Author Topic: Why wasn't Anakin Older in Episode I?  (Read 893 times)

Offline Scott

  • Staff Member
  • Jedi Guardian
  • *
  • Posts: 18324
  • Get Some
    • View Profile
    • JediDefender
Why wasn't Anakin Older in Episode I?
« on: October 5, 2004, 11:42 AM »
And how much more different could Episode's II and III have been?

I was thinking about this last night in the fact that Anakin could have been as old as Luke was, on an Outer Rim world living with his mom and as a slave.  The parallel between Luke and Anakin one succeeding and one failing in their journey through the force would have made the contrast of the two Trilogies much more powerful

He still could have been a podracer
He still could have been cute
He still could have been "good"

He would have had some flaws in character (like Luke does) and the Love story could have been taken care of in Episode I instead of II, the pregnancy and duel in II instead of III.  And have III be about the rise of the Empire and the wiping out of the Republic and birth of the rebellion .  This way III could have bridged a longer time span bringing the gap of time between III and IV closer.

That is my biggest beef with the prequels right now, he told the story and tied up some loose ends, but the rebellion and having Vader for a full Episode III instead of a cameo at the end.  A Rebellion meeting being too simplistic and 20 years of SW timeline being left to be filled by EU (shudder)

Now, if the TV series deals with this and Vader is the central character and there is the Rebellion story fleshed out some more, than I'm a little more tolerant of what has happened.  I just am now seeing it as a big opportunity lost for a cool movie...Episode 3.5 would be sooooo keen in my mind

Offline Brian

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 11081
    • View Profile
Re: Why wasn't Anakin Older in Episode I?
« Reply #1 on: October 5, 2004, 11:51 AM »
That's a very good idea Scott, and something I have thought about from time to time as well.  I think that would have fixed a lot of people's problems with the prequels in general.  I even saw some people say that Star Wars wouldn't have gotten the "bad rap" if the prequel trilogy had started with a movie like AOTC.  Which, what I think they are focusing on, was Anakin being more of a "teenager" type character, not the little yipee kid from TPM.  I do think the suggestions you made would make this whole prequel world a better place, and I think it would have been much better received.  It kind of makes me sad the way that even in some respects the OT has lost its luster due to the poor decisions with these prequels (and a few SE changes).  Star Wars used to be universally appreciated and loved (and maybe, due to all the people I have seen buying the DVDs, still is), but now in some circles it seems like it is "cool" to dislike Star Wars.  Much of that I believe is due to the prequels, specifically Episode I.  Good topic, and great ideas Scott....ah, what could have been. :)

SilverZ

  • Guest
Re: Why wasn't Anakin Older in Episode I?
« Reply #2 on: October 5, 2004, 07:31 PM »
You're so totally right. The moment I walked out of AOTC I felt that TPM was a waste of precious time and the story should have started right before the AOTC events. The only info you need to walk away from TPM with is that Anakin was a slave who was discovered by the Jedi. The rest should have been backstory that could be communicated through dialog in Clones that would have made the story seem much richer. Watching TPM and little Anakin is more nauseating than entertaining.

You guys ever see the concept art of TPM Anakin before he got zapped down to a 9 year old? I remember seeing one specific piece on display in the UK Art of Star Wars expo of him as an early teen, about 14 or so. The placard next to it specifically mentioned Lucas changing his age later on to emphasise the impact of separation from his mother by the Jedi. Way to go, George.  ::)

Offline Morgbug

  • Old
  • Jedi Guardian
  • *
  • Posts: 16000
  • mmm. pemmican.
    • View Profile
Re: Why wasn't Anakin Older in Episode I?
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2004, 12:39 PM »
So Lucas = Freud?  WTF? 

I, on the other hand, hadn't thought of this time line, but seeing more development and exploration of the time post-creation of Vader and pre-ANH would have been exciting to see. 

I do not see the need for the separation issue, he could just as easily been an orphan and achieved the same impact.  Granted the Tusken Slaughter is helpful in the development of Anakin's 'character' but I think that could have been achieved with similar, but different motivation for Anakin, a different love interest say.  Then we wouldn't have had that weird dream sequence.  Bad dream my ass ::)  Pitch a tent much? 

Taking Scott's suggestions though are very appealing: no waste of time with a wooden young Anakin.  No/less sound of music love story type scenes in II. 

As a digression though, I'm a bit baffled by Lucas and some of his comments.  He has indicated (yes, here we go again) that Han couldn't have shot first as it would diminish his character to a simple murderer (something I think wasn't beyond Han initially) rather than just a scoundrel of sorts (we'll ignore dictionary definitions for the moment).  Essentially he's saying there's no merit in having a murderer (Han) redeem himself through his actions.  Yet in contrast and by parallel we have Anakin/Vader, someone that essentially becomes a reasonable example of a mass murderer in a somewhat Nazi-esque style (torture, execution, blowing up a whole planet with billions of people) and redeeming him by saving his son, one single individual is ok?  I don't see how this isn't a conflict in his own ideology.  Yeah, I know, let it go, but really. 
Minivans: a sign of the apocalypse.

Offline Famine

  • Noderator
  • Jedi Master
  • *
  • Posts: 5050
  • Who watches The Famine?
    • View Profile
Re: Why wasn't Anakin Older in Episode I?
« Reply #4 on: November 4, 2004, 03:10 PM »
As a digression though, I'm a bit baffled by Lucas and some of his comments.  He has indicated (yes, here we go again) that Han couldn't have shot first as it would diminish his character to a simple murderer (something I think wasn't beyond Han initially) rather than just a scoundrel of sorts (we'll ignore dictionary definitions for the moment).  Essentially he's saying there's no merit in having a murderer (Han) redeem himself through his actions.  Yet in contrast and by parallel we have Anakin/Vader, someone that essentially becomes a reasonable example of a mass murderer in a somewhat Nazi-esque style (torture, execution, blowing up a whole planet with billions of people) and redeeming him by saving his son, one single individual is ok?  I don't see how this isn't a conflict in his own ideology.  Yeah, I know, let it go, but really.

Wise words. I think that's the most sense I have seen you make, Bug. ;)

Kevin
The picture kept, will remind me...