I have a theory about George Lucas's original, far more tragic intentions for the central relationships of his Prequels - which could help you learn how to better interrogate films in general
I think it's possible that's how the arc started. However, when compared to what we got on screen, it's a situation where there isn't enough at stake. Darth Vader's ascension would not have been truly tragic if it was sourced only in a love triangle. It had to be a love triangle where what was forbidden and yet indulged in brought the entire galaxy to a pivotal point where one man's moral failure to overcome his inability to control his fear of loss ended up toppling a civilization thousands of years old. It allowed Lucas to tell the story of how organized religions and all political institutions, no matter how holy or sanctified, always become corrupted under their own machinations. The Star Wars Prequels present corruption, not as an element of sexual desire fulfilled, but rather as a moral and spiritual failure to let go and trust Natural Law to unfold as it will. Also, by keeping Padme's love pure (like Harry Potter's mother), it imbues Luke and Leia's situtation with love and sacrifice.
No one shits on the Star Wars Prequels in my presence. As you say, George Lucas taught a generation of school children and adults about how Fascism grows and corrupts first in the heart and then in the Senate.
But I think you could've done all that with the Arthurian love triangle, too. Anakin would've still been manipulated. A sitting member of the Jedi Council would've broken the Order's own code by falling in love with Padmé; we'd have questions about who knew and what they hid. And as that all played out, the Clone Wars would still go on exactly as it does -- because what Anakin goes through in the films, as presented, doesn't really involve the Clone Wars. It's a separate story of a child who was abused by the Jedi Council into suppressing his grief and then love. Again, all that would still play out in the same way, I think -- except, at the end of it, the tipping point is that the Council doesn't just abstractly ef him. They literally do through Obi-Wan. That all said, I like your point about Padmé's love being pure imbuing Luke and Leia's situation with love and sacrifice...but I'm not sure I would care about their journey any less if I knew what Obi-Wan "had done". When Luke finally confronts Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan admits he's kind of a lying, manipulative asshole...I mean, that tracks even harder if he broke Anakin because he couldn't adhere to the Jedi Code either...
In both scenarios Anakin’s fear of losing someone he loves is a catalyst for succumbing to the dark side; Maybe Lucas decided fear of losing a child and wife in child birth was a greater fear and thus more reasonable to think it would topple Anakin then just losing his wife to infidelity alone. The Arthurian love triangle is classic but maybe Lucas decided to raise the stakes higher.
The stakes argument is certainly a solid one. The fear of your spouse dying (and possibly your kid) is much more broadly relatable as a human experience. It's universal. Being betrayed by the person you love is similarly so, but the consequences inherently feel smaller. But in that "smallness" might also be the reason why it dramatically works better. It's emotionally cruel/tragic rather than objectively heartbreaking. It's far more operatic, which STAR WARS has always been. But see-sawing again, by it simply being the fear of losing the person you love to death, it shows how we can all "turn to the Dark Side". All this said, nothing gets around how tacked on this sudden fear of Padmé feels to the narrative because it's not organically baked into it. It just comes out of nowhere, which is technically realistic, but not dramatically interesting.
Okay, I think I understand. While raising the stakes like this in a vacuum is justifiable or even desired, taken in context it feels forced because it’s unsupported by what came before. So while the stakes are higher, it jars the audience out of the narrative flow thus lowering their engagement.
I would argue, yes. But that said, I still think REVENGE OF THE SITH is the best of the Prequels and one of the best of all three trilogies. So, while I can academically wonder at these decisions and muse about what might've been, it is, again, an academic exercise. The art is what it is now, and I enjoy it based on the artist's intentions. I'm not going to tell anyone what George Lucas should've done.
For sure, as I get further along in my writing and storytelling (only a few years in now) analyzing things like this is quite helpful, but in no way would I want to question or judge the decisions the creators like Lucas made along the way. Seeing other possibilities and having some understanding of their impacts on the story is an educational exercise for me, so no judgements here either.
I have too many Prequel Trilogy Thoughts to really fit in one post, but basically I think they're a good story that wasn't told very well, specifically by trying to keep them in a format similar to the original films, especially run times.
The prequels bring up WEIGHTY stuff, way beyond what the OT does, and you're on the money with Lucas predicting the rise of fascism with them...but then the structure of these films do that very little justice once you leave TPM in the rearview mirror.
Attack of the Clones has one line about it, where Padme gets incensed and shouts about how the Confederacy is 'business becoming government', and it was cut.
ROTS has yet more scenes about this, also cut.
Like. Let your political points billow, George. They're far and away the best part of this trilogy and most people have probably never watched them. It's fine if the movie isn't 2 hours 7 minutes long if it's still interesting past that.
I guess I'll finish out with Rian Johnson nailing these films:
That Johnson tweet is one I've returned to many times. It really nails it. I'm not sure if the stories weren't told very well myself, as much as they were told in a different way than the Originals, and that does bother some people. But Lucas was adamant that each trilogy should reinvent itself in some way, not more of the same. And I kind of love the films for that.
Love the comparison to Arthurian legends, which also had its disturbing incestuous turn and patricide. If I remember correctly, Arthur is seduced by his half-sister Morgana and as a result of their union, produces Mordred, who hates Arthur and kills him in the end. Or course, Luke didn't actually kill Darth Vader in the end, but you could argue he wanted to.
There are many versions of the Arthurian myth, but, yes, one of them sees Arthur corrupted and his spawn destroy everything he built. As for Luke, yes, the OT is a very poor representation of the Hero's Journey, as far as I'm concerned. It claims to be built on it, but Luke fails in most regards to live up to Campbell's ideas.
Re: Lucas anticipating the general rise of fascism, in a 2012 interview, Lucas summed up his vision of STAR WARS brilliantly:
"There are people out there who don't play by the rules and if you're not careful you're going to lose all your freedoms. At the same time, those people that don't play by the rules because they are selfish and greedy, and turn themselves into evil people who don't care about other people."
I'm working my way through a pile-up this week, Harvey. I'll get to that DM as soon as I can. It's school holidays here in Oz, so I have a lot less work time for the next two weeks than usual!
From what I know of what was left on the editing room floor, Lucas did go some of the way towards what you are suggesting. It was written originally so that a big part of what drove Anakin over to the dark side was his delusional belief that Padme was having an affair with Obi-Wan. Only a trace of this is left in the finished film.
I think it would have worked better that way than a full-on love triangle, because Obi-Wan betraying his Jedi vows would undermine the impact of Anakin's fall by showing the Jedi Order to be a hollow institution.
Personally, I think the Prequels paint the Jedi Order as a hollow institution already. Discovering it was systemically broken, leading to its fall and, later, resurrection via Luke's love-centered version of it appeals to me. The irony, of course, is that SW since the Prequels has gone to considerable lengths to reimagine the Jedi Order as a hollow institution that brought about its own demise.
Yeah, the prequels certainly show the Jedi Order as having lost its way to an extent, and quite subtly too. But largely the Jedi are still dedicated to their principles, so I think in that sense having Obi-Wan betray his vows would have undermined part of the impact of Anakin's fall.
I wonder if the negative fan feedback around Anakin and Padmé in ATOC, ie jokes about sand, caused the change in ROTS. It’s clear Lucas responded to feedback, like you said Jar Jar had his role significantly reduced after TPM. I think I’m going to rewatch AOTC and ROTS and try to think about what might be better or worse if there was a love triangle.
I think the Arthurian triangle works so well because Guinevere's loyalty to Arthur feels dutiful and from a place of respect and admiration for wisdom/decency. Her relationship with Lancelot is one of passion. It's worth considering that dichotomy here, with Anakin the Chosen One destined to be a savior. Obi-Wan, by contrast, is repressed and unable to express his emotions. In this scenario, both become liars. The real problem arises when we consider Padmé's role, as she becomes a woman who inevitably came between two men and destroyed a Republic. It doesn't matter how much agency you shift to Anakin and Obi-Wan, the woman is always perceived to be at fault. To have Luke and Leia's mother be guilty of such a feat is...probably the biggest reason Lucas didn't go this route.
Would have been an exquisite twist to discover at the end of ep.3 that Obi wan was Luke’s true father, hence why he stuck around watching over the boy from afar on Tatooine, making Obi wan’s sacrifice on the Death Star more poignant.
This is great stuff! And so much to think about. I have nothing to with the film industry, other than one class in college which was more about analyzing, as you do), and reading my son’s college textbook when he was at Berklee College of Music for film scoring. But I find your analysis endlessly fascinating. I never saw the Arthurian love triangle in Star Wars, but now I can’t unsee it.
The Arthurian parallel adds a rich layer of meaning to the characters, and your insights into storytelling were informative and enjoyable. It's clear you put much thought into this analysis, making it a worthy piece for any 'Star Wars enthusiast.
What I’m finding in trying to assess this idea is that I’m assuming from the start that — if I’m Lucas — I’ve still written episode 4 first and then circled back around to writing episode 1.
If I mentally start from episode 1, this idea works far better for me than if I imagine writing episodes 4, 5, and 6 first.
To my mind, this is because of how Obi-Wan lands onscreen in episode 4. It’s feels like too big a leap to retcon this betrayal into the story. Like a breaking of trust with the audience. So that’s why I wouldn’t have gone back to write 1, 2, and 3 that way.
However, if I was writing fresh from 1, I the idea of the triangle repeating itself is compelling, though ideally without the incestuous implications in episode 4.
Would a triangle have worked with a different character than Obi-Wan?
Obi-Wan in the role of mentor has an established archetypal place in the story. He’s Merlin. (Granted, he’s more in that role in later movies; he is more of big brother earlier on, but he’s stepping into the mentor role vacated by Qui-Gon Jinn.)
Lancelot plays a different role, much like Han. The warrior.
Perhaps there’s a different warrior, a best friend to Anakin, that would have fulfilled this archetype.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen episodes 1 to 3, so I’d have to see them with fresh eyes to better assess.
But breaking the trust of the audience is a great way to surprise them, I would argue. Remember, at the end of Episode V, Lucas revealed to audiences that his hero was the son of the greatest villain in the galaxy. Discovering that hero's mentor betrayed that same father and spent years trying to atone for it actually seems pretty small by comparison. Obi-Wan isn't Merlin in the Prequels, I do want to add. That's in the Original Trilogy. He's playing the part of the warrior-brother to Anakin in the Prequels, as the two of them technically "fall" from grace together in REVENGE OF THE SITH. Obi-Wan fails in keeping Anakin "good", which destroys him. Whatever the case, this is all a thought exercise.
Hmm, interesting. I do think this would have made for a more interesting narrative and explained Anakin’s character and motivations more clearly. Do you have a theory on why Lucas didn’t pursue this line of narrative? I know my children would find it problematic that Obi-wan could become romantically involved with someone he initially met when he was an adult and they were a child - but they are not Star Wars fans in any case and weren’t even alive when the prequels came out.
I have no idea why, but I'm not sure the public would've turned on the detail you're describing. There's a ten-year gap and they have no real scenes together in the first film. By the second film, it's almost as if they're properly meeting for the first time. Today, I think there would be a hindsight cringe, but realistically, we're talking 2002. Obi-Wan could've made a crack about the fourteen-year-old queen's future hotness and very few people would've spoken up about it. I just watched a raft of action films from the 90s, huge hits, and they were...more than concerning. And in all cases, I've never heard a peep about them even in retrospect. It's a strange world we live in. But getting back to your question, maybe Lucas ultimately felt the same way you do? He also abandoned Jar-Jar Binks as a character, so there was a lot of reworking of the general story after PHANTOM MENACE. Another reason for all these changes might also be how maligned the first film was, critically speaking I mean. Maybe he got in his own head...
I'll add there's another exchange going on here (see JB Minton's comment and follow-ups) that is getting into some interesting emotional landscape and "stakes" territory.
Cole, this authoritarianism was already in play by the late 1990s, it just had not yet raised its ugly head in most western national governments until George W. Bush got into power. Friends of mine were out protesting the WTO in 1999 in Seattle. If you read the tea leaves, you could see how this would evolve.
I don’t know how Lucas was inspired but I’m sure some of it had to do with these techtonic shifts happening on some levels at that time.
Lucas's Original Trilogy were deeply anti-American and anti-Imperialism, as well as filled with fascist imagery. He's been obsessed with this since the 70s, so I think it's just a matter of him (ironically) turning on the capitalism, too, that defined the 80s. I say "ironically" because he became a billionaire during this stretch. You mention it being in play by the late 90s, which is true, but I think it's difficult to speak about things as a continuum. You could track white supremacy back centuries, to get us to today, too. Any number of legal decisions, refusals to politically act, etc. At some point, a decision so to say is made, culturally, and it becomes a turning point. I think 9/11 was probably that, as it created the language framework necessary to so successfully other people today and create a state of permanent war. The WTO is obviously evil, but people, I think, are largely too complacent to care about that. But they can be made to hate others. They can be made to accept violence as a necessary solution.
A good artist senses all of this prior to it becoming what it will become. Radiohead’s OK Computer was created in 1996 and released in 1997. If you listen to it today, it is extremely prescient to our current era. It’s almost 30 years old now. He may have sensed all of what was coming from when he was writing it and thinking deeply about it in the 1970s and 1980s. As you said, it is a continuum. Nothing arises out of a vacuum.
Globalism and the unpresented rise of billionaire after billionaire has created the situation we are now in and it will continue to get much worse.
Also, I'm always shocked when people refuse to acknowledge the extreme damage the Bush Jr. years had on the US. Maybe it's because I voted in Palm Beach County and witnessed the blatant manipulation of ballots that caused Bush to be elected.
I understand. Believe me. I’ve lived many years outside of the US but am now back in it. It feels freeing to leave it right now. There’s a tight vice on everyone and it’s only really noticeable when you leave and enter back into parts of the world not in this vice grip.
I have a question for everyone; do you think Star Wars projects beyond the original trilogy are often times judged to harshly? I enjoy Star Wars, but I am more of a Trekkie to be honest, but it has always seemed the Star Wars fanbase is a very hard one to please. Would you say this is an accurate assessment or no?
No worries, really. STAR WARS is just a sensitive thing for many damaged people. If I spend time on well-intentioned debate, it introduces all the horrible ones. But to answer your first question, I do think everything is measured against the Original Trilogy. But most often, I think it's being measured against our memories of how the OT made us feel. If you mess with people's identities, especially the emotionally fragile, those people tend to lash out.
I think it's possible that's how the arc started. However, when compared to what we got on screen, it's a situation where there isn't enough at stake. Darth Vader's ascension would not have been truly tragic if it was sourced only in a love triangle. It had to be a love triangle where what was forbidden and yet indulged in brought the entire galaxy to a pivotal point where one man's moral failure to overcome his inability to control his fear of loss ended up toppling a civilization thousands of years old. It allowed Lucas to tell the story of how organized religions and all political institutions, no matter how holy or sanctified, always become corrupted under their own machinations. The Star Wars Prequels present corruption, not as an element of sexual desire fulfilled, but rather as a moral and spiritual failure to let go and trust Natural Law to unfold as it will. Also, by keeping Padme's love pure (like Harry Potter's mother), it imbues Luke and Leia's situtation with love and sacrifice.
No one shits on the Star Wars Prequels in my presence. As you say, George Lucas taught a generation of school children and adults about how Fascism grows and corrupts first in the heart and then in the Senate.
But I think you could've done all that with the Arthurian love triangle, too. Anakin would've still been manipulated. A sitting member of the Jedi Council would've broken the Order's own code by falling in love with Padmé; we'd have questions about who knew and what they hid. And as that all played out, the Clone Wars would still go on exactly as it does -- because what Anakin goes through in the films, as presented, doesn't really involve the Clone Wars. It's a separate story of a child who was abused by the Jedi Council into suppressing his grief and then love. Again, all that would still play out in the same way, I think -- except, at the end of it, the tipping point is that the Council doesn't just abstractly ef him. They literally do through Obi-Wan. That all said, I like your point about Padmé's love being pure imbuing Luke and Leia's situation with love and sacrifice...but I'm not sure I would care about their journey any less if I knew what Obi-Wan "had done". When Luke finally confronts Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan admits he's kind of a lying, manipulative asshole...I mean, that tracks even harder if he broke Anakin because he couldn't adhere to the Jedi Code either...
In both scenarios Anakin’s fear of losing someone he loves is a catalyst for succumbing to the dark side; Maybe Lucas decided fear of losing a child and wife in child birth was a greater fear and thus more reasonable to think it would topple Anakin then just losing his wife to infidelity alone. The Arthurian love triangle is classic but maybe Lucas decided to raise the stakes higher.
The stakes argument is certainly a solid one. The fear of your spouse dying (and possibly your kid) is much more broadly relatable as a human experience. It's universal. Being betrayed by the person you love is similarly so, but the consequences inherently feel smaller. But in that "smallness" might also be the reason why it dramatically works better. It's emotionally cruel/tragic rather than objectively heartbreaking. It's far more operatic, which STAR WARS has always been. But see-sawing again, by it simply being the fear of losing the person you love to death, it shows how we can all "turn to the Dark Side". All this said, nothing gets around how tacked on this sudden fear of Padmé feels to the narrative because it's not organically baked into it. It just comes out of nowhere, which is technically realistic, but not dramatically interesting.
Okay, I think I understand. While raising the stakes like this in a vacuum is justifiable or even desired, taken in context it feels forced because it’s unsupported by what came before. So while the stakes are higher, it jars the audience out of the narrative flow thus lowering their engagement.
I would argue, yes. But that said, I still think REVENGE OF THE SITH is the best of the Prequels and one of the best of all three trilogies. So, while I can academically wonder at these decisions and muse about what might've been, it is, again, an academic exercise. The art is what it is now, and I enjoy it based on the artist's intentions. I'm not going to tell anyone what George Lucas should've done.
For sure, as I get further along in my writing and storytelling (only a few years in now) analyzing things like this is quite helpful, but in no way would I want to question or judge the decisions the creators like Lucas made along the way. Seeing other possibilities and having some understanding of their impacts on the story is an educational exercise for me, so no judgements here either.
This, combined with Darth Jar Jar. Mind blown.
I have too many Prequel Trilogy Thoughts to really fit in one post, but basically I think they're a good story that wasn't told very well, specifically by trying to keep them in a format similar to the original films, especially run times.
The prequels bring up WEIGHTY stuff, way beyond what the OT does, and you're on the money with Lucas predicting the rise of fascism with them...but then the structure of these films do that very little justice once you leave TPM in the rearview mirror.
Attack of the Clones has one line about it, where Padme gets incensed and shouts about how the Confederacy is 'business becoming government', and it was cut.
ROTS has yet more scenes about this, also cut.
Like. Let your political points billow, George. They're far and away the best part of this trilogy and most people have probably never watched them. It's fine if the movie isn't 2 hours 7 minutes long if it's still interesting past that.
I guess I'll finish out with Rian Johnson nailing these films:
https://x.com/rianjohnson/status/1277475774044368896?lang=en
That Johnson tweet is one I've returned to many times. It really nails it. I'm not sure if the stories weren't told very well myself, as much as they were told in a different way than the Originals, and that does bother some people. But Lucas was adamant that each trilogy should reinvent itself in some way, not more of the same. And I kind of love the films for that.
Love the comparison to Arthurian legends, which also had its disturbing incestuous turn and patricide. If I remember correctly, Arthur is seduced by his half-sister Morgana and as a result of their union, produces Mordred, who hates Arthur and kills him in the end. Or course, Luke didn't actually kill Darth Vader in the end, but you could argue he wanted to.
There are many versions of the Arthurian myth, but, yes, one of them sees Arthur corrupted and his spawn destroy everything he built. As for Luke, yes, the OT is a very poor representation of the Hero's Journey, as far as I'm concerned. It claims to be built on it, but Luke fails in most regards to live up to Campbell's ideas.
Re: Lucas anticipating the general rise of fascism, in a 2012 interview, Lucas summed up his vision of STAR WARS brilliantly:
"There are people out there who don't play by the rules and if you're not careful you're going to lose all your freedoms. At the same time, those people that don't play by the rules because they are selfish and greedy, and turn themselves into evil people who don't care about other people."
Sounds like fascism to me!
The most successful director of political films in history.
I like this theory/idea. Also it's funny how I saw this after sending you that DM (don't know when you'll see either).
I'm working my way through a pile-up this week, Harvey. I'll get to that DM as soon as I can. It's school holidays here in Oz, so I have a lot less work time for the next two weeks than usual!
No worries Cole. Have a good hol!
Interesting theory for sure...and yes def would have made it better. I would go into why i dislike most of the prequels but you told us not to :)
Yes, don't let your hate flow through you, Michael.
I think the prequels are far more than "quite good" - the kicking they've got over the years is just absurd.
This YouTube guy lays out the incredible level of thought that went into them: https://youtu.be/vqnjzVX8EKA?si=00JyuX1wLOpWp4L5
From what I know of what was left on the editing room floor, Lucas did go some of the way towards what you are suggesting. It was written originally so that a big part of what drove Anakin over to the dark side was his delusional belief that Padme was having an affair with Obi-Wan. Only a trace of this is left in the finished film.
I think it would have worked better that way than a full-on love triangle, because Obi-Wan betraying his Jedi vows would undermine the impact of Anakin's fall by showing the Jedi Order to be a hollow institution.
Personally, I think the Prequels paint the Jedi Order as a hollow institution already. Discovering it was systemically broken, leading to its fall and, later, resurrection via Luke's love-centered version of it appeals to me. The irony, of course, is that SW since the Prequels has gone to considerable lengths to reimagine the Jedi Order as a hollow institution that brought about its own demise.
Yeah, the prequels certainly show the Jedi Order as having lost its way to an extent, and quite subtly too. But largely the Jedi are still dedicated to their principles, so I think in that sense having Obi-Wan betray his vows would have undermined part of the impact of Anakin's fall.
I wonder if the negative fan feedback around Anakin and Padmé in ATOC, ie jokes about sand, caused the change in ROTS. It’s clear Lucas responded to feedback, like you said Jar Jar had his role significantly reduced after TPM. I think I’m going to rewatch AOTC and ROTS and try to think about what might be better or worse if there was a love triangle.
I think the Arthurian triangle works so well because Guinevere's loyalty to Arthur feels dutiful and from a place of respect and admiration for wisdom/decency. Her relationship with Lancelot is one of passion. It's worth considering that dichotomy here, with Anakin the Chosen One destined to be a savior. Obi-Wan, by contrast, is repressed and unable to express his emotions. In this scenario, both become liars. The real problem arises when we consider Padmé's role, as she becomes a woman who inevitably came between two men and destroyed a Republic. It doesn't matter how much agency you shift to Anakin and Obi-Wan, the woman is always perceived to be at fault. To have Luke and Leia's mother be guilty of such a feat is...probably the biggest reason Lucas didn't go this route.
Thinking about it, I realized most of what I know about the King Arthur legend comes from Monty Python...
However, I think you are probably right. Padme would have taken the fall, even if when she didn't deserve it.
Would have been an exquisite twist to discover at the end of ep.3 that Obi wan was Luke’s true father, hence why he stuck around watching over the boy from afar on Tatooine, making Obi wan’s sacrifice on the Death Star more poignant.
Am available for rewrites. Just sayin’ 😊
This is great stuff! And so much to think about. I have nothing to with the film industry, other than one class in college which was more about analyzing, as you do), and reading my son’s college textbook when he was at Berklee College of Music for film scoring. But I find your analysis endlessly fascinating. I never saw the Arthurian love triangle in Star Wars, but now I can’t unsee it.
I have endless fun writing these analyses, and it makes it even more worth it when they resonate with readers. Thanks for diving in, Sally!
The Arthurian parallel adds a rich layer of meaning to the characters, and your insights into storytelling were informative and enjoyable. It's clear you put much thought into this analysis, making it a worthy piece for any 'Star Wars enthusiast.
Thanks for reading, Jon. Glad you enjoyed it.
What I’m finding in trying to assess this idea is that I’m assuming from the start that — if I’m Lucas — I’ve still written episode 4 first and then circled back around to writing episode 1.
If I mentally start from episode 1, this idea works far better for me than if I imagine writing episodes 4, 5, and 6 first.
To my mind, this is because of how Obi-Wan lands onscreen in episode 4. It’s feels like too big a leap to retcon this betrayal into the story. Like a breaking of trust with the audience. So that’s why I wouldn’t have gone back to write 1, 2, and 3 that way.
However, if I was writing fresh from 1, I the idea of the triangle repeating itself is compelling, though ideally without the incestuous implications in episode 4.
Would a triangle have worked with a different character than Obi-Wan?
Obi-Wan in the role of mentor has an established archetypal place in the story. He’s Merlin. (Granted, he’s more in that role in later movies; he is more of big brother earlier on, but he’s stepping into the mentor role vacated by Qui-Gon Jinn.)
Lancelot plays a different role, much like Han. The warrior.
Perhaps there’s a different warrior, a best friend to Anakin, that would have fulfilled this archetype.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen episodes 1 to 3, so I’d have to see them with fresh eyes to better assess.
But breaking the trust of the audience is a great way to surprise them, I would argue. Remember, at the end of Episode V, Lucas revealed to audiences that his hero was the son of the greatest villain in the galaxy. Discovering that hero's mentor betrayed that same father and spent years trying to atone for it actually seems pretty small by comparison. Obi-Wan isn't Merlin in the Prequels, I do want to add. That's in the Original Trilogy. He's playing the part of the warrior-brother to Anakin in the Prequels, as the two of them technically "fall" from grace together in REVENGE OF THE SITH. Obi-Wan fails in keeping Anakin "good", which destroys him. Whatever the case, this is all a thought exercise.
Hmm, interesting. I do think this would have made for a more interesting narrative and explained Anakin’s character and motivations more clearly. Do you have a theory on why Lucas didn’t pursue this line of narrative? I know my children would find it problematic that Obi-wan could become romantically involved with someone he initially met when he was an adult and they were a child - but they are not Star Wars fans in any case and weren’t even alive when the prequels came out.
I have no idea why, but I'm not sure the public would've turned on the detail you're describing. There's a ten-year gap and they have no real scenes together in the first film. By the second film, it's almost as if they're properly meeting for the first time. Today, I think there would be a hindsight cringe, but realistically, we're talking 2002. Obi-Wan could've made a crack about the fourteen-year-old queen's future hotness and very few people would've spoken up about it. I just watched a raft of action films from the 90s, huge hits, and they were...more than concerning. And in all cases, I've never heard a peep about them even in retrospect. It's a strange world we live in. But getting back to your question, maybe Lucas ultimately felt the same way you do? He also abandoned Jar-Jar Binks as a character, so there was a lot of reworking of the general story after PHANTOM MENACE. Another reason for all these changes might also be how maligned the first film was, critically speaking I mean. Maybe he got in his own head...
I'll add there's another exchange going on here (see JB Minton's comment and follow-ups) that is getting into some interesting emotional landscape and "stakes" territory.
Cole, this authoritarianism was already in play by the late 1990s, it just had not yet raised its ugly head in most western national governments until George W. Bush got into power. Friends of mine were out protesting the WTO in 1999 in Seattle. If you read the tea leaves, you could see how this would evolve.
I don’t know how Lucas was inspired but I’m sure some of it had to do with these techtonic shifts happening on some levels at that time.
Lucas's Original Trilogy were deeply anti-American and anti-Imperialism, as well as filled with fascist imagery. He's been obsessed with this since the 70s, so I think it's just a matter of him (ironically) turning on the capitalism, too, that defined the 80s. I say "ironically" because he became a billionaire during this stretch. You mention it being in play by the late 90s, which is true, but I think it's difficult to speak about things as a continuum. You could track white supremacy back centuries, to get us to today, too. Any number of legal decisions, refusals to politically act, etc. At some point, a decision so to say is made, culturally, and it becomes a turning point. I think 9/11 was probably that, as it created the language framework necessary to so successfully other people today and create a state of permanent war. The WTO is obviously evil, but people, I think, are largely too complacent to care about that. But they can be made to hate others. They can be made to accept violence as a necessary solution.
A good artist senses all of this prior to it becoming what it will become. Radiohead’s OK Computer was created in 1996 and released in 1997. If you listen to it today, it is extremely prescient to our current era. It’s almost 30 years old now. He may have sensed all of what was coming from when he was writing it and thinking deeply about it in the 1970s and 1980s. As you said, it is a continuum. Nothing arises out of a vacuum.
Globalism and the unpresented rise of billionaire after billionaire has created the situation we are now in and it will continue to get much worse.
Also, I'm always shocked when people refuse to acknowledge the extreme damage the Bush Jr. years had on the US. Maybe it's because I voted in Palm Beach County and witnessed the blatant manipulation of ballots that caused Bush to be elected.
I don't live outside of America because I have a lot of great things to say about America.
I understand. Believe me. I’ve lived many years outside of the US but am now back in it. It feels freeing to leave it right now. There’s a tight vice on everyone and it’s only really noticeable when you leave and enter back into parts of the world not in this vice grip.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/seattle-wto-protests/
I have a question for everyone; do you think Star Wars projects beyond the original trilogy are often times judged to harshly? I enjoy Star Wars, but I am more of a Trekkie to be honest, but it has always seemed the Star Wars fanbase is a very hard one to please. Would you say this is an accurate assessment or no?
I'm only going to engage on the content of the article, as I said up top. I ask readers to do the same.
Ah shit, sorry Cole. That didn't register in my brain. My apologies!
No worries, really. STAR WARS is just a sensitive thing for many damaged people. If I spend time on well-intentioned debate, it introduces all the horrible ones. But to answer your first question, I do think everything is measured against the Original Trilogy. But most often, I think it's being measured against our memories of how the OT made us feel. If you mess with people's identities, especially the emotionally fragile, those people tend to lash out.