I was watching Star Wars IV: A New Hope last night on television, and somehow it occurred to me for the first time that a new generation who watches the six movie cycle starting with The Phantom Menace is going to wind up with a very different perception of the story than the original audience got. This is true in terms of a few big plot points, like that whole thing about Darth Vader being Luke's father, but also in terms of some broader atmospheric points. The beginning A New Hope is cloaked in a sense of mystery. For all we know old Ben Kenobi really is just a crazy old man and Han Solo's skepticism about "hokey religions" is justified. The audience rides along with Luke throughout the film, learning to trust in the power of the Force. New audiences won't have that experience, they'll already know much much more than Luke does about the Jedi, the Empire, the Skywalker clan, etc.
« Historical Document | Main | Some Broder Perspective »
Star Wars In Order
03 Jul 2008 02:41 pm
Comments (141)
this is why you should watch movies/read books in the order they were made.
There's a debate among Star Wars Nerds as to whether you should have your children watch the movies in the order they were released, in chronological order, or hide the first three movies where you keep your porn.
I keep waffling between the first and the third.
I insisted my son watch them in order of release.
He thinks I'm a mean old man.
Definitely would recommend the youngins watch them in order they were made. I think Lucas et. al knew this though. The question is whether they created 1 through 3 to appeal to the existing audience more than the new fan base.
People are actually gonna watch the prequels? The only people who really cared about them were those who grew up on the OT. I doubt younger people today care.
Also, after watching the new 1-3 do you really think they will make it to the old 1-3? I mean, I wouldn't watch past the first one if it that is how it were introduced to me.
Someone who watched the movies in the original order of release could hold on to the memory of the first 2-and-one-third movies and keep hoping things were going to get better.
I can't imagine anyone starting with Episodes 1 and 2 deciding that there's any potential payoff in watching four more movies, so they'll never get around to encountering Luke at all.
I am only letting my children watch IV, V and VI, and only the non-digitally enhanced versions. The new closing sequence of Return of the Jedi is an atrocity. I just want to celebrate with the Ewoks.
erm, fun with antecedents ... hide episodes I, II, and III where you keep your porn.
People are actually gonna watch the prequels? The only people who really cared about them were those who grew up on the OT. I doubt younger people today care.
You're assuming the new generation will watch the prequels. I have more faith in them than that.
Another excellent argument for destroying all copies of all the second round of Star Wars movies, and doing a memory wipe on all who saw them. As if their general lameness weren't reason enough.
That makes me sad. If I ever have children, they are watching Episode IV first. I was 13 when Phantom Menace was released, and luckily I was already a die-hard Star Wars fans. I wonder how many children saw that movie without having seen the originals first.
This could create a vastly different view of the movie in the future. If people are introduced to the series with Phantom Menace, will Phantom Menace -- despite all its flaws -- leave a more positive impression because of its introduction of much of the story's wonder? Also, the very ending of Episode III -- with baby Luke being cradled by his aunt while she and Uncle Owen look at the setting sun on Tantooine just as Luke did in that iconic shot in Episode IV -- would probably lose its entire meaning. What about future attitudes regarding special effects? Would the slick look of the prequels be held in higher regard than the filthy look of the original trilogy? Will there be revisionist movements claiming the superiority of the prequels?
In the future, Star Wars fans who grew up enjoying the original trilogy first may have to endure the unendurable.
I like Jonathan Rosenbaum's take on the Phantom Menace: It's not so bad, for a Taco Bell commercial.
I am only letting my children watch IV, V and VI, and only the non-digitally enhanced versions. The new closing sequence of Return of the Jedi is an atrocity. I just want to celebrate with the Ewoks.
A New Hope? Please. It's Star Wars, you watch it first, and keep the people you love away from the prequels.
On a related note, you also pretend that The Matrix was a one-off.
This post assumes that the production and the release of the prequels actually happened.
There would also be confusion generated by watching them for the first time ep 1-6, insomuch as how did dull, whiny, idiot Anakin in eps 2 and 3 become badass Darth Vader in eps 4-6.
Watching them 4-6, 1-3 leaves you just angry about it, rather than confused.
New audiences won't have that experience, they'll already know much much more than Luke does about the Jedi, the Empire, the Skywalker clan, etc.
I'm not so sure. It's possible to feel the emotions and anxieties of the characters even if you know more than they do. For example, I thought the end of Apollo 13 was pretty gripping, even though I was pretty sure they were going to survive.
Sure, they'll know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, but they'll also know that Luke doesn't know that.
What SDM said. They can pry my circa-1994 letterbox VHS tapes from my cold dead hands. Yub-yub 4-ever!
Even better are the fan laserdisc-to-DVD transfers of the OT, but the only one I've been able to get so far is IV.
I am only letting my children watch IV, V and VI, and only the non-digitally enhanced versions. The new closing sequence of Return of the Jedi is an atrocity. I just want to celebrate with the Ewoks.
As an over-protective parent, my children will not be exposed to the 'first' three until I think they are old enough, and I may just never tell them the first three exist. I still can't clear certain images out of my mind..."the sand is so rough, but your skin is so smooth,"...."Anakin, you're breaking my heart...."
Hopefully people in the next generation will have parents who care about their well being and show them the movies in the order that they were produced. Ideally the theatrical releases of the originals not the destroyed new ones where Han doesn't shoot first.
What about the animated Clone Wars? Where does that go- with my anime porn?
I think the thing to do is watch it 4-6, 1-3, and then 4-6 again, which makes it really clear that Anakin skywalker is the centerpiece of the story. especially 6.
I still can't clear certain images out of my mind..."the sand is so rough, but your skin is so smooth,"
Burned forever in my mind is the closely related "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." Does anyone have a .45 I can borrow and a bullet I can buy?
Having the gift of hindsight sure makes that kiss before swinging over the open air shaft a little creepier, too.
Having the gift of hindsight sure makes that kiss before swinging over the open air shaft a little creepier, too.
Thats nothing compared to the kiss at the beginning of Empire.
Having the gift of hindsight sure makes that kiss before swinging over the open air shaft a little creepier, too.
Hell, what about when Leia makes out with Luke in the Hoth sickbay to bother Han?
As a father of two young children I can say that I struggled with this issue until coming to the only moral conclusion: for as long I can control their access to media, they will not know the prequels existed. When they do discover them and do not react with the appropriate mix of shame, disgust and loathing, I will punish them. Repeatedly. Until they learn.
Dave:
Jinx.
Bah. You bunch of elitists.
My six year old and I watched them in 'proper' order (1,2,3,etc) and enjoyed them just fine. (We did some skipping in Revenge of the Sith when they were slaughtering children, etc.)
In geeky sincerity, it was kind of wierdly fulfilling to watch the various generational story lines about father and son, etc, with my son.
Poopie on you all.
Chuck:
Don't blame us when you end up with a grandson named Jar Jar.
It's possible to feel the emotions and anxieties of the characters even if you know more than they do.
I dunno.
For example: the introduction of Yoda in Empire. Luke has gone to this planet to meet some great Jedi Master, and he finds this little green ... uhh ... thing. The audience shares Luke's bewilderment, and his shock when he realizes the little green thing is the Jedi Master.
If you've seen the prequels, and you know who Yoda is, then you're a step ahead of Luke, no longer with him.
3rd paragraph (below the picture) starts a great discussion of watching Star Wars with your child for the first time. http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/07/1207/121907.html
A more interesting example is folks who watch Grindhouse first, and then watch Death Proof.
In the separate feature, Tarantino completely destroys the setup of the Kurt Russell reveal shot in the restaurant in Tennessee. The re-cut kills the whole satantic impact.
What up with that? Quentin is normally infallible.
There's also this.
I could almost believe that the R2D2 stuff - viewed in light of the prequels, R2D2 is one of the masterminds of the Rebellion - was kind of intended from 1977, but the Chewie stuff - Han is the unwitting front man buffoon for Chewie's own Rebellion activities - seems more blatantly like the result of just wanting to shoehorn a popular character into the prequels. (And that's what I honestly think was the case with the R2D2 stuff as well.)
3rd paragraph (below the picture) starts a great discussion of watching Star Wars with your child for the first time. http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/07/1207/121907.html
As long as it becomes conventional wisdom to say "Never watch the three prequels untill you have seen the original three movies, and even after you have seen the originals, don't expect much out of the newer series."
I don't think it will be difficult to make this the standard procedure. People usually don't watch older movies unless someone recomends them, so unless someone actually recomends that a young person watch the newer series first, such a travesty is unlikely to happen.
I think the prequels are somewhat of a red herring here. I was born in 1979, and I have never had a "sense of mystery" around Star Wars simply because I have no memory of not having seen it. It was watched so regularly, whether by my immediate family or my older cousins, that, in my earliest memories of it, I was already familiar with the plot. Similarly with, say, Casablanca, or Citizen Kane, or Gone With The Wind, I had little sense of "mystery" around them by the time I watched them, because they are so woven into our pop culture that I knew the basic outline of their plots simply through osmosis. But, like Star Wars, those movies are good enough that I still had a great experience with them (well, except Gone With The Wind).
How gratifying it is to encounter such a large group of people who recognize evil when they see it.
I'm firmly on the side of "the memory hole" when it comes to Eps I-III. The porn drawer is too good for them.
It is tempting to give Episode I a spot in the porn drawer. I admit to watching it more than once. I thought that John Williams did a good job and that the film was pretty awesome so long as a lightsaber was powered on and nobody was speaking, which was at least a third of the time. The Phantom Editor had something to work with in Episode I.
But, in light of the sequels, even Episode I must be banished. It's rare that a sequel manages to open a tunnel back through time and suck the goodness out of its predecessor, but Ep II was just that awful. Anything that reminds me of it is painful.
I was about 30 when Phantom Menace came out. I asked a 20-ish friend in my art class whether I should bother with it.
She, hesitantly: Well... how did you feel about the original movie?
I, solemnly: It changed my life.
She, decisively: Oh, then you'll HATE this one.
I eventually tried to watch TPM on video, but fell asleep both times - so I can only confirm that I hated the parts I managed to see. I guess I'd want my hypothetical kids to watch IV-V-VI first, and then I'd deploy the other trilogy as legal knockout drugs. (Apparently, dosing kids with Nyquil is a big no-no these days.)
What I'd REALLY like is for someone non-Lucas to remake or completely re-conceive I-II-III, so that they'd better match the original trilogy. At the very least, someone should release non-director's cuts...
You're in Aspen and decided to watch Star Wars last night? WTF?
In any case, I will show them to my son in the order they were released. (If I even show him the last 3 at all, which is debateable, given that I refused to even see Episode 3.)
Moreover, my son will know them by their correct names: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. None of this "Episode 4: A New Hope" crap.
"I think the prequels are somewhat of a red herring here. I was born in 1979, and I have never had a "sense of mystery" around Star Wars simply because I have no memory of not having seen it. It was watched so regularly, whether by my immediate family or my older cousins, that, in my earliest memories of it, I was already familiar with the plot."
I think it's definitely folks who were born between '74 and '82 who are see the Lucas dreck as the gospels of their era.
The new closing sequence of Return of the Jedi is an atrocity. I just want to celebrate with the Ewoks.
Is it wrong that I actually prefer the newer ending scene for RotJ? The music was more melancholy, and had far more weight than singing Ewoks were going to have.
The beginning A New Hope is cloaked in a sense of mystery. For all we know old Ben Kenobi really is just a crazy old man and Han Solo's skepticism about "hokey religions" is justified.
Yeah, good point. I feel like the writers basically got the whole story wrong in the prequels, though. From the original movies, I always had the impression that the Jedis were going to be a little more like druids or roving Taoists-- more like a withdrawn, contemplative group of ascetics; more like a bunch of primitivist-anarchists, and less like part of the "system." In the prequels, they've got a huge building on the main, most urban planet, are running something like an exclusive priavte school, and have a fancy 80,000th floor Jedi Council chamber. It all seems a bit too materialistic for them.
Also I don't like the part about Anakin being more powerful than Yoda. More powerful than Yoda? Give me a break! I think the better version would be that Anakin is able to help the nascent Empire beat mostly all the Jedis because he's a talented Jedi himself + plus he betrays them and therefore is able to help people get the drop on them-- not because he's the best Jedi. The lesson is that cowardice and treachery can cause a lot of harm, not that having the biggest dick (more WMD than the next nation, or whatever) is the most important thing in the world.
Overall the prequels seemed a lot more about technology, material wealth, and power than they did about the human element and what humans can overcome through their faith in and reliance on human powers and human cooperation.
I was watching Star Wars IV: A New Hope last night on television, and somehow it occurred to me for the first time that a new generation who watches the six movie cycle starting with The Phantom Menace is going to wind up with a very different perception of the story than the original audience got.
Yes, well, for starters, us old folk think of "A New Hope" as simply "Star Wars".
Is it wrong that I actually prefer the newer ending scene for RotJ?
Yes. The original ewok song was awesome. Why would you want melancholy here? Its a celebration, bitches! Even more so if you view it as following like 12 hours of movie, incl the prequels.
I think it's definitely folks who were born between '74 and '82 who are see the Lucas dreck as the gospels of their era.
Probably a little older. I was born in '70 and Star Wars the first movie I ever saw in theatre. If you were born in '82, you will never have seen them in the theater (until the rerelease, at least). They were still hyped up in the mid to late '80s, when someone born in '82 would have gotten to them, as I recall, but I don't think it is quite the same.
"Yes, well, for starters, us old folk think of "A New Hope" as simply "Star Wars"."
If you say that in a public place, George Lucas can sue you.
Well, more likely, future generations will view the first three episodes as a bunch of crappy movies from the early oughts and the rest as mainly of historical interest. The Star Wars legacy will be dead within a decade.
I think Ohioboy's experiences reflect that of most people anyway. I (born in 1980) knew Darth Vader was Luke's father before I saw even the first film.
P.S. How dare Matt write about movies when there is so much suffering in the world! (Inside joke for Ross Douthat readers.)
For all we know old Ben Kenobi really is just a crazy old man and Han Solo's skepticism about "hokey religions" is justified.
Bad example, since Vader uses the Force in a demonstratable way to choke an Imperial officer-- three or four scenes before Solo meets Obi-Wan. But I agree with the general principle.
I think Ohioboy's experiences reflect that of most people anyway. I (born in 1980) knew Darth Vader was Luke's father before I saw even the first film.
P.S. How dare Matt write about movies when there is so much suffering in the world! (Inside joke for Ross Douthat readers.)
Lucas should release a new set of prequels.
Anakin and Obi-wan should be closer to being contemporaries (instead of Obi-wan being so much older), with the most obvious problem with Anakin's Jedi training being, as with Luke's, that he's being taught when he's too old. He's thus at risk of having already experienced too many corrupting, materialistic, non-Jedi influences and lessons that leave him too predisposed to seeing his Jedi training as access to raw power that can be used for selfish ends, instead of participation in a grander existence that requires balance and consideration in the whole for any initiative / efforts to use power or the Force to influence things to turn out for the best. Maybe his personality was a little flawed in the first place, but in any event his pilot/military connections and background have placed him in too much of a jock/dickhead culture that makes seeing the Force as something to be used for coercion and ambition too natural. His power is out of proportion to his morals and he ignores moral and pragmatic lessons in favor of dwelling on the promise of power.
Ewan McGregor talked about how, when filming his first fight scene, George Lucas called 'cut' and gently told him that they put the sound effects in later. I think that says something about the generational gap.
The prequels will be regarded the same as the Planet of the Apes sequels are: movies that people know exist but no one ever watches, unless they're home sick from school and happen to come across them on TV.
"They were still hyped up in the mid to late '80s, when someone born in '82 would have gotten to them, as I recall, but I don't think it is quite the same."
I knew a cohort born in the late 70's that universally obsessed with them.
There were re-releases, and videotape shouldn't be underestimated.
But virtue of the films slightly preceding their own theatrical-going days, it created a handed-down holy book effect emerging from the mists of days recently gone by.
-----
The proper sequencing is to watch 1-2-3, followed by 1-2-3 again. That way, you get the maximum Jar-Jar experience.
Yes, but at what point should you make your kid watch The Star Wars Holiday Special?
After the original Star Wars, which corresponds to the point in the sequence when it was released? (And will let them get a tantalizing glimpse of Boba Fett before they watch Empire.)
Or after they've watched the prequels? That way you can say: You think Jar Jar was bad, wait till you see the Wookie porn!
Even Aspen has Spike TV, heh. I'm for 'porn drawer,' if you absolutely cannot resist buying them.
The lesson is that cowardice and treachery can cause a lot of harm, not that having the biggest dick (more WMD than the next nation, or whatever) is the most important thing in the world.
It's only one of the places where Lucas seems to contradict his own mythology, too. He structures his own video games so it's harder to win as the 'Dark' than as the 'Light,' but all it takes is a little purple lightning and a switcheroo for a couple of Sith to overthrow the entire Jedi power structure.
the human element and what humans can overcome through their faith in and reliance on human powers and human cooperation.
Actually, this is what A New Hope - Return of the Jedi are about, and the prequels should be about the dangers of "losing the path" and doing things in the wrong order, the dangers of not having sensitivity for and consideration of the world around us, and the damage that treachery, cowardice and ambition can cause.
His power is out of proportion to his morals and he ignores moral and pragmatic lessons in favor of dwelling on the promise of power.
Like think about a cop- you don't want a cop who uses his position to feel up any woman he encounters as a pretense for looking for drugs. You want personalities who have a lot more consideration for the community than that, but who have the heart to use force when it's needed to stop a threat.
That's the kind of message Star Wars is about-- it's about things like what kind of personality you have to have to wield force in a way that is most beneficial for the community. Going to "the dark side" is when Beavis and Butthead end up being the guys who wield power, or when the good-guys decide that wielding their power like a Butthead would be easier.
If you are going to torment someon with the prequels, make sure that you have either some Star Trek (Original Cast only) or Classic Doctor Who (preferably Pertwee, Tom Baker, Or Peter Davidson) to calm their nerves and reassure them of the goodness of science fiction.
You could of course just deny that the prequels exist and insist on showing them the original 3.
I largely agree with what Swan said. If you watch 1-3 first, when you get to IV and after you get through the whole "Why doesn't Darth Vader recognize the droid he *built*?" and "why doesn't every red flag in the Empire go off when something happens on Tatooine?" kind of problems, you'll start to confront problems like "how can people like Han Solo and Grand Moff Tarkin not know that the Force-powered Jedi were the most important military force in the universe until about 17 years ago?" The Jedi in the prequels just aren't at all like the Jedi remembered in the original Star Wars.
Of course, neither are the Clone Wars or the events surrounding the death of the Jedi.
"A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights" seems like an odd way to describe "Palpatine triggered a pre-existing plan to shoot every Jedi in the galaxy in the back simultaneously." For 20 years I'd looked forward to seeing that "Vader hunting down the Jedi" story...
Y'know, that was my beef with the entire new trilogy. For 20+ years the Star Wars saga had been Luke Skywalker's story (and Han's and Leia's)-- but suddenly it became Darth Vader's.
And what in the course of those three extraneous films was anywhere near as compelling as Obi Wan's recap of the backstory in the (first) first film? In ten or so seconds Alec Guiness imbues Darth Vader with a sense of grandeur and tragedy. Lucas then spends six-plus hours of screen time making Darth Vader into the galaxy's biggest crybaby.
We learned everything we needed to know about Darth Vader the very first time we saw him in 1977. If you ask me, Star Wars jumped the shark here: "I'm your father."
Assuming you're going to watch all 6, I think the optimal order is: 4,5,1,2,3,6.
Star Wars is an epic, and thus should begin in media res, with episode 4. Ep 5 comes next to maintain the surprise of its various revelations and further develop the characters. Then you get the backstory, fleshing out details of the story's universe along with some foreshadowing and dramatic tension. Certain portions of 1,2,3 should of course be edited out. You end, of course, with the end of the story, which now has all sorts of parallels and additional resonance having just seen Ep 3. And the Ewoks should have been Wookiees.
What SDM said.
The only right thing to do is watch 4, 5, and 6 and then practice stretching out with your feelings.
I am going to have a piece of chocolate from my Darth Vader candy dish now.
"how can people like Han Solo and Grand Moff Tarkin not know that the Force-powered Jedi were the most important military force in the universe until about 17 years ago?"
Yeah, totally, but I guess it could always be that the (good) Jedi were always a little discreet and not too show-offy about how they used the Force, because it would have been bad for their personalities, psychologically, to be hot-shots about using it in front of people. Then, using the Force for combat would have been closer to a borderline-legend, something people looked up on snopes.com and that guys like Solo and Tarkin may have been skeptical about, preferring to think of the Jedi as warriors who just had good conventional skills.
I was also disappointed that the clones of the clone wars turned out to be on the Jedis' side. I envisioned something more like a galactic-scale "World War" with the various sides having engaged in an arms race of manufacturing clones that made hugely destructive warfare possible- sort of a parallel to the Cold War arms race.
Jacob T. Levy wrote:
For 20 years I'd looked forward to seeing that "Vader hunting down the Jedi" story...
Yeah, that was something that could have been really spooky / atmospheric / like a Wagner opera-- but we missed out.
It's clear that you should watch them in the order they were made. This isn't a statement about purity, but rather that all the drama in episodes 1, 2, and especially 3 come from the fact that you know what will eventually happen, but not how it happened.
Seeing 4, 5, and 6 build interest in the characters, in the political state of the Republic/Empire, and in seeing the height of Republic and Jedi culture. Without seeing 4, 5, and 6 first, there would no context for those.
Issue closed!
P.S. On an old episode of This American Life, John Hodgman tells his plan for re-writing Episode 1. It's pretty good. I was both intrigued as to his idea, and I was laughing because of all the details he, in his nerdiness, thought of. And I wouldn't have recognized them if I wasn't equally as nerdy.
You people moaning about the prequels are old retarded farts.
The prequels were excellent. They had a great deal of depth; Senator Palpatine's character itself was brilliantly created in them. Read say, Cloak of Deception, or any of the Clone Wars books (where the Jedi are hunting for Sidious) and you'll understand what I am talking about.
I like 4 5 and 6 fine; but they are hokey compared to the depth of 1, 2, and 3. You really need to read the books that came with the prequel movies to get it; otherwise you have no idea what you are talking about.
I am 23.
PS. The Phantom Menace was pretty good. It was supposed to be light and fluffy. The Republic is Alive! The Jedi are fine! Everything is good! It can't be all doom and gloom from the start otherwise 4 5 and 6 lose all meaning, you morons.
As the mother of a 5-year old Star Wars obsessed son, I can assure you that the series lives on and will live on for decades. Commercialization through action figures, LEGOS, etc., apparently yields immortality.
It is interesting that he and the preschool set seem to know ALL of the characters and essential plot lines even though most of them have NEVER SEEN the movies!
For the record, he saw IV, V, and VI and is pushing hard to see the prequels. I haven't relented yet because I think 1) all the trade talk will bore him and 2) they are more violent and disturbing (esp. III) than the originals.
The Phantom Menace is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen in a theater. I never bothered with the next two.
I'm sure some 80's horror flick I saw as when I was a kid was worse, but nothing immediately springs to mind.
I do think there were a lot of things in the prequels that were good visually, though. Natalie Portman is a beautiful actress and Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson fit in well. A lot of other characters and machines had a really great Star Wars look / design. Some story ideas were good and action scenes were really neat.
If Lucas did sequels again, he should put McGregor and Neeson in them-- maybe McGregor or Neeson as Anakin, although McGregor already did stellar as a young Obi-wan and Neeson might look too old to play Anakin as however old he should be. But then again, if Luke is only 17 or 19 in A New Hope, and Obi-wan and Anakin should be closer to contemporaries, then Anakin only has to be a middle-aged man by the last of the prequels.
>New audiences won't have that experience, they'll already know much much more than Luke does about the Jedi, the Empire, the Skywalker clan, etc.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
>You're assuming the new generation will watch the prequels. I have more faith in them than that.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
BTW, I actually saw VI, V, and IV in that order, and I actually prefer to have done that.
And then the Star Wars Holiday Special, because everything's better with Bea Arthur.
I think showing 4-6 and 1-3 to children should be mandatory as a test of their emotional and intellectual development. If they're not flabbergasted that the same guy was responsible for 4 and 1-3, they should be forced to take remedial classes in personal growth. I don't see how anyone could watch any of the prequels back-to-back with STAR WARS and not wonder WTF happened to Lucas.
Mike
If Lucas did sequels again,
Oops! Should be "prequels," ack.
Anyway, one more thing about my point about using the Force discreetly- doing something like supernaturally making your sword swing a little faster, reading the enemy's mind, making yourself run a little faster or jump a little higher wouldn't necessarily be obvious at all.
"I think it's definitely folks who were born between '74 and '82 who are see the Lucas dreck as the gospels of their era."
I was born in '64 and thus was a thirteen-year-old boy when Star Wars came out. That has to be the optimal age (and sex) for that particular movie. And it was terribly important to me at the time—I was already a science-fiction fan and you young folk probably aren't aware how hotly anticipated SW was at the time. A time before the Internet and the ubiquitous fan culture of today. But my best friend and I read about the film in a few magazines for months before it debuted. I was excited to buy the soundtrack, for some reason. And it was a phenomenon back when Americans largely shared a single media culture, unlike now.
On the other hand, although I was still a teen and a junior in high school when the second film came out, I don't really recall anything at all about it in the context of that year of school. Probably because I spent most of that May drunk, but still. Oh wait, I think I saw it in July with my grandmother (with whom I would also shortly see foreign and art films starting a couple of years later). I remember really enjoying it and thinking it was very good, better in many ways than the first. I think I saw the last one with my grandmother and we agreed it wasn't as good as ESB. But I don't recall the second two films being anymore of a big deal to me than any other movie I particularly wanted to see.
Not like that first.
So maybe you're right. Maybe not so late as '74, maybe those born as early as '69 or '70 are the ones that felt that the Star Wars films were "defining".
At any rate, you're certainly wrong in your opinion about how future generations will see these films. Star Wars will continue to be seen and loved for decades, The Empire Strikes Back a bit less so, and Return of the Jedi a bit less than that. The prequel will probably mostly be unwatched, though. I don't have much desire to watch Star Wars again, but I think it has a certain naive charm that will continue to wear well. The Return of the Jedi will also continue to wear well because it's a very good movie, the best of the six by a good margin.
Like so many others, I thought the prequel three were almost unwatchable. Lucas shouldn't direct and he should only collaborate on his writing.
"The prequels were excellent. They had a great deal of depth; Senator Palpatine's character itself was brilliantly created in them. Read say, Cloak of Deception, or any of the Clone Wars books (where the Jedi are hunting for Sidious) and you'll understand what I am talking about."
Is this the new postmodern approach to entertainment? I'm not sure I want to have to read a series of books in order to enjoy a film.
Mike
The audience shares Luke's bewilderment, and his shock when he realizes the little green thing is the Jedi Master.
Well, that just kinda proves my point. I was about seven years old when Empire came out, and the fact that Yoda was the Master wasn't exactly a surprise unless you only left your cave to see the movie on opening day.
We're not talking about a TV Show where everyone sees the cliffhanger or the reveal for the first time at the same time. There was very little mystery to the big twists in Star Wars by the time people saw them for the first time.
Keith, do you really think Return of the Jedi is the best of the bunch? I'd say Empire Strikes Back is the best by a good margin, and I think that's the general consensus too. Star Wars, the original, is a fun movie and it suceeds at what it's trying to do, but Empire is more ambitious and better-made. Jedi isn't bad, although it's a little disappointing compared to the first 2.
"Is this the new postmodern approach to entertainment? I'm not sure I want to have to read a series of books in order to enjoy a film."
No, it's just the opinion of someone who sadly has no aesthetic judgment.
If a moviemaker can't make a movie with enough quality and depth to stand alone without a number of ancillary books, then he/she has no business making movies. I'm certain Lucas wouldn't argue otherwise.
JFD's argument is an indictment of those films, not a defense.
Certain portions of 1,2,3 should of course be edited out.
Amen. Like all of Jar-Jar and every other Gungan scene in 1, and every scene between Portman and Christensen in 2/3. With these gone, they are B movies with A special effects.
I've found it is really nice to watch 1/2/3 (and 6, 'cause of the goddam ewoks), on a DVR. 30-second advance, and poof. Another painful scene, gone. If you've got the time, just muting the sound is OK, though. Jar-jar and the teddy-bear antics, you skip, but Portman is easy on the eyes.
The film's name is Star Wars.
I have always said that there's an interesting political story running through the prequels, but Lucas took about five hours longer to tell it than he needed to. Not to mention that interminable pod race. Oy.
"Keith, do you really think Return of the Jedi is the best of the bunch? I'd say Empire Strikes Back is the best by a good margin..."
Yes, I agree. I made a typo.
The other big difference is that the first three films will really suck.
I was 9 when Star Wars came out, and I still remember how cool it was--Luke's flying car, the droids, the port city on Tatooine, the incredible bar scene. It was a decent enough story, but the thrill was the effects--this was stuff we had never seen before.
I enjoyed the next 2 movies, and watching the trilogy once I was in college when they would show the whole thing on the big screen at school. I also remember Hey Baba Ruba, My Life as a Dog, and a bunch of other foreign films that were new to me. And The Toxic Avenger. Star Wars fit into this whole context of movies, old and new (I remember my now-husband's utter mystification at Gone With the Wind) that were interesting for different reasons, in a time before watching a movie in our rooms, alone, was an option.
Fastforward to the present day, and I have not been able to interest either child in watching any Star Wars film all the way through. And yet my 6-year old son is fully versed in StarWarsiana, waving his light saber and shouting "Fwing" and "Darth Maul" quite happily, the same way he'll put a scarf on his head and wave a plastic sword around and shout "HiiiYaaaAAA!" despite being completely unversed in Ninja films. It's part of the culture independent of any need to see the films, just as my tv-free children absorbed whatever they needed to know about the current popular tv shows without viewing them. (Cool parts of Star Wars: light sabers, space ships, Jedi stuff, Darth stuff. Boring parts: any character or plotpoint unrelated to waving light sabers or flying space ships--they pass over the execrable Jar Jar and the winsome Amidala with equal oblivion.)
Here's how the plot could/should work out: the Clone Wars are really challenging fro the Jedi, because there are just a few Jedi and in the Clone Wars there are a hell of a lot of combatants involved. Many of the Jedi are actually doubtful as to whether the forces of good and order will beat the forces of greed and war-mongering in the end. Obi-wan is fighting in a space-dog-fight (flying a fighter the Jedis either keep stashed somewhere, or get as a loaner from the secular military, since of course most everybody wants the Jedis to fight on their side and is willing to help them out with arms + equipment). Obi-wan, to kill a bunch of enemies in quick order, flies straight into a group of them to pull off an incredible maneuver. Some of the regular pilots try to accompany him, but are quickly killed off in what is too-dangerous action for an ordinary pilot. That is, except for one-- this pilot fights alongside Ben, manages not to get killed, and pulls off some Jedi-worthy maneuvers and kills along the way. Ben is really impressed and when they land he inquires as to who the pilot is, and finds out: "Who is that? That's Anakin Skywalker, probably our finest pilot." The two become friends over their shared enthusiasm for combat, etc., and Ben realizes either after the first battle together or not too many battles after that Anakin's amazing fighting and precognitive-like-reflexes have to be evidence of great natural skill at using the force. Because the Clone Wars are so daunting, Ben immediately wants to train Anakin, although Anakin is a full-grown man already. Anakin would readily agree, since every warrior and pilot is naturally jealous of and curious about the Jedis' superior battlefield skills and piloting. But the Jedi Council (a roving group that have no fixed regular meeting location, and who separate after every meeting only to regroup again when developing events or perhaps just the Force tells them they should) are hesitant, and won't give him a clear signal that he shouldn't do this. Clearly, he shouldn't do it unless the Council assents, but Ben is so desperate that he takes Anakin to Dagobah to train him anyway (Dagobah is not yet Yoda's home, but it is a secret, traditional location often used to train individual Jedis). Ben doesn't quite realize it, but in light of how highly the Jedis have refined their Force-related practices, this reckless and disobedient action is like a borderline dark side action. Vader's training is basically doomed from the beginning, especially as Ben has never formally/fully triined another Jedi before, and accordingly has not received the secret instructions from the Jedi Council on how to cultivate an appropriate respect for the universe and the Force in a pupil.
Back to the prequels as they were done:
I think the prequels can also be critiqued in terms of their action sequences / visually. I think a lot of the violence/action was too elaborate and overwhelming. Also some of the weapons were too formidable and unrealstic.
Despite whatever efforts might have been made to give the prequels a "lived in," real look like the original films, a lot of stuff looked too clean and flashy. And a lot of scenes, especially battle scenes, were too crowded, complicated and opulent. They weren't conscious enough of making the movies look like they fit in with and were part of the same thing as the original movies.
Darth Maul is a good villain, although maybe he should have been kept a little more hidden. Also a lot of the scenes with Palpatine were good.
Darth Maul really gave the films a good "back in the day, being a Jedi was crazy, and you really had to fight a lot of nutty stuff" feel.
Eh, I still think III, though flawed, is better than VI.
Ep. I is not great, but better than I remembered.
II is appalling.
Matt, I suggest a whole new thread to follow up on comments like Swan's: What SHOULD the prequels have been? We mostly agree with what the problems are with the film, but what would have been good?
Analogously, it was funner to theorize about Lost earlier in the series, before you knew that the answer to "Why is Ben doing this bizarre thing in such a nonsensical manner?" was either "because it uses up more episodes to do it this way" or "there is no good reason."
Ok, this is how it is:
There is Star Wars, which is great, and then there is Empire Strikes Back, which is even better. These two films should be watched, they're poetic, magical even. The rest is boring rubbish about teddy bears and, oh - I don't know what really.
I recently started a Quixotic project on my blog, "Fixing the Prequels"; my TPM posts (all that exist thus far) can be found here. (I should note that I never, not once, hated the prequel trilogy. I thought it had flaws, but I genuinely enjoyed each film.)
While I don't have kids, I suspect it doesn't matter which order they watch because the spectacle that was the original Star Wars has become basically standard summer movie / video game fare and to expect kids to see the same "magic" in them seems like wishful thinking. Part of the reason Star Wars is so loved by the 70s child is because it was both fun (a rarity in 1977) and totally mind-blowing - not just visually but also in terms of its sound, which was every bit as revolutionary as the visual effects. Whatever affinity my generation has for the story of the originals is inextricably linked to that mesmerizing experience.
That said, the prequels were abominations and are best forgotten. The problems have been well-documented here and elsewhere. I do, however, think the greatest flaw of the films was in Lucas' decision to make the "creation" of Darth Vader the climax of all three films rather than the climax of the first film or at the very least the turning point in the second film. In fact, I think if the movies followed the arc of the originals it would've probably worked great...
Like Luke, Anakin learns the way of the Jedi at an older age but instead of embracing the teaching, he rejects it and is ultimately brought down by his peer Obi-won (in a juxtaposition of the Death Star scene in Star Wars), thus beginning the turn towards Vader. In act 2, a bitter and defeated Skywalker is "saved" by the future Emperor (Palpatine), restored to "metal health" as Vader and resumes his training (a la Yoda on Degoba -sp?) albeit in the Dark Arts (film presumably ends with him killing some Jedi who'd done him wrong - perhaps his pregnant lover?). He then "returns" teaming with the future emperor and an evil rebel alliance to hunt down and destroy all the Jedi (only to have Obi-won and Yoda escape along with his offspring) and give rise to the Empire. It seems simple enough and needs no legal proceedings, princesses, Jar Jar, Mitochondria or whatever, Boba Fett, Chewie, R2, etc etc.
As they are now, the three movies ultimately amount to useless back story.
As a trained Jedi, having Anakin among the good guys could turn the tide of many a battle, so Obi-wan is too tempted...
But although Anakin acts as a Jedi for a while after completing his training, eventually he is talked into joining the dark side, which is the direction some of his tendencies were pointing him in, anyway...
A similar question:
Should people read "Tom Sawyer Abroad" and "Tom Sawyer, Detective" before or after "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn"?
The answer to both, of course, is no.
Actually, the stuff about Dagobah being a secret location is probably better-used to explain how Yoda never gets caught by Darth Vader or the Emperor in the years since the Clone Wars.
Obi-Wan never brings Anakin to Dagobah, because he's concerned they might bump into Jedis undergoing official training, and generate some inter-Jedi static. Instead, Obi-Wan trains him on Anakin's or Obi-Wan's homeworld-- just another one in a laundry-list of irregularities or problems with Anakin's Jedi training.
After Anakin betrays and hunts the Jedi, Yoda goes to Dagobah because it is a secret place and the only place common to all Jedi, so it therefore may attract survival-minded Jedi, and Yoda wants to wait to regroup with them so they can plot and prepare to fight Anakin and the Emperor. Jedis are likely to be able to resist any torture, too, so no Jedi would have revealed the location or ecret of Dagobah (the Sith are so far removed from the main "lineage" of the good Jedi school that they do not know about Dagobah, or where it is- they have been outcasts since before the use of Dagobah was adopted by good Jedis). No one ever shows up (until Luke Skywalker, that is) but since Obi-wan neglected to ever tell Anakin where Dagobah is-- keeping all knowledge about Jedi-stuff on a strictly need-to-know basis, as is the Jedis' practice- Anakin doesn't know about it (and presumably neglects to try to find out by following Jedis or trying to read their minds; or, he's just unsuccessful at finding out).
What SHOULD the prequels have been? We mostly agree with what the problems are with the film, but what would have been good?
My suggestion is that Lucas should've adhered strictly to the Dogme 95 manifesto in creating the prequels--or better yet, just hired Lars von Trier to write and direct them.
Possibly the then-still-alive Ingmar Bergman could've been brought in to helm "Attack Of The Clones." In fact, I believe Lucas's screenplay was actually based on a little-known Ibsen play, "Attak Ov De Klønen".
Actually, I doubt many kids will bother to watch Episode II before giving up on the whole series.
Big truck - Part of me was impressed that Lucas could make Episode II worse than Episode 1, and so spectacularly so. Just a dreadful movie.
Some random thoughts:
It is not that irrational that Han, GM Tarkin, etc., do not buy into the Force - plenty of religious figures have been exposed as phonies relying on fraud and slight of hand. The force lightning, for instance, could just be a well-hidden weapon or something. So, I do see it as somewhat plausible that after twenty years the Force is seen as a joke.
On the other hand, I had always thought the "fallen jedi" thing would be more common than just two Sith at a time. It would have been awesome if the Clone Wars involved a faction of fallen jedi who thought the Council wasn't doing enough to protect star systems, etc. Like, to counteract the Trade Federation, some jedi split off and formed their own alliance as sorceror kings or something. The Clone Wars could then have, in a very real sense, have been blamed on the jedi, even if this faction had thought that they were ultimately helping. Anakin could be torn between the two groups of jedi and ultimately find himself drawn to Palpatine, who promises to restore order.
Mostly, though, there needed to be some reason for Anakin to side with Palpatine other than his own gross stupidity. Like, having witnessed massacres and such during the Clone Wars (esp. if the jedi had refused to intervene). Or outright civil war, where he felt that a strong hand was needed to prevent greater chaos. Just something...
Okay, random thoughts over.
At the time, I recall my friends and I all agreed that Phantom Menace's greatest achievement was that Terrence Stamp, through Chancellor Valorum, finally gained action figure status.
While watching Ep. 3 this week, I noticed that it was all building up to the huge Obi-Wan vs. Anakin duel, which spanned three commercial breaks. Why so long? Because those in the know had anticipated exactly this scene (and its igneous backdrop) for a good 20-25 years. It had to meet expectations. As opposed, say, to their "rematch" in Star Wars, which is pathetic by comparison, because there were no expectations.
BTW, anyone who went into Ep. 3 expecting to see the duel over a volcano NEVER anticipated that it would be intercut with Yoda vs. the Emperor in the Senate chamber. That's messing with expectations.
I think one should watch the Buckaroo Banzai movies in the order they were made.
I think one should watch the Buckaroo Banzai movies in the order they were made.
I still cling to hopes that one day I'll check IMDB and see "In Production: BB and the World Crime League."
BTW, anyone who went into Ep. 3 expecting to see the duel over a volcano NEVER anticipated that it would be intercut with Yoda vs. the Emperor in the Senate chamber. That's messing with expectations.
I disagree, insofar as the Star Wars aesthetic is for multiple pivotal battles to occur simultaneously.
We shouldn't encounter Obi-wan Kenobi as a young man in the first three movies. He should only be an older, wise, puzzle-solving character, like Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Who, or Sean Connery in The Name of The Rose. When he decks someone out in a light-saber fight, or does really well in a dog-fight, it should thrill the audience because he's doing the unexpected, like Yoda whipping ass with a light-saber (that said, though, I don't think Yoda should ever use a light-saber-- he should be so Jedi that he doesn't even need one, and just fight with telekinesis and mind-control).
Also, I don't like this bit about Jedis being celibate. To me that seems far too authoritarian and dogmatic for them. Why doesn't Obi-wan tell Luke about that part of the bargain in A New Hope? Luke seems to have no problem with chasing chicks before he finds out Leia is his sister. The Jedis seems a lot more Taoist/anarchistic to me than they do Catholic-- at least before Lucas' terrible prequels.
Charles wrote:
It is not that irrational that Han, GM Tarkin, etc., do not buy into the Force - plenty of religious figures have been exposed as phonies relying on fraud and slight of hand.
I disagree-- I think widespread, overt, dazzling uses of the Force would basically leave their reputations installed as people who can do this stuff. Unless there are a lot of phony Jedi out there (never mentioned in the movies) no one ever exposes them, so how could people think the Jedis are phonies?
I think that, as others have pointed out, the idea that watching Episodes I-III will spoil the surprises of Episodes IV-VI assumes that people who are watching Star Wars for the first time have never heard of it before. I was born in 1978 and didn't even see the first film (Ep IV) until 1992, but I already knew all of the big reveals by the late 80s and the only thing i was surprised at in Empire Strikes Back was that when Yoda appeared he didn't introduce himself as Yoda.
It's like Terminator 2, where in the first part of the movie it is not revealed which Terminator is good and which is bad for quite a while, but it was already well known to anyone who was not in a cave during the marketing of the movie.
I didn't like Episode I, primarily because of the whole Inspector Clouseau-like coincidences that resolved the movie (Anakin accidentally blows up the bad guys' ship, Jar Jar accidentally kills a lot of evil droids).
I liked Episode II, because it was a good action movie with a fun, if not particularly deep or logical, plot.
I didn't like Episode III as much, because Vader's slide into the Dark Side was too abrupt and the Padme dying thing was too much of a side-plot. (Anakin should have turned because of his desire for plitical power and becaue of his disgust at the Jedi for not using their power more aggressivley in fighting the enemy, not because he is promised that he can save his wife).
A better idea would be that shortly after giving birth, Padme gets captured and killed by some of the Separatists, and Anakin turns to the Dark Side because the Jedi won't allow him to go to the planet where she was killed and avenge her. The Emperor helps him to go to the planet and lay waste to it (perhaps he ultimately destroys a shield generator there, allowing the Emperor to "cleanse" the surface with a prototype of the Death Star). The jedi, enraged, try to capture him and so he turns to the Emperor again to help him turn the tables on them and to kill them all before they kill him.
I've never seen Citizen Kane, but I know what "rosebud" is. Similarly, despite my children's unwillingness to actually watch an entire Star Wars movie, much less 2 trilogies, they both know Anakin = Darth Vader = Luke's father.
As for the battle over the lava--any fan of www.eviloverlord.com was forced to giggle through that one.
Anyone watching the prequels will hate all things Star Wars before Attack of the Clones is over anyway so it's no big deal.
My God what a bunch of shit those things were.
I'm with JFD in the minority on this, although I disagree with him that you need to read the books to appreciate Episodes I through III. The books enhance one's appreciation, but the movies stand on their own.
Look, folks, the two sets of trilogies are not all that different, but the mindset of most of their respective audiences is very different. Most people saw the first trilogy when they were children or adolescents and they were not cynical. They did not blanch at the dopey dialogue, and the special effects were unprecedented. Then, after fifteen years of high expectations and coming to take great effects for granted, they saw the second trilogy as adults who were more cynical about entertainment in general, and very unlikely to have their outsized expectations met. The fact is that the newer movies look better and feature a better class of actors (for the most part). Jar Jar Binks is no more annoying than C3PO. However, if you were 9 when you first encountered C3PO and 24 when you first encountered Jar Jar, C3PO's hilarious and Jar Jar is juvenile.
Episodes I and III, especially, are very enjoyable. They reward multiple viewings. My young nieces and nephews enjoy them like you all enjoy the first trilogy.
Brian: "Jar Jar Binks is no more annoying than C3PO."
To me, immediately in the theater, Jar Jar was a stunning character, historic in fact.
Not in a good way.
I see the basic battle between good and evil in Star Wars as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism. As my earlier comments should have hinted, I think there's a little more to it than that, but this is the most basic/central question.
Remember when Vader is trying to get Luke to turn, and he is saying together they can "bring order to the galaxy"? I think that's basically the Dark Side and the Empire in a nutshell-- they want to wrap up all of civilization in a tiny little nutshell of authority that they know they, and only they, will control, like a kid holding a bug in jar. That's the power trip and that's the motivation.
But as for Vader, I think his motivation for turning should be a little more personal, because that's closer to the mark of why most individual people turn to evil. I thought the detail about him feeling snubbed for promotion w/in the Jedi hierarchy / ranks / honors was pretty good. The Jedi Council are wise and good; trying to flout their judgment about promotion is really tyring to contradict necessary balance, moderation, and doing things in the correct order. The motivation to do so is self-aggrandizement, vanity-- petty ambition. Maybe other frustrations, like something romantic, should play a role. Maybe there's an increasing nihilism and a doubt about whether the forces of good can even beat the Dark Side and the Empire. And maybe Vader just wants to get to use his power without limitations and to get more say about how other people's lives should turn out; he may think that, since he's so special, it's stupid that he should be required to be so modest and leave (what he sees as) lesser beings/people alone.
I felt the stuff with Padme being the main motivation for Anakin's corruption was a little too melodramatic, and the guy would have to be a little O.J.-ish and un-balanced for that alone to be the reason. I always pictured the (uncorrupted) Anakin as more sane and competent than a guy who gets driven crazy over a love interest. Another thing is that most people get corrupted for reasons that are a lot more mundane than that, so it really says a lot more about people if Anakin's corruption only has to do with wanting just a little more power, recognition, etc.-- and beginning to wonder why all the galaxy's many problems can't just be solved with force. Granted, the relationship with Luke and Leia's mother has to be covered, but it doesn't really fit in with the larger plot and little messages of Star Wars if the basic lesson of Anakin is that our dedication to our loved ones can push us too far. How useful a message is that? Really, how many people face that situation? How many people face a choice of whether to attempt an evil act, or to let a dying relative just die? It doesn't really seem like there's that much to criticize if a person who's that distraught starts to step over the edge. Star Wars should something about a lot more typical reasons why politicians/judges/cops/law enforcement/regular people become corrupt.
I felt the stuff with Padme being the main motivation for Anakin's corruption was a little too melodramatic, and the guy would have to be a little O.J.-ish and un-balanced for that alone to be the reason. I always pictured the (uncorrupted) Anakin. . .
You know, that's how I picture him before I saw the prequels. In the prequels, he just seems like a disturbed person.
Andruw,
Unless you were 9 when you first encountered Jar Jar, your observation is not responsive to my post.
I think that, as others have pointed out, the idea that watching Episodes I-III will spoil the surprises of Episodes IV-VI assumes that people who are watching Star Wars for the first time have never heard of it before.
For children, that's not such a crazy assumption. My kids (7 and 5) watched the movies for the first time about two weeks ago (in order of release - 4, 5, 6, 1) and the only thing the 7 year old had heard was that Darth Vader saves Luke. So just about everything else was new to them.
I can't imagine showing them 3 for a long time, simply because it's so dark and violent. Do children really watch that one?
What are you talking about?
There was no pre-quel (if that is even a word) to Star Wars!
You people are all absolutely delusional!
Re: The Jedis seems a lot more Taoist/anarchistic to me than they do Catholic
The celibacy custom gives them a Buddhist (not Catholic) aspect, IMO. Celibacy isn't just a Catholic thing.
"Andruw,
Unless you were 9 when you first encountered Jar Jar, your observation is not responsive to my post.
Posted by Brian"
Sorry Brian, but Jar Jar was stepin'fetchit, circa '99. I was blushing in the dark theater the racism of Lucas' charachter was so embarrasing.
Now, how about the order of the Narnia books?
I felt the stuff with Padme being the main motivation for Anakin's corruption was a little too melodramatic, and the guy would have to be a little O.J.-ish and un-balanced for that alone to be the reason.
That was probably the biggest failing of the prequels. In the OT, the Dark Side is depicted as not necessarily being the more powerful side, but being the easier path, taken by the weak and unscrupulous looking for a quick and easy answer. Had Lucas hemmed closer to this vision in the newer films, Anakin would have been a more realistic and tragic character, instead of the whiny bitch he turned out to be
By 1981, '82 at the latest, I had it all worked out. The one-line reference to the "Clone Wars" in Lucas (1977) was no coincidence. There would be one single sequel, titled (of course) "Star Wars II". Luke would battle his way to face Darth Vader personally. By (it seems) sheer luck, he would mortally wound Vader and then strip off DV's helmet. And then find Vader was a clone of his own father. With enough goodness/ father-love left to have baulked at slaying Luke, even though Vader was stronger in combat.
Luke would then have to decide whether to kill Vader. On the one hand - he killed Luke's father! On the other - he is the only surviving "version" left of Luke's father! What to choose?
Needless to say, I think this makes more sense than Lucas (1983) actually did.
Also, I agreed with the suggestion (made by one fanboy writing in "StarLog" magazine, 1982) that "the Other" would turn out to be Han, ie, revealed as Luke's older (half-) brother.
> 'There would be one single sequel, titled (of course) "Star Wars II".'
Oops, loose line - I worked this out in 1979.
Well, I'm throw my hat in the ring... 21 year old Poli Sci major here that only first saw the original trilogy when it was re-released in the late 90's... Still a dorkish uber-fan. BTW, I know the overwhelming opinion cites Empire as the best but I still hold to Return as my favorite. Anyways, I digress. (sort of...)
The prequels are flawed. One could, as the above posts show, come up with a more compelling plot line for 1-3. However, for all the gruff Ep. 1 got when it first came out, I think the other two really complete it and make it an interesting story. Maybe it's just the poli sci dork (magnified by recent political actions) in me but the whole Palpatine plot seems universally revelent. Could it have played out in a more reasonable fashion? Of course. But to me the basic storyline seems alright.
Episode 3 could have utilized a far better Anakin-turns-to-the-Dark-Side plot. That's probably my one major beef with it all. Nonetheless, it all is a story that is not-so-much Shakespearean as Classic. (then again Shakespeare took/stole heavily from the classics) I would probably still show my kids 4-6 before 1-3. But I don't hold a huge grudge against the prequels. Perhaps its my relative youth. Anyways, I know regardless of the plotlines, the prequels have two redeeming qualities: 1) massive, elaborate lightsaber duels, and 2) "Duel of the Fates". With that, I leave you with this...http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q052CVnDSBI
mark wrote: "Assuming you're going to watch all 6, I think the optimal order is: 4,5,1,2,3,6."
That was the general consensus at the Stardestroyer.net forum as well.
I would like to add my endorsement, and that of my institution, to the IV-V-I-II-III-VI line-up. The opening is mysterious and natural, and the climax unforgettable.
The prequels would've had to be made differently if the Force were a whole new branch of movie physics.
The prequels would've had to be made differently if the Force were a whole new branch of movie physics.
I think the problem stems from the space opera plot (good guy rebels vs evil empire) of the original "Star Wars". This was fine for one movie, but completely unsustainable for a series of six movies. The underlying universe needed to be more complicated.
Having the lead bad guy be the father to the lead good guy was enough to sustain interest in two sequels, but at the same time created more problems for the prequels. "Star Wars" originally embraced the entire universe, and the "I am your father" oollapsed everything down to a saga of one family. Plus you had the narrative after that point completely contradicting the background story given by Obi Wan in his conversation with Luke in the original movie.
Not only should there not have been prequels to the original "Star Wars", there probably shouldn't have been sequels. At any rate, the direction Lucas took things in the second movie made satisfying prequels exploring the background story impossible, since the background story implied in "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" is completely different from the one in the original "Star Wars".
I'm raising my children to know a lot better than to watch the Jar Jar Episodes.
Here's an idea: Let your kids watch the original first two films (Star Wars & Empire). Then make them sit through the 1978 "Star Wars Holiday Special" (if you can find a copy).
That'll keep them away from the prequels.
Now, how about the order of the Narnia books?
You should read all the Narnia books while still young enough that the bludgeoning Christian allegory goes right over your head, rather than upside it. This is one series that I find a lot of adults are disappointed when they come back, whereas Pooh and Alice have delights that you can better appreciate as an adult.
This is great. On a blog that discusses the biggest issues of the day, The Star Wars post gets the most enthusiastic response.
Why is it that whenever anyone mentions anything related to Star Wars it begins these kind of circle jerk comment threads
You are all absurd. I only watch that one movie to see Jar Jar Binks.
"Look, folks, the two sets of trilogies are not all that different, but the mindset of most of their respective audiences is very different. Most people saw the first trilogy when they were children or adolescents and they were not cynical."
I've seen this attutide expressed before and it's exactly backasswards.
I think the bashing of the prequels can get a little over the top, though stuff like Jar Jar in I and the outer space douche commercial between Anakin and Padme on Naboo in II is as bad as everyone says.
But Star Wars is a great film. Empire is a great film. And even though Return shows many of the same flaws that would dominate the prequels, it worked perfectly well as a climax to the trilogy.
The cynical critics aren't the ones ripping the prequels, but the ones who run down or diminish the quality of the OT. They're the ones looking back with jaded eyes, twisting the simple into the simplistic, dismissing the heartfelt as corny, belittling Lucas because he wasn't as hip and quirky as Tarantino would be about a decade and a half later.
Mike
We got IV, V, and VI on DVD as a gift and we were mortified that they were "enhanced" with new/changed scenes. The worst is that Guido shoots first at Han who then shoots back. It drives me insane that this was thought to be necessary. Never watching the original edit did I think Solo was out of place shooting Guido. Further, why would Guido miss?
Then they add a scene at the Falcon where Jabba confronts Solo. Solo completely disrespects Jabba, which makes zero sense compared to the ruthless thug in VI. If Jabba has a price on Solo, why is he placating him?
I vote for showing your kids the original trilogy first, and the prequel trilogy never.
Worst line of dialogue in the prequels?
So many candidates, but I have to go with Yoda's "Not if anything to say about it I have!"
Matt,
I hate the prequels, but does any kid honestly believe that Ben Kenobi's really a crackpot? I don't think so. I think from the get-go he seems capable and believable and the only mystery is how much badass he's got hidden up his sleeve.
Comments closed July 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I was just thinking that too.
Posted by Jack Handy | July 3, 2008 2:48 PM