PT The problem with calling Episodes I-III "prequels"

PLEASE NOTE: This is not intended as a thread about viewing order - Anyone may view this series in whichever order they please. What we're discussing here is the merit of these films as part of the series.

Lately, my perspective has changed a bit and I now feel that as long as people think of these films as prequels, they will never truly have a chance to be quite as respected as the other ones.
You see, to my ears, the word "prequel" sounds like something that came up as an afterthought. It seems to imply that these episodes are just a bonus and not part of the real Star Wars Saga, as though Episodes IV-VI are the only ones that really count.

Nothing could, of course, be further from the truth. Many elements of this trilogy were made up on the fly - as was the case with the other trilogy - but the story that it tells has been there from the beginning, as the very foundation of the series (regardless of GL's initial reason for adding "Episode IV: A New Hope" to the 1977 film). It's an essential part of the saga and I think it's important to recognize that fact, especially for the sake of future generations who are bound to be affected by how we choose to present these films.
It's problematic that LFL/Fox chose to market these episodes as prequels, thereby popularizing the term, because they weren't really made to be viewed that way. A true prequel is a sequel that takes place before the original - These films, on the other hand, are the beginning of a series. There are no true sequels here, just episodes in the ongoing telling of a story - which means that they're all originals.
These three episodes are numbered I-III because they are the beginning of the story that the other three are the continuation of, not a bunch of pasted on prequels that were made up after the fact.

(With this in mind, it could be said that the upcoming episodes will be little more than a pasted on sequel trilogy - but that's a discussion for another time and place.)

Another potential consequence of the popularizing of the word "prequel" is that people will start abusing the word, thereby changing its meaning. Already, I've encountered those who refer to originals as prequels to their sequels. I can only imagine what this might mean for the future...
On the other hand, if "prequel" gets watered down like this, then maybe future generations won't differentiate the trilogies the way many of us do today.

In any case, I feel that "prequel" is a misnomer in this case. That's why I choose to say "the First Trilogy" when referring to the so-called PT - because that's what it is.
You may call them whatever you like, but I've made my choice.
Just thought you might like to know





"It's not disrespect, Master, it's the truth"
/LM

 

"First Trilogy" is a neat alternative, but I find the term "prequel" pretty satisfying -- even with your reasonable qualifications -- personally. Language certainly informs discourse, but I don't like the idea of people being made to see things a particular way, or using terminology that is too steep or rigid to oversell an idea or concept (take that with a pinch of salt coming from ol' Wordsworth here). "Prequel", to me, has a charm, and is inherently more powerful -- again, to me -- because it has a paradoxical element you seem to have sniffed out: it can be used to spur one to admire the exotic "pre"-ness of these newer films or it can be used to put the brakes on one's esteem and make it easier to dismiss them as a trifling "back" story or awkward appendage not really needed. I like that because it leaves it down to viewer discretion to ascertain the truth (personal/subjective truth). Once the sequel trilogy slots into place, however, "first", "second", and "third" may become very common, rather apt descriptors, indeed, rendering current arguments over such things relatively moot. No doubt, though, arguments will then shift as to *which* trilogy deserves *which* label. The more things change...

 

Some comments.

I think that prequel works well as they are sequels that take place before the original story. Same as "Prelude to Foundation", "Magicians Nephew" or "The Horse and his Boy". They fit the defentition so why not use it?
The PT could be made because of the huge success of the first film/films. Had ANH bombed there would be no PT. Had ANH done ok enough for a sequel but that bombed there would have been no PT. The PT was made after the OT, why try to hide that fact?

As for them being ESSENTIAL, I disagree. If they were then the OT would not work on it's own and it most certainly does. The Star Wars Saga was for a long while EP IV to VI. Now the saga is six films and soon it might be nine films.
The PT and OT works reasonably well together but that does not mean that the OT is incomplete without the PT.
There is room to tell more stories sure, both before and after but that alone doesn't mean that the OT can stand on it's own. Not long ago the SW saga was PT + OT but now it looks that an ST will be added to it. Does this mean that the ST is ESSENTIAL to the SW saga? Not to me. The OT works on it's own, the PT + OT works on it's own. The OT doesn't NEED the PT anymore than the PT+OT NEEDS the ST.
One can watch just the OT and it works fine but one can't watch just the PT as it ends on a very down note.

About what parts of the story that were there from the begining. Vader did not even exist in the first synopsis, was very different in the first draft he was in, was killed in later ones and was clearly NOT Luke's father throughout all of the making of ANH. ESB was first named EP II but was later changed to EP V. This shows that Lucas most certainly had developed some backstory for his characters and the universe but that is a long way from saying that this backstory was always intended to be made into a film. When ANH became the huge hit it was, then Lucas changed many things about SW. Lucas has called SW the story of Luke Skywalker then he changed his mind and called it "The tragedy of Darth Vader." With the ST added to it what name should we call it now?

As for how these films are meant to be seen. Since Lucas made the OT first and the PT second it is obvious that he intended for people to seem them in that order. Otherwise he made three films that he intended noone to see.
Of all the people that have seen all six films, a large majority have seen them OT then PT.
This might change over the years as those that saw the OT in theaters get older and die. But will everyone that see SW at home watch it 1-6? Possibly but then again some might seen it OT then PT. But probably in at not too distant future there will be more people that have seen it PT-OT. But then we have the ST added to that.
So for a while there will be people that have seen SW OT-PT-ST, some have seen it PT-OT-ST. There might be some that start with the ST and then watch the rest.

Finally, I think that if Lucas had made the PT first then the OT, not only would the OT be quite different but so too would the PT.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

merely I agree with Vimes. If it were the case that just the PT existed, it would be a very strange artistic choice to have the end of the series be one in which all the bad guys win and the good guys are all killed are in exhile. They are definitely sequels that flesh out the life of one of the bad guys of the film series chronicaling the exploits of Luke Skywalker and the gang. The PT wasn't necessary to the telling of the Star Wars saga the way that the OT was. without the Pt, we still understood perfectly that though Darth was a sadistic, psychopath, there was still something in his past that gave Luke, his son, a glimmer of hope that heu could be turned back to the light side of the force.

At the moment that Anakin was redeemed, we didn't need any more story to help us appreciate that Redemption. The PT was further viewing, A storythat exists because of the OT, and available toto fans justof in case you are also curious about Darth and the previous generation and events alluded to in the Star Wars trilogy.

 

Being the Star Wars saga composed by both trilogies, I'd say yes, it is necessary to tell the story of the saga. But not to tell the story of the OT.

 

I think the new trilogy will change this view of calling Episodes I-III "prequels". In the end Episodes I-VI is the story of Anakin/Darth Vader.

But I'm guessing that Episodes VII-IX will be the continuing story of Luke and the "New Skywalker". Thus, the "OT" will not exactly be a complete story because there will be more story in the new trilogy, which will build a larger saga about the three Skywalker generations.

The word "prequel" was really made popular by the media to let people know that episodes I-III were antecedents to the original Star Wars trilogy. But its been obvious since day one that the Star Wars movies are episodes in a larger story, not "sequels", or "prequels", or "originals". Everyone can get into the significance of the story in the OT and how this and that makes it stand alone... but they're episodes. That's the style of these movies. The style of the movies are Saturday matinee serials. The style of the Star Wars saga movies is not the style of them being "prequels" or "sequels" or "originals".

Many other movie franchises seem to be following the "prequel" thing, made popular by the media ( popularized from its use in the Star Wars movies to a certain extent):

- The X-men "prequels"
- That new Wizard of Oz "prequel" coming out soon
- Even Pixar is doing it with that new Monster's Inc movie...
- Rise of the Planet of the Apes
- Prometheus (Alien)
- And others..

All these movies are stylistically different than Star Wars. But these movies are the so called true "prequels" because they are not in that Star Wars saga style, which is that of episodes to a larger story. In other words, though these "prequels" expand on the original movies, they are not titled for example; Alien: Episode I Prometheus. See?

The Hobbit doesn't count, because Tolkien wrote that book first. But it is being marketed as a "prequel" of the LOTR trilogy by the media. Why? Perhaps only because the movie is coming out after the trilogy, which Tolkien wrote after the Hobbit. But notice that it is the media doing this, and because of this audiences not aware of Tolkien's work think it's actually "prequel"

So perhaps future generations, when no more Star Wars movies are being made after many, many years, will look at the Star Wars saga and not see "prequels" or "sequels" or "originals" but episodes to this exciting space fantasy.

 

To be honest, for me, where it becomes problematic is that the prequel films are often deemed as less "necessary" to the story than the OT films. But when you think about it, the only really "necessary" film is the original -- Star Wars (or ANH). ESB and ROTJ are sequels that expanded the story, but they weren't necessary to tell the story of ANH. The prequels, then, really have the same status as ESB and ROTJ.

ESB and ROTJ are integral components to telling the story of the OT and the Saga while TPM, AOTC, and ROTS are necessary components to the PT and the Saga.

So I find it very odd when the PT is described as "unnecessary" -- ESB was just as unnecessary in all truth and yet is rarely categorized as such.

 

George Lucas actually cares about the prequels more than the original films. That's why he delayed making them until technology could catch up with his vision.
Not an afterthought.

 

I don't know that Lucas necessarily cares about the prequels more than the original films (I would actually say that the controversial Special Edition changes are a testament to how much he cares about the originals, to an almost obsessive degree). But I do think that it was certainly more exhausting making the originals than the prequels. It was probably a much more tumultuous period in his life and I imagine that he delayed making the prequels, in part, until he was ready to confront the hectic nature of movie-making again.

I think Lucas has mentioned in some of the TPM documentaries that he also wanted his children to be older when he took on such a task since he likely realized that it would require more of his time, which is a smart move, in my opinion.

 

Not enough obsessive, in my opinion.

 

If you define the SW saga as PT + OT then of course the PT is needed but that conclusion is based on your premise.
ANH by itself needs no other films, so ESB and RotJ are not Essential to ANH.
ANh and ESB by themselves doesn't work so here RotJ becomes Essential.
The PT doesn't really work without the OT so the OT is Essential to the PT.

Even now you can watch just the OT and it works ok, one might wonder who the young guy in RotJ is.
However you can't just watch the PT, unless you enjoy movies with horrible downer endings.
If you like the OT then there is no reason not to watch the PT and they work reasonably well together.
They obviously can be watched OT then PT or PT then OT so it says something about the films that they work in many different orders.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Since the first film was made with one or two low budget sequals planned that statement is not accurate in my view.
Only after the huge hit that was ANH did Lucas realize that he might make movies about the backstory to the first film.
That backstory changed around a lot over the years. Also when ESB/RotJ was made Lucas talked about both a prequel trilogy and a sequel trilogy and his plans were vauge but from what I've seen the idea was to start with the PT fairly soon after the conclusion of RotJ. But making ESB/RotJ took it's toll on Lucas and after RotJ he was tired of SW.

Also Lucas couldn't really predict how long it would take for technology to evolve or how it would look. So I doubt he deiced in 1983, "I'll wait 16 years, by then we will have CGI and I can make my films."

I think that Lucas was tired of SW after Jedi and did other things for a while, later on he began to see how other films used CGI and now he was interested in making more SW again.

Lastly, the PT were possible to do back in the 80's from a story point of view. Some of the effects would be different, Jar-Jar would have been a guy in a suit etc.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Cryogenic
I know exactly what you mean. When TPM came out and they called it a prequel, the word was completely new to me. It was such a cool idea and definitely felt right at the time. Somewhere along the road, though, the word lost its impact, probably because prequels started popping up everywhere. Nowadays, when someone announces a prequel, I just think "So what else is new?" As far as I'm concerned, the golden age of prequels is over. Especially in Star Wars land, of course, now that the third trilogy is in the making.
About making people see things in a certain way: That's what I feel that "prequel" is doing. Just calling them what they are (i.e. first, second and third trilogy) leaves it more open to the viewer in my mind.
As you imply, though, this whole discussion is probably moot. I have a feeling that these things have already begun to change. More and more kids are discovering Star Wars in new ways and the old OT-PT view will doubtless turn obsolete over time.


Samuel Vimes
You and I might never see eye to eye on this, but I'll do my best to at least make myself understood. Then, hopefully, we can just agree to disagree!

1. In your mind, they fit the definition of a prequel, but in my mind, they do not. I'm not out to hide facts, just to state what I see, which is a series of movies where each movie is an episode of a bigger story.
I certainly won't be afraid of telling my nephew in which order they were made, but the word "prequel" won't enter the conversation unless he brings it up. Not because I'm stubborn, but because I just don't see any prequels here.

2. I did not say that watching this trilogy is essential for the enjoyment or comprehension of the Second Trilogy; I said that it's an essential part of the saga. It's the foundation of the story in the Second Trilogy. Without the tragic events that precede ANH, the story would've been very different.
The First Trilogy can most definitely be viewed on its own, BTW. Not every story needs a happy ending (What a dull world that would've been). This trilogy is a great, thought-provoking tragedy with many lessons to learn.
I have no doubt that the Third Trilogy will also stand well on its own.

3. While filming ANH, GL also told Hamill that they were starting in the middle of the story. J.W. Rinzler has even posted pictures of a barebones outline of a 12 episode Star Wars saga from 1978, where the "Star Wars Trilogy" (ANH, TESB, ROTJ) is numbered VI-VII-VIII. Clearly, George has always been prone to change his mind.
This does not change the fact, though, that the tragedy of Vader, the death/"death" of Luke's father, the transformation of the Republic into the Empire and the fall of the Jedi Order have always been part of the story. It hasn't always looked the way it does now in GL's head, but the basic plot hasn't changed.
The same goes for the Second Trilogy. The basic idea of Luke confronting his father's nemesis, overcoming the dark side and becoming a Jedi was there the whole time. The merging of his father and Vader was really just a clever way of spicing up the whole thing.

4. As I said, this isn't a thread about viewing order. We've been through that over on the Saga board. It's true, though, that the more trilogies are made, the more different ways there will be to experience the Saga - and many kids probably will see the Third Trilogy first.
Nothing wrong with that. I believe that the saga will work either way.
...and yes, the films would've been very different if they'd been made in a different order!


KilroyMcFadden
That is, I believe, how many old school fans look at it. Maybe I did too once upon a time. Oh well, things change and so do people... but not all of us


Alexrd
Well put. After all, the Saga is all of the episodes, not just three of them.


THX_1138biggs
Good points! Especially what you pointed out about the Tolkien movies. It's rather weird, isn't it?
I'm looking forward to seeing the Saga expand and become something even bigger than what we have now. It'll truly be a story about generations to a much higher degree. Who knows? Maybe it'll continue to grow with a fourth trilogy...


PiettsHat
That's also very true (about only the first movie being "necessary")!





"The Force is strong in my family"
/LM

 

People were certainly curious -- to the tune of about $2.5 billion.

There does, indeed, appear to be three basic levels of necessity; three "trilogies" of a kind:

- ANH
- ANH / TESB / ROTJ
- TPM / AOTC / ROTS / ANH / TESB / ROTJ

The relative importance of each film can be argued to death after that.

Mind you, there's enough arguing with that structure, probably, to keep people going till the sun burns out.*

*Being on a SW board, I feel like I should always say "suns", plural.

Story and effects bear an intimate relationship in the SW movies. This seems to be something that some fans cannot get their head around, cynically misappropriating and/or completely misinterpreting a famous remark made by George Lucas in a clip from "From Star Wars to Jedi: The Making of a Saga". Jar Jar being different -- if existing at all -- is merely the tip of the iceberg. And hardly an insignificant tip, either.

The term has definitely lost its luster. But Star Wars -- as far as I'm concerned -- will always own the territory.

Well, I believe there's a good deal of truth in that. The thing is, though, the zeitgeist tends to define these things, and the zeitgeist is currently saying, "prequel". You could attempt to make a small difference by floating a different term into the water, though, yeah.

Truth be told, "sequel" and "prequel" are equally strange/suspect terms to me when it comes to Star Wars, almost precisely for the reasons THX_1138biggs outlined. A film like "Cats & Dogs" gets a sequel (or a prequel). Star Wars is epic mythology; in addition to its serial trappings, there aren't really sequels or prequels in a strict ontological sense, just passages or phases in a larger fabric: cubist adventure!

On the other hand, if we're pivoting around the original trilogy in both directions -- three originals, followed by three prequels, then three sequels -- that labeling at least makes a kind of symphonic sense. Y'know, episodes I-III are "pre", and episodes VI-IX are "se". If there weren't such large spans of time between the three trilogies, the distinctions would not be so pronounced, however.

Yup. The people define the general sentiment on matters like these; and people's attitudes have a habit of changing over time and/or through the generations.

 

1. The defenition of a prequel is "A prequel is a literary, dramatic, or filmic work whose story precedes that of a previous work,] by focusing on events that occur before the original narrative.[3] If Y is a prequel to X, then Y's storyline precedes X's, yet Y is released at a later date than X. Therefore, a prequel is a work that forms part of a back-story to the preceding work. Like sequels, prequels may or may not concern the same plot as the work from which they are derived. Often, they explain the background which led to the events in the original, but sometimes the connections are not as explicit."
The PT movies were concieved, written and made after the original film and would not have been made if that original film had been made or been such a huge hit. Therefore the PT films are prequels in every sense of the word. If you feel that they are not then you are free to do so but to me that would be like arguing that the LotR books are not Fantasy or that Star Trek is not Science Fiction.

The term prequel predates the PT films, most of the examples prior to the PT are found in books and comics, like the Narnia series, the Foundation series or the Superboy comic.
But a few films do exist, like some of the Planet of the Apes films, Amytiville 2, Missing in action 2, Butch and Sundance the early years.
In some cases it seems like the author wanted the reader to read the books in a different order than they were released, the Narnia series is one example. But does this suddenly make the book/film not a prequel? No. Regardless of what the creator wants the basic facts that the prequel were created after the original doesn't change.

You seem to feel that the term "Prequel" somehow makes the work inferior or that it will cause people to like it less just for that reason.
I don't agree. I think any work can be judged on it's own merits and just calling it "prequel" won't make it bad.

2. But if you define the SW saga as Ep I-VI then of course the PT is essential but that conclusion is based on your premise.
The OT works fine without the PT and worked fine for over 15 years. No one I knew complained that the story didn't work with previous movies or further movies. Not that most of them would have objected to more films, far from it.
We learn enough of the tragic events that preceeds ANH throughout the OT. Not all of it but enough for the story and characters to work.
And the OT was made to be and still is to me, Luke's story. Him redeeming his father is important but only a part of Luke's journey.
The PT did not fundamentally change the story in the OT, it added to it in some ways. It explained some things that were unclear, it showed how some of the characters used to be and why they are like they are now. But the OT isn't focused on Anakins redemption, it is a part of it sure but it is not the focus.
The book "The Lion, the Withc and the wardrobe" works fine without having read "The Magicians nephew". If you have then you know more about the land and about Aslan and the White Witch but that knowledge doesn't change the overall story.

3. From what I have read, ESB was initially called chapter 2 during the initial drafts in 1978. In those early drafts Vader still wasn't Lukes father.

And to me, Luke confronting his fathers murderer and destroying him is VERY different from Luke confronting his evil father and redeeming him.
Vaders redemption also seemed not to have been a sure thing after Vader became Luke's father. This would also make things very different, Luke trying to reason with his evil father but is forced to destroy him anyway vs him actually saving him.

That would have had a huge impact on the PT story. If Vader isn't Luke father then he could be little more than a Judas, someone that stabs the Jedi in the back and murders one of the main heroes. In this story Vader could be nothing more than an evil traitor that the Jedi failed to see.
If Luke fails to reason with his father and is forced to kill him then that too would change the PT. Then Anakin could be a far more nasty character that the audience won't want to see saved.

Also initially the empeor wasn't a Sith but just a corrupt politician and if that had survived then this would have meant big changes not just to ESB and RotJ but to the PT story as well.

Take the Harry Potter books, if the endgame isn't about Harry killing Voldemort but actually saving him then that would require quite a lot of changes in the story and the characters.

The Hobbit book isn't a prequel as it was written long before the LotR books but Tolkien did go back and made some changes in order for it to fit with the LotR story. HE also did consider to rewrite much of it in order for the style to match LotR but he eventually abandoned that idea.

The PT would not exist without Star Wars and much of the story/plot/characters was created long after Star Wars was finsihed. That makes them prequels. I don't think calling them something different will make a huge change in what people feel about them, those that like them will still like them and those that don't will still not like them.

I happen to like X-Men First Class and if someone tries to bash them by calling it "a prequel" then I won't mind. My like for a film isn't dependent on what others like or dislike. And it still is a prequel so why would I try to pretend otherwise? Giving it a different label won't make change the minds of those that don't like it so why bother? And that it was created after the original film and not planned ahead of time, why should that matter to wheter or not I like a film? If it is good and I like it then great, the exact detail of it's origin might be interesting but won't really change how I feel about the film.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Since when is the OT a "necessity" to watch the PT? All the people that watched the PT first would tend to disagree with that assessment.

 

I think you misunderstand, you don't have to have seen the OT before seeing the PT but watching just the PT will give not a very satisfying end.
The bad guys win and all seems lost. But there are also clear set ups that the story contiunes.
It would be like watching just ANH and ESB and NOT seeing RotJ. This will leave you hanging and with several things unresolved.

So RotJ is a "necessity" to ANH and ESB in the same way as the OT is a "necessity" to the PT.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

1.

I don't. You seem to think that this bugs me. It doesn't. I started this thread to share my view, not to start a revolution.
Again, I don't see any prequels in Star Wars - nor do I see any sequels. It's just a series of episodes. Just like a TV show, only it's a movie show.

2. The Star Wars Saga is Episodes I-VI and beyond, but that's beside the point. Even in 1977, the preceding events were an important part of the story. Important because they provided a background to what we saw unfold on the screen.
Again,

The importance of the events depicted in the First Trilogy does not make it a "necessity" to watch it, but those events are definitely a "necessity" for the Second Trilogy to work. None of the characters would've been in the situation that they're in if the tragic events of the past hadn't happened.

3. The redemption aspect was just icing on the cake. The fact remained that the Sith were vanquished and Luke passed his Jedi trial.
Episodes I-III were most definitely highly affected by how Episodes V and VI developed the story, yes. The whole story arc of the Saga was made simpler and more complex at the same time, because GL decided to merge not only Luke's father and Vader, but also the Emperor and the forces of corruption - and the Sith, who were originally an order of knights of which Vader was but one of many.

All the same, the basis of the story remained: Through corruption, the Republic is reorganized into an Empire with Palpatine on the throne. With the aid of Jedi traitor Darth Vader, the Empire hunts down and destroys the Jedi. Years later, Luke Skywalker joins the rebellion against the Empire. By winning the war and defeating the Sith, he and the other Rebels clean up the mess that their predecessors left behind.

This has remained true all the way. The familial connections between the characters add emotional drama that's important for us to invest in the story, but those connections could've been very different and still not changed the story's foundation. Obi-Wan could've been Luke's father. Han could've been his brother - or uncle, for that matter. The Emperor could've been his grandfather, who despised his own son and chose to replace him with Vader.

Nor is mine. I like these films because they appeal to me, not because others like/dislike them. As I stated earlier, I created this thread just to share my view, not to start a revolution.
In other words,

Cryogenic
True spoken. Randy was right on the mark in Scream 2, when he said that TESB is not a sequel, but part of a trilogy.





"You're absolutely right"
/LM

 

But a film can be both, a film can be a sequel AND be part of a trilogy.
The first three Pirates movies form a trilogy and yet that doesn't change the fact that film 2 and 3 are sequels. ST II, III and IV also form a trilogy of sorts but here all three are sequels.

You do not have to have set out to make a trilogy for that to be the result. Lucas most certainly didn't set out to make a trilogy with ANH, ESB and RotJ but they became that along the way. The three PT films were created and made as a trilogy sure enough.

If the "prequel" label is a problem then call it "The Skywalker Saga." This might even fit with the upcoming three new films.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Yeah, maybe that was a mistake. I guess I wanted to attract attention

No.

Yes, it does. That's what GL envisioned it as - not a TV show, but a serial, like the old saturday matinee serials.

Again, he went back and forth on the episode numbers. For a while, the first movie was intended to be the first episode. Then, during the actual making of it, it was somewhere in the middle of the series. Then, it went back to being the first and finally, it returned to somewhere in the middle.
So, it was floating around a little bit, but GL still saw it as an episode of a serial.

I respectfully disagree.

Does that make it less important? It's the foundation of the story, which makes it essential.

I didn't say it was. From the moment "Episode IV: A New Hope" was added, though, it was clear that GL at least hoped that he would someday get to film the preceding events.

And?

I agree.

Well, who said it doesn't?

Of course not.

Have you noticed that we're going around in circles? I explain my point, you misinterpret it, I clarify my point, you still misinterpret it in the exact same way as before... You're not doing this on purpose?

I know, I've seen that thread - and posted in it. We've covered this - GL's ideas evolve.

What's your point?

Who said it wouldn't? Vader's backstory, though, was always one of dark side seduction. The only great difference is that instead of betraying good people and killing Luke's father, he betrayed good people and was Luke's father. Similarly, the only great difference at the end of Luke's trilogy is that instead of defeating his father's literal murderer, Luke helps his father defeat his own figurative murderer.

Sure, but I don't see that as being the case with Star Wars.

On the contrary, that's exactly what he did.

I'm glad there are some things we can agree on!

It's not really a problem - and I am calling it the Skywalker Saga.

Have a good day!





- Don't ask me to do that!
- You're a jittery little thing, aren't you?
/LM

 

In my view, such labels labels like "prequel" and "classic" contribute to the divide between fans and, frankly, I'd like to see TFN stop labeling them as such. I mean, "classic" is always considered to be better, whether we're talking about cars, music or literature. That immediately puts PT fans on the defensive before a discussion can even begin. Better to call them the "I-III trilogy" and "IV-VI trilogy" even if fans will continue to commonly use shorthand words like "prequel," "originals" or "OT".

 

That's very true. By now, both trilogies should be considered classics, whether we like them or not. Episodes I-III certainly had an impact on the world. Most importantly, they spawned a whole new generation of fans.
Another type of labelling that I kind of dig is "Anakin Trilogy" and "Luke Trilogy".





- I won't lose you the way I lost my mother.
- I will not turn... and you'll be forced to kill me.
/LM

 

I have no issues with calling them prequels.

I do have issues with every other movie franchise making prequels instead of being original.

 

I've just learned to accept the "Prequel Trilogy" title. After all, it became the official title after the DVD boxset, whereas the OT was just... the Trilogy. That's a little problematic, since they're both trilogies. I think Original Trilogy fits it just fine. Better yet, I like the way Blu Ray labeled it; I-II-III and IV-V-VI. That's all you need to know.

We'll be fine just calling the new trilogy the Sequel Trilogy... but if there's more than that, things could get a bit messy.