Prequel Trilogy lovers will appreciate this article I think, and Prequel Sceptics like myself can actually take a lot from it too.

The article's title is a little misleading, as it's not really about Lucas's authorship, and is more about the story itself. In essence, this article centres around the "balance" in the Force, and the ostensible "goodness" of the Jedi in striving for (but actually preventing) said balance. The author sees a lot of nuance in Anakin's role in this, claiming the binary logic of the Jedi and the Sith forces Anakin's choice to go to the Dark Side.

The article is easily the most persuasive argument I've seen for character development and moral complexity in the PT. I agree with the author that Lucas might not have known what he was doing, but given that we've got to work with the final product...this is a really neat addition to the philosophy of that time in history.

http://www.gamesradar.com/george-lucas-nearly-wrote-perfect-prequel-trilogy-he-just-didnt-seem-notice/

Okay. Look. The idea of a non Good/Evil morality scale with the Light/Dark sides of the Force is certainly one that I am happy to promote. In fact, its basically the single most fundamental change i make whenever i create a Star Wars game. Probably why i love Babylon 5 so much: the fight isnt as simple as Good vs Evil. But the subtlety that i love is that they TRY to paint it as such, with some omniscient morality scale, which is a big propaganda lie.

However, all of it said. The prequels sucks. That alone doesn't a good movie make. The prequels suck on a cinematographic, on a writing and on a screenplay point of view. They are crappy movies.

If you want, i will be happy to discuss how we can re-assess Light vs Dark side on a metaphysical point of view. But if you just want to validate the prequels, i aint gonna happen with me :-)

Did you see anywhere me saying this made the prequels "good"? I'm not even trying to rehabilitate them.

Did you READ the article?

Did you see anywhere me saying this made the prequels "good"? I'm not even trying to rehabilitate them.

Did you READ the article?

Yhea i did. In the very first paragraph: " almost perfect trilogy", which is bollocks.

Itd take a fundamental rewrite from page 1 to make it even "good".

Please don't turn this into another PT-hating thread. If that's the direction people want to take it in, I'll ask to have the thread locked. I just hoped we could chat about the substance of the article, not peoples' knee-jerk and canned responses to what they've already made their minds up for.

****. That’s actually pretty cool.

So why couldn’t George actually deliver on those concepts?!?

Read the article, and understand that it’s talking about the Prequel Trilogy that could have been — or should have been, not the one that was actually released by George.

Like i said, if you want to talk about the nuance of Force moralities, I'm on board!

I always saw the Dark Side vs Light Side in different light than the EU has tried to show it to us. Lets look at what we know:

Jedi emphasize reclusiveness. Both Yoda and Obiwan live as hermits, and the Jedi Order seem to frown on worldly attachments of any kind.

We also get many claims that powerful emotions, like Fear, Anger and Hate lead to the Dark Side. Now, where i believe many people got wrong is assuming that Fear, Anger and Hate ARE the Dark Side. What if the Dark Side is simply the consequences of a Force User enforcing his will upon the Force? That will is made stronger by emotional turmoil, with the above sentiments being prime instincts that would make one lose control, (re)act harshly and become inherently self-destructive, which easily spiral into further grief and pain.

The Light Side, on the other side, is about contemplation and understanding. Its letting the Force guide you, hearing its flows and will. The more you force it, the less you hear it. Emotional detachment is essential, as you need to stop making the Force submit to your willpower.

Jedi and Sith teachings are philosophical disciplines meant to help a Force User use their respective side of the Force, but they are not the physical incarnation of the Light and Dark Sides, respectively. I could see a Dark Side user becoming a Healing Crusader, refusing people to die around him.

Or you could have a Light Side tyrant. Basically constantly listening to the Force's will, abandoning his friends and family to die because he became so recluse that he is completely disconnected from the material world.

It really boils down to extremes. Both light and dark have a place, it's what you do with it that matters. I for one had a hard time rationalizing that Anakin pledging himself to the dark side meant he was totally down with murdering a room full of kids.

In terms of Dungeons and Dragons old school alignments it always seemed to me that the Jedi were Lawful Good and fairly strict in their adherence, except that some Jedi do tend to bend the rules a bit, such as when Obi-Wan lies to Luke about his father in the OT, and more famously when the Jedi Council acts dubiously in asking Anakin to spy on Palpatine, which Palpatine then plays brilliantly by pointing out the moral grey area. This is only further enhanced when Mace is determined to kill Palaptine, finally sealing the subversion of the Light in and fall of Anakin. It's just too bad it wasn't written with more subtlety and nuance. So while the Jedi strive to be Lawful Good, that strict adherence ends up being a key to their downfall, a central irony in the film and while unintentional, a seeming argument by Lucas for moral relativism and a caveat against dogmatism.

Now the Sith are just as dogmatic and would align as Lawful Evil. Some seem to be in it for the pure evil of the Dark Side, but they're still beholden to a code, also somewhat ironically, as Palpatine seems to think honor is a weakness. Yet, Palpatine holds to the Rule of Two, murders his master to take his place and expects Vader to do the same. Palpatine also has a methodical plan for achieving his ends, something no chaotic or neutral aligned evildoer would either be able to pull off or bother about. To call them Libertarians is to misunderstand both Libertarianism and the Sith. In fact, the Sith are more ordered, more structured and more methodical than the Jedi; mostly because they have to be in order to keep the master/ apprentice dynamic at appropriate balance. Not only that, but some Sith actually feel they are doing good. In fact, in some twisted way Palpatine believes he's rescuing the galaxy from the oppression of the Jedi "cult" and bringing the highly regarded Sith values of order and conformity. Anakin falls because he believes he'll be able to gain control over death and the future, a control that is a component of that need for order. In fact, the Sith don't even see themselves as Dark Side adherents; they think of themselves as users of the entire Force, and that the Dark Side offers them a more complete power when combined with the Light, as evidenced by Palpatine's speech to Anakin at the opera, a point that seems to support the article's idea of Anakin seeking balance and a larger view of the Force. I agree it was too little too late, and ought to have been developed much sooner.

Both factions are highly ordered and dogmatic in their beliefs about the Force. What I hope the reboot of the franchise brings is a wider view of Force users (which seems to be happening a bit with Snoke and Ren in TFA), especially a focus on grey users or ronin (sort of like Zatoichi, the morally ambiguous ronin from classic Japanese samurai cinema).

I don't find this nearly as interesting as the Ring theory, and the Ring theory incorporates all of the OP article and much more. Though seeing the PT-hater come to a half-baked epiphany is somewhat amusing.

I agree with the author that Lucas might not have known what he was doing...

I say "bull". I think that was exactly Lucas' intent. I won't say that he executed it so well*, perhaps he was too busy with the world-building, but it's pretty clear that he intended to show that the Jedi had become too rigid and dogmatic, more concerned with tradition than the actual corruption going on in front of their noses. Otherwise it would have been a completely different story. In a strong way, the Jedi are the problem, that's pretty clear. Even Obi-wan isn't 100% on board, as is evident when he says "the Council is asking" Anakin to spy on the Chancellor. If that hadn't been what Lucas was intending, Obi-wan would have had no such doubt and the line would never have been delivered.

I will give Lucas further credit for this: it's not "in your face". It's a background theme and it's up to the audience to notice it. I am sick of directors like Spielberg who love to cater to a "certain breed of audience" who won't grasp even the simplest moral issues unless it's pounded into them with a 2x4. For all the poor dialog and character development, the larger themes of decadence, corruption, self-serving traditions, and the loss of moral clarity are strongly present...they are the whole point of the exercise. The PT-haters like to focus on trivial issues, like "Jar-Jar not funny" or "whiny Anakin", and so of course they miss the bigger picture.

---------------

* Usual disclaimer: I'm well aware of the host of problems with the PT. I just forgive it all because of the world-building, the larger themes the OP article hints at, and...

not a single Death Star! Ironically, for all its character development flaws, all the conflict in the PT is character-driven, rather than McGuffin-driven.

The problem with the PT is that Lucas was in full control.

If you look at the OT the 2 films that are almost always on top are Empire and Jedi (when not looked at through nostalgic glasses) the two films that Lucas did not direct.

Now I'm with whafrong that the PT for there underline story and what Lucas was trying to get across (and failed) where not that bad.

Lucas mistakenly believed that people like Star Wars for the effects and not the story, which is why he tried to throw visuals at us left and right.

A good way to watch the PT is the Anti-cheese version on Youtube.

with a lot of the cringe worthy scenes and dialog removed its easier to grasp the overall plot Lucas was going for which is not bad.

as for the force "The Prophecy of the Chosen One" seems to be greatly misunderstood by both the Jedi and the Sith.

Nowhere did it say he would destroy the Sith that was just what the Jedi believed.

IMHO he brought balance to the force by destroying the Jedi and there old outdated Beliefs and by sacrificing himself to end the Sith teachings.

This left Luke who was neither True Jedi or Sith to create a more Balanced group of Force users.

But that just my opinion on the whole thing.

Plus the mythology involving the son and daughter addressed in one TCW episode, The Fate of the Jedi books and most welcw the F&DCRB The family in balance had no mother whoa...

Lucas drew heavily on Kurosawa and his original directions to the ANH cast equated Jedi to samurai. Jedi weren't originally intended to be reclusive desert friars and sacred hermits. The Jedi were Knights - samurai on the frontier - keeping the peace like an Old West Marshal. Kenobi was in hiding and watching over Luke. Yoda was in hiding, period. That doesn't mean the whole order had to be cast as sacred hermits and reclusive celibates. I think it was a mistake to take them there, and that what has emerged is rooted in a contextomy.

Yoda: "There is no try, only do or do not."

Bushido: "There is no failure, only death and success."

Stripped of its original inspiration it becomes blandly pop-mystical and leads to canonical in-jokes (see Rebels). The Jedi should be warriors, peace-keepers, and knights. Samurai, knights-Templar, frontier law-men. Many martial texts, including those of the samurai, talk about control, morality, benevolence, and other virtues a warrior must possess. That does not a skete-dwelling order of sacred hermits who vibe more like Orthodox Christian monks than Knights Templar and Samurai Warriors make.

Simply put, over the years Lucas lost touch with what had originally inspired him - and spoke to many of his fans.

Kurosawa. Chanbara. Leone. Old West. Flash Gordon. Buck Rogers.

I'll take his OT Jedi any day of the week.

The Jedi philosophy is one of detachment and sacrifice. It's not that the Jedi are against love, for example, they are against attachment. A jedi might love and let go - though I think in later years the philosophy as taught became to avoid such entanglements in the expectation that it is better to avoid temptation altogether than to be over-confident that one can resist it. Where Anakin was wrong - by Jedi philosophy - is in the inability / refusal to let go of Padmé. The Jedi would teach that it was her time to go and that he must accept that. Again - sacrifice and selflessness. And there is good reason for this - the Jedi are holy knights, protectors, blessed with great power and responsibility. It is expected that they should put the good of all above their own needs. And it is his own needs in Anakin's case, not Padmés. Do we think that Padmé would want Anakin to agree to serve Palpatine, to let children die so that she could live? No - that would never be her choice. It is Anakin who lacks the ability to accept the loss and it is precisely for reasons such as this that the Jedi are supposed to eschew attachment. The keepers of the peace, the holy knights, must be above personal interests and desires and sublimate their wants to the good of the whole. Again, sacrifice and selflessness. Avoiding attachment is the Jedi's way of staying on top of the mountain and dispassionately serving the galaxy. "Thus spake Zarathustra" and all that.

Now did the Jedi by the time of the PT lose their way? Without question. But the above is the core of their philosophy as it's meant to be.

The Sith? Now the Sith teach a very different philosophy. They want to impose their will on the galaxy. They put the self above the many. To the Jedi, the Force is all-encompassing, binding, oneness. It is God to them. No wonder they regard a belief system that wants to 'use God to serve the wielder' as the utmost heresy. The Sith are not opposed to attachment. In fact, they are deeply immersed in the material world. When Palpatine says that Anakin could not learn how to save someone from dying from a Jedi, he is probably right. Maybe they have such powers - the Daughter in the Altar of Mortis arc of TCW could heal and she was light side, after all. Yet, the Jedi would probably only use such power (or teach it) for non-personal gain. To the Sith, Strength is something to be cultivated. They are active to the Jedi's passiveness. Whilst the Jedi look at the harm attachment and use of the Force can do, the Sith look at the harm not using it does. They see the lack of order that the Jedi tolerate, they see the disarray and apathy and lack of direction. And they know what could be achieved through the imposition of Will upon the galaxy.

Both factions look at the other and see its faults, not its strengths.

Now how well the Jedi and the Sith correspond to the Light Side and the Dark respectively, is the subject of another post. After all, a Jedi may fall to the Dark Side, but they are not necessarily a Sith. A Dark Jedi might be like that family member who gets in lots of trouble with the law and causes you grief, but they're still family, you still know them and understand them and you may even still have social relations with them. Dooku left the order and was not hunted down by the Jedi for a long time - they simply considered him a political idealist and a turncoat, perhaps. But still family. Sith are not family, they are the ultimate enemy who you tried to wipe out and who would do the same to you. But let's not get into that in this post. The main thing is that the negative emotions of the Jedi are, once you think about it, all about attachment and inability to let go... Fear, hatred, anger? What are these but fear of losing something, a desire for vengeance, a lashing out against that which threatens you... All of these things are immersion in the transitory things and blind you to what is, in favour of what might be or what has past. As Yoda would say - never his mind on Where. He. Is.

It's popular to rail on the Light Side and talk about how it's one half of a whole and that may be true. But there is great merit and good foundation in the teachings and principles of it, nonetheless. Fear of the future? Hate over past slights? "Not at the expense of the present, my young padawan". Qui Gon Jinn understood. If you would sacrifice and serve the universe, you must follow the living force that carries you in the now.

Lucas drew heavily on Kurosawa and his original directions to the ANH cast equated Jedi to samurai. Jedi weren't originally intended to be reclusive desert friars and sacred hermits. The Jedi were Knights - samurai on the frontier - keeping the peace like an Old West Marshal. Kenobi was in hiding and watching over Luke. Yoda was in hiding, period. That doesn't mean the whole order had to be cast as sacred hermits and reclusive celibates. I think it was a mistake to take them there, and that what has emerged is rooted in a contextomy.

Yoda: "There is no try, only do or do not."

Bushido: "There is no failure, only death and success."

Stripped of its original inspiration it becomes blandly pop-mystical and leads to canonical in-jokes (see Rebels). The Jedi should be warriors, peace-keepers, and knights. Samurai, knights-Templar, frontier law-men. Many martial texts, including those of the samurai, talk about control, morality, benevolence, and other virtues a warrior must possess. That does not a skete-dwelling order of sacred hermits who vibe more like Orthodox Christian monks than Knights Templar and Samurai Warriors make.

Simply put, over the years Lucas lost touch with what had originally inspired him - and spoke to many of his fans.

Kurosawa. Chanbara. Leone. Old West. Flash Gordon. Buck Rogers.

I'll take his OT Jedi any day of the week.

This vision of the Jedi is not necessarily in opposition to my views of the Force. In fact, they are extremely compstible if you think about it. While being emotionaly detached and impartial, the Jedi's philosophy might exist to prevent the trapfalls of the Light Side; prevent their members from being passive meditative monks who dont care about the greater world, and lose touch.

Like i said, Jedi =/= Light Side. They embrace the light side, sure, but they are their own thing.

It could be that, or perhaps, if you dismiss the prequels, you could also have Jedis who are NOT knights. Not all Force Powered are meant to be Justice-bringers armed with a dismembering weapon.

The force is to be used for defense and knowledge, never for attack --Fanboys hate that constraint

Well, attack means you want to change the world. It means you are rejecting the reality in front of you, and enforcing your desires on it.

"I must also have a dark side, if I am to be whole."
Carl Jung

Well, attack means you want to change the world. It means you are rejecting the reality in front of you, and enforcing your desires on it.

Defense means you are trying to enforce your desire to not be attacked.

Well, attack means you want to change the world. It means you are rejecting the reality in front of you, and enforcing your desires on it.

Defense means you are trying to enforce your desire to not be attacked.

One is imposing your will upon others, one is not. The Jedi are against the imposition of ones will on others, whether that is you imposing your will on another, or another imposing their will upon you. Resisting the imposition of will upon you is not the same as imposing your will on another - it is reactive, not proactive. So long as one can avoid being provoked into a backlash of revenge or feeling threatened and go further than simply pushing back enough to remove the imposition of will, then you remain defensive.

Well, attack means you want to change the world. It means you are rejecting the reality in front of you, and enforcing your desires on it.

Defense means you are trying to enforce your desire to not be attacked.

One is imposing your will upon others, one is not. The Jedi are against the imposition of ones will on others, whether that is you imposing your will on another, or another imposing their will upon you. Resisting the imposition of will upon you is not the same as imposing your will on another - it is reactive, not proactive. So long as one can avoid being provoked into a backlash of revenge or feeling threatened and go further than simply pushing back enough to remove the imposition of will, then you remain defensive.

The defender and attacker both attempt to impose their will on the outcome of the encounter.

( Before this goes in too many circles, I'll be clear that I find the "morality" of the Force as invented by Lucas out of a confused 70s-era pop-philosophy mashup of Abrahamic/Zoroastrian good-evil dualism, Far Eastern dualism of an entirely different sort, and Westernized Buddhism, to be a bit of a farce.)

Well, attack means you want to change the world. It means you are rejecting the reality in front of you, and enforcing your desires on it.

Defense means you are trying to enforce your desire to not be attacked.

One is imposing your will upon others, one is not. The Jedi are against the imposition of ones will on others, whether that is you imposing your will on another, or another imposing their will upon you. Resisting the imposition of will upon you is not the same as imposing your will on another - it is reactive, not proactive. So long as one can avoid being provoked into a backlash of revenge or feeling threatened and go further than simply pushing back enough to remove the imposition of will, then you remain defensive.

The defender and attacker both attempt to impose their will on the outcome of the encounter.

( Before this goes in too many circles, I'll be clear that I find the "morality" of the Force as invented by Lucas out of a confused 70s-era pop-philosophy mashup of Abrahamic/Zoroastrian good-evil dualism, Far Eastern dualism of an entirely different sort, and Westernized Buddhism, to be a bit of a farce.)

Well you posted and were answered, either way.

The force is to be used for defense and knowledge, never for attack --Fanboys hate that constraint

Apparently that lesson wasn't taught very often, since you've got Qui-Gon, Obi-Won and Anakin force slamming bots and people like it's going out of style and Yoda playing frisbee Senate booths.

Maybe it's like bar fighting rules. No weapons allowed, but a chair isn't a weapon, it's a chair.

Bonus points to those of you who get the reference.

The force is to be used for defense and knowledge, never for attack --Fanboys hate that constraint

Apparently that lesson wasn't taught very often, since you've got Qui-Gon, Obi-Won and Anakin force slamming bots and people like it's going out of style and Yoda playing frisbee Senate booths.

Well Obi-Wan is a noted bio-supremist. He doesn't really regard droids as people. Note the following evidence from the movies:

1. Remarks to drex that "if droids could think none of us would be here".

2. Chastises Anakin for putting too much faith in R2-D2.

3. Has completely put R2-D2 out of his mind by Episode IV (don't seem to recall ever owning a droid).

Plus occasional moments in TCW where he takes Anakin to task for not regularly wiping his droid's memories.

And Yoda probably thinks he's defending the Republic from Palpatine. Though to be honest, by that point, the Jedi order isn't a shining example of Light Side principles. They were falling pretty low by that point.