Does Rogue One Improve the PREquels?

At most it might be seen as improving ROTS a bit. It did have some cross connections especially with Bail Organa and Mustafar showing up.

 

I actually now have a visual in my head of angry Anakin underneath that mask as he carved up those Rebels. So yeah, did it for me!

 

No. The film does not have the power to work miracles.

 

Well we can't change what happened in the previous movies but it proves in time movies made now involving the past, created by the right people brought together can great it right for the fans sake.

 

It honestly makes me wish Lucas would have passed the torch prior to making the Prequels. Imagine the Clone Wars and fall of Anakin Skywalker if made in the same vein as Rogue One? Oh my god.

 

There are prequels?!

 

Your only noticing now. Yes we are learning how the great death star plans robbery came to be.

 

I think its a good sequel to ROTS. Knowing Vader's castle is on Mustafar gives a bit more depth to the movie. I also liked the prequel-ish political attitude of the rebel leaders. But overall, I dont think it affects the PT too much.

 

Darth Vader is back as an evil dude. I am on that though the prequels were not terrible and I liked ROTS. I though why he turned evil was somewhat silly, but the overall narrative was not bad. It would have been better to see him introduced in episode 1, see him as a Jedi and turn evil in 2 and then had more of a struggle between the sith and jedi in 3 before the climatic battle between ObiWan and him on Mustafar. But, making Vader more evil in RO would have been better. I think with the Rebels series, they are returning Vader to his menacing nature.

 

I think it does the opposite, it makes them look even worse.

I wonder if the success of Rogue One (and any subsequent films) may tempt Disney to revisit the original prequels and remake them as grittier films and correct many of the mistakes Lucas made.

Just allow indulge me for a moment:

Episode 1
We join the early stages of the Clone Wars, with the likes of Obi Wan already battle hardened. We are introduced to a 17/18 year old Anakin, not the kid out of the cereal commercial (After all, he was already a "great pilot" when Obi Wan first met him, which has always made me think of an adult, not a 9 year old). He helps the Jedi win a significant victory at which point his bond with Obi Wan is born. The relationship with Padme is set up in a "hero saves the damsel in distress" way, but perhaps mirroring the Leia/Han Solo courtship (the best of flirtatious enemies). Darth Maul is still introduced, but his involvement is darker, responsible for the death of Skywalker's mother. The end of the film sees a distraught Skywalker leaving his old life behind to follow Obi-Wan on his "damn fool idealistic crusade..."

Episode 2
Again, more of a war film, set a few years later, as we see more of the ongoing battles between the Republic and the Separatists. Maul is still the main protagonist, whilst the manipulation of Skywalker by Palpatine begins. The relationship between Anakin and Padme blossoms. Skywalker's conflict with the Jedi leadership and fear of losing Padme is further outlined. Seeking his revenge, Skywalker goes after Maul but is bested, with Obi Wan stepping in to save him and "finish" Maul (still allowing for the ludicrous resurrection of Maul if needed).

Episode 3
The fall of Anakin Skywalker is played out over the whole of the film. Rather than the pains of moody teenager, we see real pain and rage as Palpatine twists him and turns him on the Jedi. Palpatine's unveiling as the Sith Lord is also more visceral. The final battle remains the same really, with Padme and Obi Wan trying to "save" Anakin but failing. We see the death of Padme, the birth of the twins, Obi Wan's and Yoda's exile and an unveiling of Lord Vader in action, hunting down and destroying the Jedi......

The life of Anakin Skywalker would mirror Luke's more closely. A lot of needless politics and pandering to a young audience would be cut out and the whole thing would be less shiny and new, and match the world we saw in ANH and now in Rogue One.

It is probably considered sacrilege to even think of changing George Lucas's vision for the Star Wars saga, but it would make for a much better series of films in my mind, and stay truer to the original film. But that's just my opinion.

I just think Rogue One shows us what those really should have been like, both in terms of look and feel.....

 

I'm afraid it made the prequels worse, now that we've seen how to properly make a prequel. The prequels increasingly feel 'off' to me and have a hard time considering them part of the larger story. I already had this feeling in 1999, but the feeling is just getting stronger and stronger.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 19, 2016, Original Post Date: Dec 19, 2016 ---

You've sketched a way better framework.

 

Yeah I dont think theyd ever do that. I'd imagine George Lucas put in a clause that says they cant touch them. I like your ideas, though also, Anakin was originally supposed to turn dark much earlier in the movie
.

 

I have to say in my mind it enhances a very small number of things about the Prequels (things already mentioned here), but by and large, it embarrasses that trilogy.

I feel like now knowing what is possible in a prequel that honors the source material rather than twists it for commercial gain renders large swaths of the PT being unwatchable nonsense. It illustrates how a trip down memory lane can be reverent and emotional, instead of a disjointed series of "hey remember this thing from the old movies? Well, it's not what you thought it was!" moments. Lucas isn't there yanking our chains anymore.

I was chatting with a friend from back home over the phone this weekend, and his 10 year old son piped up in the background when he heard us talking and shouted "it's the only prequel that matters!". His dad is a huge fan of all the films. Out of the mouth of babes.

 

A bit off topic, but does anyone else think the Jyn Erso type character would have been a better template for Luke and Leia's mother?

 

The Prequel Trilogy didn't need improvement by "Rogue One" or any other movie. And quite frankly, I still consider them better than this new movie.

But do you want to know the lesson that I learned? I learned that a lot of STAR WARS fans are too gutless or illusional to accept a story in which the protagonists made a lot of decisions and choices that led to their own downfalls . . . . especially in a STAR WARS film. I suspect they would prefer if those protagonists were ideal, near ideal or overcome their flaws; because those are the protagonists they want to identify with and PRETEND that they are just like those characters. The Prequel Trilogy gave audiences a taste of what humanity is really like. Movies like the Original Trilogy, "The Force Awakens" and "Rogue One" gave audiences the fantasy or wishful thinking. And this is what Disney and Lucasfilm will probably be spoon feeding to the audiences as long as they continue making STAR WARS films.

 

The main premise of the Prequels isn't the issue. It was a total lack of execution, character development, acting, too much digital effects, poorly written dialog, bad story choices (Anakin built 3PO?), and on and on and on. Rogue One shows you can keep things in the same universe, introduce new ideas, characters and enemies, and still have a great Star Wars film. Sorry, but there was more emotion between Chirrut and Baze than any characters in the Prequels.

 

Then ALL OF THE EIGHT MOVIES IN THE FRANCHISE are guilty, because all eight of them have some questionable writing in their narratives. I have pointed this out in my reviews of the first seven fims. And I have noticed the mistakes in this film.

 

Rogue One is the first Star Wars movie that shows that the rebels aren`t all selfless heroes. Jyn, Cassian, Bhodi, Baze, Chirrut and K2SO are all far from being "ideal/flawless persons".