Why the Birth of the Rebellion Scene Is Not Extremely Important!

[Imperial Monarche]

While including it would not have been a bad idea and will be nice to see when the DVD comes out, but people are kicking up such a stink about this scene being cut and how it's so extremely important to show in this movie because it's the beginning of the Rebellion. It almost makes the most sense to leave it out for two major reasons.

Major:
1. This trilogy is about Anakin's rise and fall (the OT being his redemption story), how the galaxy went for peace under the Republic to tyranny under the Empire, the fall of the Jedi and reemergence of the Sith and the Clone Wars. This trilogy was suppose to end making you feel depressed, but have just a spark of hope. That hope was the twins. So, when the first half of the saga is over and you feel pretty crappy, you pick back up the story in the midst of a civil war and twenty years of the Empire has passed. As stillakid would love to see in these PT movies, and I wouldn't be surprised if he agreed with me, is that the birth of the Rebellion is implied within those twenty years, having risen up slowly between ROTS and ANH. So, showing this event would have been out of place with what Lucas had intended with the PT and would have just been another "fan moment". Every single event doesn't need to be explained.

2. Rebelling against what?! The only part in this movie where a meeting between the senators would make since is after Palps declares himself emperor. Anytime before that would just be a situation where they would basically be saying, "If he doesn't lay down his powers then we're rebelling." The declaration of the Empire comes at a time in the movie where the blood is flowing and it's building to the climax. Having a slow conversation piece would have felt out of place with the flow of the movie. But, like I said before, what are the rebelling against so soon. He had just declared himself emperor. They don't know what he plans to do. They don't like him, sure, but there's no call for a rebellion. Only after a few years of tyranny and seeing what he really was capable of would be cause for a rebellion. It would have been a rushed scene that would have made more confusion over sense.

[2-1B]

I want to see this stuff in the deleted scenes but really, it's for the best that it got cut.

I feel this way because some of the coolest scenes in the movie were added later on so I'll gladly give up this political stuff to make way for the more emotional stuff.

[Bacta Beast]

I disagree. I think it was much more important than the time they spent on Anakin trying to get those buzz droids off of Obi-Wan's ship! Just let him blast him off, show how great a pilot, & marksman he is, and go on to something else.
And as much as everyone found it funny, The stuff with R2 and the battle could have been cut also. I think the meeting of senators that lays the foundation that will grow the rebellion eventually is much more important. And it would have been really interesting if Anakin were there also.

[Devo]

Well I think it was implied enough. Bail Organa was in the film and he clearly has no love for Palpatine and what he has become. That was enough for me. I didn't need a scene stating outright that a rebel alliance would be organised. I'm content to assume that it starts between the trilogies, off screen. There are other things that were left off screen which I'm not happy about but I won't go into them.

I would have rathered they leave the scene with Yoda landing on Dagobah in actually. I wasn't best pleased to hear it didn't make the theatrical cut.

[Sith Lord 0498]

I agree with Imperial Monarche that the senators wouldn't truly be rebelling against anything yet because the Empire hasn't been official declared yet. However, it serves to give weight to Padme's beliefs that the Republic has become evil. Even if they only kept the one meeting with Padme and the Senators and left the other scenes out, that would be enough. Then, it would better establish the rift that grows between Anakin and Padme and why she can't stand by his side.

Political beliefs have already been established as a point they disagree on in theory. This would've helped to cement it further when those separate views become fact: Anakin pledging himself to the Empire because it's what he wanted the Republic to be and Padme standing by the Republic she served before the Clone Wars.

In one sense, this would show the birth of the Rebellion, but it would also serve to enhance Anakin's story as well. If he truly wanted to help the Republic, he'd be pledging his allegiance to this movement--not Palpatine's "New Order."

[Imperial Monarche]

I agree with Imperial Monarche that the senators wouldn't truly be rebelling against anything yet because the Empire hasn't been official declared yet. However, it serves to give weight to Padme's beliefs that the Republic has become evil. Even if they only kept the one meeting with Padme and the Senators and left the other scenes out, that would be enough. Then, it would better establish the rift that grows between Anakin and Padme and why she can't stand by his side.

Political beliefs have already been established as a point they disagree on in theory. This would've helped to cement it further when those separate views become fact: Anakin pledging himself to the Empire because it's what he wanted the Republic to be and Padme standing by the Republic she served before the Clone Wars.

In one sense, this would show the birth of the Rebellion, but it would also serve to enhance Anakin's story as well. If he truly wanted to help the Republic, he'd be pledging his allegiance to this movement--not Palpatine's "New Order."

Thank you, but the one meeting scene would still have been unneeded and somewhat irrelevent. You mention that it would "solidify" the riff between Anakin staying with the new Empire and Padme going the complete opposite way. That riff was established when Padme confronts Anakin on Mustafar. If you really think about it, the idea for Rebellion started when they decided to separate and hide the twins from Palps and Vader. This was ultimate defiance because they knew that both children would later come back older and groomed the save the Republic. I still stick to my guns that it would have just seemed rushed to have a Rebel Alliance groundwork laying in this movie.

The scene with Yoda landing on Dagobah is another scene that would have just been cool to see. I like the fact that Lucas at least kept one secret for later on, and this is one that wasn't a secret until ROTS. To find out in ESB the location of Yoda's exile is indeed a surprise, but it's also a surprise that Yoda's story is not over.

[stillakid]

Naturally, I disagree. :D This SAGA was supposed to be about the fall of the Republic and how it overcame a tyrannical Empire. To tell that story, a variety of characters and story threads were necessary to weave the fabric that makes the cohesive story.

But as you point out, Lucas lost his way and decided that for some reason, the Prequels would be "about" Anakin Skywalker and his whiny problems. So instead of seeing interesting sequences in which the political structure falls apart, we are treated to videogame antics and over the top melodrama not even fit for Days of Our Lives.

One glaring annoyance in ROTS is the overwhelming approval in the Senate chambers after Palps announces the "Grand Empire." What?! :sur: Where did that approval come from? Why didn't we ever see the political machinations that made that possible? We're just expected to assume that it is a rational situation without just cause seen onscreen?

So I think that George dropped the ball on this "birth of the Republic" sequence primarily be missing the point of the entire saga that HE ESTABLISHED originally. Want to disagree? Then explain this: had the Original films been "about" Anakin Skywalker, then why not one mention of Padme from Vader, or a discussion between Vader and Palps about this saving lives business? Where did all of that stuff go in the later years of Anakin Skywalker? And don't try to play that "Anakin is dead" card here because it isn't applicable. While "Anakin" might be "dead," the reasons for him turning aren't. He turned because he wanted the power to save lives per his promise to him mother. Why not one mention EVER in the OT about this if this story is supposed to be ABOUT him?

So I say, categorically, no to this nonsense that the SAGA is ABOUT Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars is ABOUT the fall and recovery of the Republic utilizing a variety of characters to do it. And as such, ROTS continued the failure of the Prequels in that regard by omitting any true meaningful political sequence.

[BoShek]

When my brother and I came out of the theatre, I asked him if he saw Mon Mothma at all and he said no. I came home and looked all over the Internet and saw her scenes were cut. BOY I WAS MAD! One 30 second scene with her, Jar Jar, Ask and the others would have been fine.

[JimJamBonds]

One 30 second scene with her, Jar Jar, Ask and the others would have been fine.

There WAS that 30 second scene, its right after Palps is saved. :D

I think the the implacation that there are people out there that aren't so sure about Palps is just fine. Padme wasn't so sure, Bail definitly was shown to be anti Palpatine. Remember the timeline and ANH is 18 years from the end of ROTS, that is a long time to get things moving. The seed of the rebellion was shown to have been planted, I think it was done in a nice subtle way.

I'm making my way through the novel and so far I'm glad that what was presented in the book about the rebellion didn't make the film.

Jim Jam

[Imperial Monarche]

Naturally, I disagree. :D This SAGA was supposed to be about the fall of the Republic and how it overcame a tyrannical Empire. To tell that story, a variety of characters and story threads were necessary to weave the fabric that makes the cohesive story.

But as you point out, Lucas lost his way and decided that for some reason, the Prequels would be "about" Anakin Skywalker and his whiny problems. So instead of seeing interesting sequences in which the political structure falls apart, we are treated to videogame antics and over the top melodrama not even fit for Days of Our Lives.

One glaring annoyance in ROTS is the overwhelming approval in the Senate chambers after Palps announces the "Grand Empire." What?! :sur: Where did that approval come from? Why didn't we ever see the political machinations that made that possible? We're just expected to assume that it is a rational situation without just cause seen onscreen?

So I think that George dropped the ball on this "birth of the Republic" sequence primarily be missing the point of the entire saga that HE ESTABLISHED originally. Want to disagree? Then explain this: had the Original films been "about" Anakin Skywalker, then why not one mention of Padme from Vader, or a discussion between Vader and Palps about this saving lives business? Where did all of that stuff go in the later years of Anakin Skywalker? And don't try to play that "Anakin is dead" card here because it isn't applicable. While "Anakin" might be "dead," the reasons for him turning aren't. He turned because he wanted the power to save lives per his promise to him mother. Why not one mention EVER in the OT about this if this story is supposed to be ABOUT him?

So I say, categorically, no to this nonsense that the SAGA is ABOUT Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars is ABOUT the fall and recovery of the Republic utilizing a variety of characters to do it. And as such, ROTS continued the failure of the Prequels in that regard by omitting any true meaningful political sequence.

And I have to disagree with you. The OT is clearly about Anakin and his redemption, maybe not when ANH came out, but by the time ESB was released, that was the story. Otherwise, the climatic battle in ROTJ would not have been important. I will agree that with the PT, it does very much make the story more of Anakin's instead of the battle to regain the Republic. I still think the birth of the Rebellion scene would have been rushed to have been in this movie. Maybe this is something that could be explored in the T.V. series. And of all people, I can't believe you don't see what I mean here.

[stillakid]

And I have to disagree with you. The OT is clearly about Anakin and his redemption, maybe not when ANH came out, but by the time ESB was released, that was the story.
I counter-disagree. :D If what you say is true, then why is exactly half of ROTJ ABOUT saving Han Solo from the clutches of Jabba the Hutt? What's that got to do with saving the soul of Anakin Skywalker? :confused:


Otherwise, the climatic battle in ROTJ would not have been important.
I never implied that the Anakin story thread wasn't important. I merely said that it was just one thread of many in a much larger story where every thread has its purpose. While Luke's victory over Palpatine was indeed very important, it was also equally important that Han Solo and co. win their victory on the surface and that Lando and co. achieve their goals out in space. Each was important in the larger saga which was about the Rebellion overthrowing the evil Empire. Has this been ABOUT Anakin primarily, then we would have not spent so much time on Tatooine with Luke, with Han Solo as he puts the moves on Leia, with the gang as they rescued Han from Jabba, with Luke on Dagobah, etc. We would have instead seen more scenes focusing on Vader as he discovered the identity of Luke, struggled with the new knowledge and a further "betrayal" by Padme and Obi Wan...etc... I hope you get the idea. The grand "fabric" of the OT was about so much more than just focusing on the problems and concerns of Darth/Anakin. It was ABOUT everything that was happening.


I will agree that with the PT, it does very much make the story more of Anakin's instead of the battle to regain the Republic. I still think the birth of the Rebellion scene would have been rushed to have been in this movie. Maybe this is something that could be explored in the T.V. series. And of all people, I can't believe you don't see what I mean here.
:) I feel misunderstood. My advocacy wouldn't be to merely slap the cut sequence in there just to have it. My re-edit would involve taking the focus from being merely about Whine-akin and redirecting the entire Prequel Trilogy to fall into line with what the OT established as the point. That this is a 6 part saga about the fall of the Republic and the struggle to retake it. And in that, we would refine the Anakin/Padme relationship to take a fraction of the screentime it takes to build (and fail :rolleyes: ) and reallocate more screentime to showing the political machinations that take place to contribute to the fall of the Republic. As it stands now, we still have no idea why the Separatists are ... well, separating. All we know is that some systems are and that some in the Republic don't want them to. Uh, hello? Why? What's it all about? We never find out in the course of three movies and are merely asked to just accept that it's happening. Okay, I suppose that setup is fine for a bunch of mindless videogame loving kids who don't have the patience to sit through an actual plot, but I refuse to apologize for expecting more even if this is apparently just a stupid sci fi genre film. I'll accept thin or no plot in a porn :cool: but then again, I don't think many people watch that genre for the plot. It could be argued that all sci fi is allowed to be dumb and plotless and to expect any more would be expecting too much. But I disagree. Why? Because the OT had a solid plot and solid acting so it was only natural to expect the same from the Prequels. No?