One of the things that the new Star Wars film has done, for good or ill, is make many of us take a good, hard look at the last time we had new Star Wars movies. The prequel trilogy is generally regarded as a lesser set of films than the first batch. But could they have been better? How much would it have taken to turn Revenge of the Sith from what it is, the best of a mediocre batch, into a great film in its own right? Somebody has taken on the task of doing just that. Check out the results below.
It’s an interesting modification of the story to say the least. There are some solid changes in there that would have likely improved the story. As one who recently watched the prequel trilogy as part of a marathon leading to to The Force Awakens, one of the many problems with the trilogy, as the video from Belated Media discusses, is that we don’t really see that much of Anakin and Obi-Wan working together. We are told that these two are close, but we rarely see any of it. General Grievous is also a wasted character, as for somebody who has never seen The Clone Wars series would have no reason to view him as a serious threat. He’s just a droid with a chest cold.
The plot hole that order 66 creates in the original trilogy is another item of note. Obi-Wan Kenobi brings a lot of attention to himself in a spaceport crawling with Stormtroopers. Surely, if Stormtroopers have a standing order to eradicate Jedi it wouldn’t be so easily ignored when Kenobi lops off somebody’s arm with a lightsaber.
Possibly the most interesting aspect of rewriting the trilogy is the way it doesn’t make references to the original films. Not only do we never see Darth Vader in this version, but the name Darth Vader is never used. We see Luke Skywalker being born, but there is no reference to Leia. The idea here is that somebody watching the films in episode order would still be surprised by those major reveals, as they’re not given away. It’s something that we honestly hadn’t considered, and it works. There’s no reason to make those references here. If you haven’t seen the original trilogy, then those moments are spoiled. If you have seen the original trilogy, then you don’t need those moments, as they’re understood anyway.
If there’s a problem with this version, it’s the idea that Yoda believes the Sith must be defeated from within. He and Obi-Wan show no understanding of that whatever in the original trilogy. The fact that Luke tries to turn his father back, while Yoda and Obi-Wan are training him to fight Vader is what makes Luke unique in the story. Luke doesn’t just blindly follow the old Jedi ways. Which is why he wins.
What do you think? Would this have made Revenge of the Sith good, or, at least, better?