Analyze the stark difference between Episodes 4-6 and 1-3 in terms of the lack of a Han Solo-type character. Perhaps Harrison Ford’s acting carried the first three films, but the absence of this sort of character weighed heavily on the other films and put the burden on Hayden Christensen’s Annakin. If the same would have happened in 4-6, Luke Skywalker would have had to carry the weight, and it doesn’t appear he could have pulled it off. The Han Solo story and characterization appears to have added more interest for the audience, leaving Luke’s grander story in the background, where it effectively progressed.
Great article idea. Han Solo is one of the most important parts of the original trilogy and the prequels put less focus on the archetype and more on comic relief, mostly from Jar Jar. – Austin Bender7 years ago
I've always thought that Anakin's characterization would've benefited a lot more if he'd started off as a swashbunkler-esque rogue young man, instead of a whiny little child. – CalvinLaw7 years ago
I think there is some truth to this. However, I think the larger problem with the prequels is the poor writing, campiness, and bad acting, with the exceptions of Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, and Ewan McGregor. Ewan McGregor's amazing performance in Episode III almost single-handedly rescues the film. It is also less campy because of the dark tone. – JLaurenceCohen7 years ago
Interesting....but the prequels had more problems than just that it was missing a scoundrel. Wrapped within that character is humor, risk, adventure, etc. Luke was the perfect angel, it seemed, so Han Solo was more fun? The prequels lacked characters like Han Solo who we cared about. – Candice Evenson7 years ago
Absolutely. The prequels also lacked something worthy of fear. The robots were comical, as were the Trade Federation. Darth Maul LOOKED scary, but almost to an exaggerated sense. – damfer217 years ago