty the way other directors who jump right in. He likes editing best and always has, not keen to write, not keen to direct, not keen to filming itself. He just wants the components to make the movie, but isn't so wild about capturing those components. He's also run so many companies that his love of cinema has encompassed both the technical as well as business of film making far more than the actual creative process of writing or directing. I'll always stand by the fact that his film legacy will always be his innovations, far more than the films themselves.
George likes to dabble in different things related to film, but I get the sense he doesn't have enough interest to really get his hands dirty the way other directors who jump right in. He likes editing best and always has, not keen to write, not keen to direct, not keen to filming itself. He just wants the components to make the movie, but isn't so wild about capturing those components. He's also run so many companies that his love of cinema has encompassed both the technical as well as business of film making far more than the actual creative process of writing or directing. I'll always stand by the fact that his film legacy will always be his innovations, far more than the films themselves.
In a different universe, in a different timeline, River Phoenix would have still been alive and would be young adult Anakin. To be honest, I'm not super familiar with his work but he's the first actor that came to mind from around that era that would do a good job.
River Phoenix would have been amazing in the role provided it was well written. The fact that he came to your mind, despite you not being super familiar with his fillms is a testament to his talent. I'm a big fan of Phoenix- having grown up watching him at the movies.
I'm of the camp that believes if the PT were based off of the EU of the time, they'd be considerably worse than anything the Prequels we have approached. Star Wars EU is absolutely terrible; always has been. Disney's is bad, but it wasn't like it was any better in any time before because it did the exact same thing as Disney is doing: regurgitating and reiterating the same things until it's nothing but a translucent, gelatinous mass devoid of any flavor.
Here are some hard truths: Not everyone can be Jedi, they were always a rare breed; deal with it. Giant Jedi v Sith battles with entire armies of Force-adepts is gratuitous, tasteless nonsense. The Force is not a "thing." No Jedi survived Order 66 outside of Yoda and Ben Kenobi; Luke is the greatest Jedi ever lived not because he's the most powerful but because he finally broke the Jedi mold by being a human being. Clone-Palpatine's have always been a sh** idea and it germated in pre-Disney EU. A race of Boba Fett's who all look like him and do the exact same thing as him, but with different colored armor is the lamest thing ever. Having women and aliens in the Empire completely destroys their thematic impact to the movies. The core moral conflict that the Clone Wars represents has never been fully tapped: apathy. Nothing since the OT has lived up to or surpassed---hell, even extended---the potential of ideas that the original films presented, and it's nigh on 50 years since the first one now. What can Star Wars be outside of the main six films? Answer: Not much.
Here are some hard truths: Not everyone can be Jedi, they were always a rare breed; deal with it. Giant Jedi v Sith battles with entire armies of Force-adepts is gratuitous, tasteless nonsense. The Force is not a "thing." No Jedi survived Order 66 outside of Yoda and Ben Kenobi; Luke is the greatest Jedi ever lived not because he's the most powerful but because he finally broke the Jedi mold by being a human being. Clone-Palpatine's have always been a sh** idea and it germated in pre-Disney EU. A race of Boba Fett's who all look like him and do the exact same thing as him, but with different colored armor is the lamest thing ever. Having women and aliens in the Empire completely destroys their thematic impact to the movies. The core moral conflict that the Clone Wars represents has never been fully tapped: apathy. Nothing since the OT has lived up to or surpassed---hell, even extended---the potential of ideas that the original films presented, and it's nigh on 50 years since the first one now. What can Star Wars be outside of the main six films? Answer: Not much.
Last edited:
YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!
Palpatine coming back- I'm looking at you Dark Empire- was ALWAYS STUPID! Disney managed to make it even more idiotic by not explaining his return. For all the faults of Dark Empire- at least that Palpatine was a clone. Cliched or not, at least it made sense narratively, but it was still dumb.
Again, do they NOT have experienced writers? I know we talk about ridiculous exposition in TV shows or films, but here is one instance where a little explanation (and less JJ mystery box) would have gone a long way.
Have TROS Palpatine be the "real" Palpatine all along, perhaps for CENTURIES and hiding on Exogol, with Force sensitive clone(s) of himself to act as his emissaries. So that he could be in more than one place at a time (but Exogol Palpatine was ALWAYS in control), this would at least make some sense. To the Empire, they would not be aware of the "clones" so it would appear that Palpatine could show up anywhere, at any time and it would extend the fear of him and his power. The SW universe had already introduced the Clone Wars, so cloning was already a "thing." It's OK to explain something like that to the audience: "You know The Emperor in TESB and ROTJ? Well, he was just a shadow of the REAL Emperor, whom you've never seen until now." Not elegant, but at least it would help to bridge the "somehow" gap.
The ONLY reason that Snoke became a deformed genetic experiment that could not contain all of Palpatine's power was because RJ had backed them into a corner with Snoke's death... but LFL KNEW THIS during TLJ production!
Ryan: So, Kylo kills Snoke.
KK: No, he doesn't.
Ryan: But... but we need the Sith-like "twist" where Snoke thinks Kylo is about to strike Rey, but then he...
KK: No, Ryan. Nope. We are not killing Snoke yet in the 2nd ST film. We already let you have old-man Luke. Go figure out something else.
Ryan: (sobbing quietly) OK, ok...
Similar threads
