Saga SW Saga In-Depth In-Depth Discussion Thread

Darth_Nub - you are absolutely right, this has gone wayward, it has been side-tracked.

There were two points I was making really. One is that, because of the conceptual nature of the OT they work better as films than do their PT counterparts. What I mean by that is ideas like 'The Empire', 'The Republic', 'The rebels', 'Jedi' are just that; ideas attached to those terms. Those ideas are fleshed out through the actions of the characters - the backdrop of the story is, in a way, created by the characters and their actions.

In the PT these ideas are 'made real' and are the 'flesh' within which the characters must act. The story is constantly bogged down by telling the stories of these newly minted entities - and in this version the characters become cyphers of those entities.

But it goes a little further. Because we are told that these three new movies are part of a saga with the old ones then - in order to view it that way what those terms represented become burdened by their PT 'precursors'. The ideas that they represent in OT isolation are weighed down by the solidity of their PT counterparts.

This goes as far as 'The Emperor' who operates in the OT as a kind of demonic figurative (Mara, Satan/Shaitan, Ahriman) 'Darth Vader' (the suit, the name) is a representation of the imprisonment of the soul by the Mara/Satan/Ahriman figure - and so the battle in the throne room (in the claustrophobic confines of the Throne Room) is a personal battle and Luke's father frees himself from his prison by throwing down Mara/satan/Ahriman. Down into the underworld. He breathes his last few breaths as a human, sees the world again through human eyes.

The whole of the end of ROTJ is so full of symbolism, of subtle, unconscious cues that it manages to transcend the basis of the film as essentially a re-hash of the ANH plot - even overcoming the Ewoks

What's more the message it tells transcends the normative 'Campbellian' heroic notions. While looking for the 'benign despot' quote I came across this

http://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/brin_main/

An interesting read and pretty much follows my own thinking..except - I don't believe that, prior to TPM, the story of Star Wars was about genetic elites and all powerful super-heroes deciding the fate of the universe (thought that idea seems to have been picked up and run with by a great deal of the earlier EU).

In ROTJ Luke faces Vader in the confines of the Throne Room, and this mirrors his TESB confrontation with Vader in the Cave on Dagobah. The cave represents the skull - and the Throne Room becomes a mirror of the cave except...this time Luke gets it. The battle in the Throne Room is a personal battle. The significance of this is imparted through Luke throwing down his lightsabre. He accepts a number of things here. The most important is that to do Jedi is not about the power. Luke accepts that he is not all powerful and concedes that he cannot alter the battle outside. He understands that the danger is from Satan/Ahriman/Mara and his insidious goading ("Do not underestimate the power of the Emperor") - in fact the Emperor's goading throughout might as well be seen as a voice within Luke's head (the Throne Room/cave)

Once you give Palpatine a back-story that representative element of the concept 'The Emperor' no longer functions. Once you create Luke's father as a deistic super-being who is prophecised to save the galaxy then the differentiation of the Throne Room and the battle outside is lost.

What was the story Lucas said he wanted to tell through his saga, and particularly the PT. Well, he said he wanted to show how a good man can become evil. I think he failed on that count (not least because I don't think people transmute instantly into green eyed monsters, nor do I think that people make such a singular choice ) but also because he does not give us a man. I don't mean by that that Anakin is a boy, I mean that he gives us a deistic super-hero. He also said he wanted to show how a democracy becomes an Empire. Well... I have reason to suspect that Lucas doesn't trust democracy and so reason to doubt he is the best person to tell that story - and I think that shows.

Oh...and, whether you agree with me or not..Merry Christmas. May peace be and remain upon us all.

 

Simply put, because of nostalgia. The ones who cannot see the bad acting, the overuse of the effects and poor dialogue are the ones who will call it out with the PT. Any legitimate complaint about the OT is only when it comes to the SE's and to a lesser degree, attacking ROTJ.

Right, but as Lucas said, the fall of Anakin was connected to the fall of the Republic. That's why the Republic's downfall and the rise of the Empire is such a heavy focus in the PT, because it informs on Anakin's own decent and ties back into what happens in ROTJ, where everything comes to a head. The war comes to an end and Anakin is redeemed.

How is it lost? Luke's personal issues still remain which is his struggle to avoid his father's fate while trying to save him. That hasn't gone away because of the PT. Nor giving Palpatine a backstory, which Lucas had planned to do anyway. It was in the early scripts and the novelizations.

Seeing Palpatine turn Anakin shows us how good can be corrupted by evil. We still see the man because Anakin's reasons for turning are those of mortal men. His love for his mother, his wife and his desire to protect his loved ones are the very foundation of humanity. Anakin's actual turn is one moment, but it surrounded by his earlier and later choices. His choice to leave home. His choice to disobey orders and depart from Naboo to check on his mother. His choice to kill the Tuskens. His vow to become more powerful and stop death. His decision to kill Dooku in cold blood. His decision to side with Palpatine. To attack Padme and to make that foolish jump, resulting in grave injuries. He made a choice to turn evil, but it was all these other things that contributed to it.

The larger role of Anakin as the Chosen One is that it interconnects to why he is important, while Luke represents the smaller role of the personal savior.

He trusts it, but only so much as anyone should. Look at how democracy can be corrupted by fear mongering and by a society that will give up everything just to protect themselves. It's happened before and it can happen again.

 

The original message doesn't appear when clicking on Reply button since a couple of days...

Do you guys have the same problem or am I the only one ?

Thanks.

Cryogenic : I never said I was completely objective here...Simply that nostalgia, which I aknowledge I feel to some extent for the OT and the OT era (I actually can't think of the PT without the OT in mind), cannot be the only one and all-purpose explaination (unbeknownst to them as you seem to imply) as to why some fan do strongly prefer the OT over the PT.

To me, large disconnectedness in style and storywise issues, for those 6 movies now supposed to form one big cohesive saga, is probably more relevant than simple nostalgia.

I also feel nostalgia for the PT production Era (1997-2005)...

 

Working fine for me - does Reply work with other posts?

Might be worth posting in the Communications forum if it's an ongoing issue with your OS or browser.

EDIT: This thread might have some answers - http://boards.theforce.net/threads/reply-option-not-working-ie-11-issue.50015785/

(Only other issue I'm aware of lately is the Edit function not working on Firefox past v23 - FYI, the workaround's really easy, you simply click on the More Options button)

 

only one kenobi

Sorry for the delay -- and thanks for the source of the quote. Since Darth_Nub has asked that we not discuss the politics, though, please PM (or feel free to start a thread on the topic) if you're interested in my thoughts on Lucas' quote. Briefly, I think you're making a mistake to read into it as Lucas not understanding democracy. I think it's very clear that, in terms of "benign dictatorship," he's talking about a theoretical ideal (especially of efficiency) and, importantly, I think Lucas understands the threats to democracy very well -- which is essentially the story the PT tells.

I don't understand how you don't see the role of the "Chosen One" concept in the OT. It permeates the entire narrative. Luke (and Leia) are the only ones who can bring down the Emperor and Vader -- by the very fact that they are Vader's children and inherited his gifts. Anakin may be the "Chosen One," but Luke and Leia (by virtue of their powers are the "Last Hopes." It may never be stated explicitly, but there's no other explanation for what Obi-Wan and Yoda do and say in ESB and ROTJ. You seem to still be looking at ANH in isolation. But, as of ESB, we know that Obi-Wan wasn't just randomly hiding near Luke -- that Luke wasn't some random person. Luke was the son of his former pupil, of a leader of the Empire, and of a man whose genetic lineage is (by Luke's own words) strong with the Force which is where Luke gets his own power.

If anything, the PT deconstructs the concept of forcing a "Chosen One" to accept that role. Of the incredible burden it places on someone (such as a child) and how that person and their power will always be a target for those that seek to exploit them (in this case -- Palpatine).

I disagree. The PT doesn't tell us much personal information about Palpatine. It does, however, expand his role to corruptor and seducer -- traits commonly ascribed to Satan in the Bible. One of the most enduring images of the PT for me, for example, is of Palpatine leaning over Anakin's burnt body -- as though he were death itself.

I think you and David Brin also miss the point of the Saga -- that great power does mean great responsibility. That Anakin and Luke, by the very fact that they are gifted, will necessarily have to make choices with heavy consequences. That doesn't mean that they aren't human though -- they are human with every flaw and emotional pitfall that applies.

I think you're simplifying the events that occur in the PT. Quite importantly, I think, is that Anakin's fall is not a single event but rather a long process that begins basically as soon as he leaves his mother. The choice itself is merely a manifestation of the tipping point -- where he allows himself to be seduced by evil because he's too afraid and too weak to fight it. Anakin is much the same as Luke -- both of them, extremely powerful; both of them designated either the "Chosen One" or the "Last Hope" (ANH's subtitle is even "A New Hope"); both of them (and their power) are actively sought out by the Sith. The difference is that Luke is older and wiser than his father when introduced to his responsibilities. And Luke may have been manipulated, but by people who were trying to do the right thing.

Also, how exactly would you have told the story of the Republic becoming an Empire? Do you think a perfectly functioning democracy would just allow a despot to take over? Do you think an engaged populace would just stand by and allow the genocidal Empire to form? I honestly can't fathom your thoughts here. Do you believe that the Republic was perfectly fine, going about its day to day business, and then suddenly became an Empire for no apparent reason? That strikes my as highly unrealistic and much more undemocratic. You really think that, if the democracy is working well, it's going to be overthrown, that people would choose against it? As early as 1976, the Star Wars novel stated that the Republic rotted away from the inside -- because then, it is understandable how this failing entity became the Empire.

Moreover, I don't think the Jedi are any more undemocratic or elitist than the wizards from Harry Potter. The idea of the Jedi makes a ton of sense as set up in Lucas' universe. Here are a group of people who are supernaturally gifted. They serve the people (at the behest of the people's representative government) in order to ensure the good of all. They're not like the wizards in Harry Potter who hide from Muggles and pretend that Muggles could never be allies. That's not at all true with the Jedi. We see in TPM that they seek out the help of Jar Jar, the Gungans, and Padmé's security forces. In AOTC, Obi-Wan goes to see Dex to get help and powerful non-Force users (such as Jango Fett) are a match for some Jedi. The idea of Jedi not having families also makes some sense in that it prevents the establishment of a "Force dynasty" -- extremely powerful, Force sensitive families. The Jedi, in practice, don't work perfectly, but a lot of their ideas are sound.

The problem with tying the Jedi to the government, though, is that they are subject to political whims. It's a good idea in theory, but the Jedi do need to be more independent. Saying it's "undemocratic" though, is unfair, I think because the system (as it is set up) is clearly intended to ensure that the Jedi are accountable. But that also leaves them more vulnerable to corruption.

 

I am always interested in the thoughts of others, that is why I am here on these boards . Expect a PM from me shortly.

You say that this theme permeates the OT, but it is actually only hinted at. You can read that if you so wish but it is, imo, not implicit at all - and in fact the concept is countered within the story. I have said before that I disliked the introduction (in TESB, and confirmed by ROTJ) of the 'great sons of great fathers' trope, but that trope is actually cast out at the end of the trilogy.

You reference Yoda and Obi-Wan as referring to Luke, and Leia, as being the "Last Hopes" but they actually say theirlast hope. The two surviving representatives of that "old religion", the Jedi are talking of the last hope for the Jedi. Now that in itself is troubling to me, but it does not swamp proceedings. In other words the idea does not permeate.

You also said that I seem to be taking ANH in isolation. That is an interesting observation because I have to admit that I do reference the other movies from the expectations I derived from ANH - hence my own personal disquiet about the 'sons of fathers' trope. However, what occurs in the throne room at the end of ROTJ, and what occurs - separately - outside in the space battle transforms the story back toward the expectations I gained from ANH. The rebels defeat the Empire, and what occurs in the throne room is incidental to that victory. The throne room scenes begin as if what occurs there matters to what occurs outside - but Luke's realisation, his rejection of The Emperor's goading, involves him throwing down his lightsabre and accepting that he cannot alter what goes on outside. Only what goes on inside.


The war against the Empire was won by the rebels (the people) - neither Luke nor Anakin played a part in that. The people free themselves from tyranny. What transpires in the confines (the 'cave') of the throne room is a personal victory - and it has nothing to do with being all powerful beings but about compassion and self-awareness; about choices and personal responsibility.

The concept 'The Chosen One' is not there in the OT. It existed as an idea prior to, in the ideas budding in Lucas' imagination, but it did not get incorporated into that story - and I am thankful for that. You point out that something akin to the concept is introduced, but it is only obliquely evident. And if we do construe Luke as some form of 'Chosen One' then, who has chosen him? Well, the Jedi have chosen him, as their last hope. And, by the end of ROTJ we see he has fulfilled that, he has truly understood what being a Jedi really is - the Jedi return.

The PT constructs the idea of a Chosen One.

I'm glad you referenced the scene with Palpatine and Anakin. When the PT works it works because it is so conceptual and purely representational - as the OT was. The setting of Obi-Wan and Anakin's duel and that sene with Palpatine is a planet with no back-story. It is a purely fictitious backdrop, emptied of all meaning except to be 'Hell'.

The problem is that Palpatine becomes a 'person' - in the OT he is not. His 'being' has the same emptiness as Mustafar in ROTS. What is more is that, because of the story as we are told in the PT 'The Emperor' and 'The Empire' as representations become tied. Though it might sound odd to say this, they are not bound particularly closely, as representations, in the OT. In fact their usage is entirely distinct.

I think you miss the point that David Brin makes, and that I have made. It is not about whether these beings, whether divine or not, have to be responsible, it is about the idea that only such beings can make a difference. It is about the sublimation of people as being dependent upon these beings for their well-being. It is the conceptualisation of 'the people' as being subject to/incidental to the battle between elites. The idea that you may pick a side but you cannot beone.

I think the film simplifies (fatally) how good people come to doing bad things. What is portrayed is not how good people come to do bad things. Nobody gets down on bended knee and pledges themselves to the devil. The movies simplify the process, not me.

But the main point I was making was that, from the outset Lucas has set up a situation whereby he cannot tell the story of how a good person comes to do bad things. Because Anakin is not a person. What I mean by that is, Anakin is a quasi-deistic figure, not a normal human. Compounding that beginning he is woven into a series of events and the choices of others that will conspire to lead him to his pre-determined pact. Why did he decide to do what he did? He couldn't save his mother? Hey, I couldn't save my father... that hasn't lead me to seeking unnatural ways to keep others close to me alive - at all costs. But then, I wouldn't because ...well I'm not a deistic figure who has super-powers. It is not simply that Lucas doesn't tell the story of how a good man comes to do bad things, from the inception of the PT, from the conception of 'The Chosen One' he cannot.

The rebels win the battle at the end of ROTJ. The people elevate themselves from tyranny. So...where did these rebels come from? There is no sign of them in the PT. We don't see a demonstartion, a petition...not one ordinary person partaking in or caring about what is going on.

It is that the Senate is intended to represent the Republic, and by consequence the alternative to 'The Empire' that is the issue. Think about the distinction. The end of ROTJ is a hopeful victory to aspire to. The tyranny of the Empire is overcome. The beginning of TPM gives us...the Senate which acts, already, to the whim of Sidious. What, exactly, has been lost between TPM and ROTS - in terms of democracy. Whatever it is is only superficial. And not one ordinary person, let a lone a group, is shown as giving a flying fig or being capable of action.

You can't tell the story of how democracy is lost if democracy is, from the outset, lost.

There is another distinction between the PT and the OT in terms of representing what it is to do Jedi. In the OT Luke has to train, hard, to facilitate any skills he might have in the Force. The skills are introduced and are 'cool' certainly, but the whole emphasis on the Force is as an aspect of a spiritual quest. The 'fathers of sons' concept is tangentially broached but...Obi-Wan does not appear to be related - and Yoda certainly is not - to Luke/Leia/Anakin.

At the end of the OT though the Force is simply a spiritual paradigm onto which the transcendental hero's attainment of wisdom is sketched. It is not the powers that might be learned that are important.

In the PT we don't see any effort expended upon coming to know the Force. It appears as a natural procurement upon the correct genetic entitlement, What is more, by the conviction of Qui-Gon (who broaches no counsel except the Force voice in his own head) and the conception of 'The Chosen One' by the midiclorians themselves the Force is no longer a conceptual backdrop, it has gained agency. The Jedi are transformed from the OT - whereby one might attain with training an understanding of this mysterious Force which binds us all and which we are all a part of - into an elite, endowed with 'god' given charge over their lesser flock.

 

Just quoting to say, "right on." Except - I think the prophecy aspect is not the real problem for Anakin's story as a 'hero who turns bad.' Even if actions were seen by someone in advance (and reality being deterministic, in some sense the future seems to 'already exist,' just outside of our mortal perspectives), the actions and feelings and everything could still proceed in intellectually and emotionally engaging ways.

I think that the amount of direct participation the Force has in the galaxy is the real issue. In the OT it felt like like a landscape or an ocean or a sky, a backdrop to the characters. In the PT, it deigns to 'personally'* shape the path of a particular mortal or group of them, and moreover, the mortals can, in effect, 'control the weather.' The scale is different. I think you probably made that distinction already (with 'last hope for these two old Jedi =/= last hope for the universe'), but I wasn't sure.

(*To the extent that it has person-like 'agency.')

 

See, here you'll probably both agree and disagree with some of the things I'm about to say. I agree with you that Luke is the last hope of the Jedi. Where I disagree with you is the notion that the OT presents the war as being won by the rebels rather than Luke or Anakin. I think it's precisely the opposite and I will detail why I believe this. In ANH, we see that the Death Star is destroyed by the Rebellion -- a true victory by "the people." What happens as a result? Nothing. Absolutely nothing seems to have changed by ESB besides the Emperor becoming aware of Luke. The Empire doesn't seem in the least bit weakened and Vader's obsession with Luke drives much of ESB. Rather than going after the Rebel transports (or dedicating a side-plot to this) the focus is completely on Luke.

The plot of ROTJ, then, revolves around destroying the Second Death Star which, importantly, has the Emperor on board -- and Mon Mothma makes big deal out of this. Now, personally, I don't see why the destruction of the Second Death Star would end the empire. Destroying the first certainly didn't -- the Empire just picked itself back up and hit back even harder. No, it seems to me that the difference in this film was that the Emperor was killed. Killing the Emperor was what freed the galaxy. And the credit for that goes to Luke (mostly) and Anakin. Because, considering Luke had time to drag his father to a shuttle, take off his mask, and speak to him, there is little doubt in my mind that the Emperor could have escaped had he not been killed.

That's a really big issue I have with the OT. It seems that the Rebellion's only actions against the Empire are to destroy the Death Stars. But ANH showed us that this didn't hurt the Empire at all. We're never given any indication that they lost a lot of valuable personnel or anything of the sort. Thus, that leads me to believe that it was the death of the Emperor (which Mothma stressed) that really brought the Empire to its knees. In which case -- credit is due to Luke and Anakin.

I would argue that Luke's realization is important in a different manner -- he succeeds not by fighting or killing, but by having faith and laying down his weapon. He sees that fighting should be a last resort. That sometimes you must be ready to sacrifice everything to hold to your principles.

In large part, this is why I enjoy Luke's portion of the story but find the Rebellion portion so underdone. If the Rebellion had launched an invasion of Coruscant or done something to indicate that their actions would end the Empire, I might agree, but we've seen before that the Empire is not contained within a Death Star and no one ever says anything about its military being on its last legs.

I would say Luke's story contrasts with Anakin's perfectly in the sense that he is someone who did not have the mantle of "Chosen One" placed on him but nonetheless fit the role and accepted it. He and Leia were the last hopes for the Jedi, but this is not really revealed to him until ROTJ when Obi-Wan tells him as much. Anakin, by contrast, is made aware of the "Chosen One" idea as a child and accepted into the Jedi Order in large part because of it. His strength in the Force is also what draws Palpatine's attention to him.

In this sense, Luke acts as a contrast to his father -- who was placed in a situation where he was put apart and "special" without truly understanding what that would mean and vulnerable to those who would exploit him. The PT, I would say, deconstructs the idea of a "Chosen One" in the sense that choosing a child as essentially a Messiah figure can come without consequence. Or that because this is a "child of destiny" that they will necessarily do everything you expect of them.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that Palpatine becomes "a person." I've always seen him as a tempter, a snake, a devil whispering in people's ears -- such as Padmé in TPM or Anakin during the opera scene in ROTS. We never learn any personal details about the man -- was he married, who his parents were, etc.

If anything, the PT builds upon his mythic qualities set up in the OT, but this is not one area in which it is subverted.

See, I would say that the PT shows quite powerfully the human vulnerability of the Jedi -- that for all the powers, they are people. And they are killed by the lowly stormtrooper. Those stormtroopers that, famously, were completely unable to land a single hit on the protagonists of the OT. Now, they're part of Palpatine's army, to be sure, but they're by no means divine. I think this also ignores other important players in PT -- such as Jar Jar, Bail Organa, or even Jango Fett. Jar Jar certainly played a role not just in TPM, but also in giving Palpatine emergency powers (although this latter point is negative, he still contributed). Bail Organa, similarly, would raise Leia and help fight against the Empire.

And I think, too, that you have to look at what the story of the PT is saying. The OT is a story about hope and success. I think it makes sense for the people to be shown as taking a greater part. For a band of brothers to come together to fight an evil Empire. That's a justified conflict and one that I feel is well served by Lucas' depiction.

The PT, though, has a negative trajectory. The Empire rises (I would argue) in part due to the complacency of the people, the greed of corporate interests, the corruption of the Senate, and arrogance of the Jedi -- all being preyed upon by Palpatine (who is very much a devil figure). This is the story of a generation that failed and of the destruction of the Jedi. I think the people having a minor role (except, notably, in the successful battle to free Naboo) is part of that.

I know this is getting back into politics a bit, but one of the most troubling things about American democracy (as I see it) is how apathetic a lot of the citizenry is --> so few of us here vote compared to people in, say, France (where over 80% will turn out for a Presidential election). I think it also speaks to our detachment of wars such as in Afghanistan and Iraq where the populace is much less affected than, say, in WWII or the Revolutionary War (which parallel the OT more closely).

From what I can tell, Lucas seems to believe that oligarchies arise when the people become complacent and disinterested and, from there, corruption sets in which leads to the rise of Empires and autocrats. I think the PT acts to warn against such complacency --> against allowing such oligarchies and Empires from arising. And this can only be achieved through constant vigilance. I don't think it's a coincidence, for example, that the people on Coruscant we see are drinking happily in a club. Or that there's still a lot of suffering on planet's like Tatooine.

It's not so much that the regular people can't be important to this story, but that it is an important facet of the story itself --> that Empires rise when the people cede their power or allow it to be stolen.

I disagree. I think there are a great many people who will say that the ends justify the means. One of the most chilling examples I can think of is how the United States utilized torture following September 11. And it certainly wasn't without the backing of a significant portion of the country who felt it was necessary for security.

I don't quite understand what you mean by Anakin is not a normal human. I would say that this is precisely the problem the PT presents -- he is a normal human. He's a normal human with human failings that can be manipulated. He is no more immune from fear, anger, and pain than we are. But his power means that his choices will have far greater consequences. Star Wars is a space opera so it dramatizes life and gives it a mythic grandeur. But Anakin's problem is precisely that he wants to control something he can't -- death -- because he fears losing those he loves. And his dissatisfaction with himself is due, in part, to the fact that he is only human where he believes he should be more. He defeats Palpatine not through his demigod powers, but by what could at best be called "conventional" means.

The average viewer may not be able to relate to Anakin's desire to be the greatest Jedi. But, personally, I relate very strongly to the fear of loss -- of losing those I love, of being alone. And there is little I would not do to save those I love.

I would say that this is because the story of the PT is a negative one --> one in which the Republic crumbles. At this juncture, though, I'm not quite sure why you want the people to rise up. They haven't realized what Palpatine's rule will mean yet. People like Caesar, Napoleon, even Hitler were not unpopular with all the citizenry. I would say, furthermore, that the point of the PT is that Empires rise because we allow them to. That when citizens no longer care and corruption has set in, that is how evil takes control.

I think you need to differentiate between "dead" and "dying," though. Democracy in the PT was dying, but it was not dead in TPM. Not enough people were willing to fight for it, however, so yes, it did die. The Republic isn't going to go from a bastion of democracy and liberty to an Empire in a few years, however. The point isn't that the Republic was perfect, but that the principles it was founded on were worth preserving -- that they had been corrupted and needed to be fought for. In TPM, there were still good people such as Chancellor Valorum. But people were giving up on them.

I don't think the Senate throughout the PT is meant to represent the alternative to the Empire. It's meant to show the origins of the Empire and the last, faltering days of the Republic. This isn't the Republic in all of its glory. That Republic would not have become an Empire. But that is the Republic that the Rebels are fighting for and to create again.

I would disagree with you that the Force did not have agency in the OT. One of the very first things Obi-Wan says to Luke, for example, is that the Force not only obeys your commands but also directs your actions itself. This suggests a level of symbiosis -- of give and take.

Moreover, I think you need to look at what happens to the Jedi in both the PT and OT. One of the major themes of the PT, I would argue, is that the Jedi lost their way. That they had become cold, arrogant, and disinterested in the lives of the common people. They were too embroiled in politics and secluded in their ivory tower. Because of that, they could not stand apart from the Senate and were roped into the war -- in which they were killed.

The OT, then, shows the Jedi as they should be -- as servants of the people and learners of the Force on their own terms. Even then, the OT makes it a point to show that the Jedi of old are not infallible. It is Luke who must forge his own path and who, because of his faith, ultimately succeeds. I would argue that Luke's triumphs in the OT are made all the more meaningful because we see where the Jedi of the PT went wrong.

The PT is about the world (and our protagonists) being and further falling out of balance.

 

Except it is there in ANH. Obi-wan tells Luke that his father was a Jedi Knight and a pilot during the Clone Wars. Luke is wowed by that revelation and tells Obi-wan that he wants to be a Jedi like his father had been. He's even given his father's weapon. Sure it became more of a focus with the next two films, but it began in ANH.

Really? Every action that Luke takes is predicated on the fact that he is the last Jedi.

Except that the victory was not assured. Had Palpatine not been distracted by the battle of the Skywalkers, he would have focused on destroying Endor and would have realized the danger from the Alliance much sooner, thus escaping before the Death Star was destroyed. Taking Palpatine out was essential to ending the story as Lucas wanted it to be. The people fought the war, but it was the Jedi versus Sith battle that would cement the war's actual end. That was the story Lucas intended to tell from the beginning.

Only verbalized with the PT. Throughout the OT, it was the idea of a Jedi being instrumental in the ending of the war. Lucas abandoned "The Son Of Suns", but he retained the idea that a Skywalker was a threat to the Emperor and that there was a more specific reason as to why Obi-wan was with Luke on Tatooine for all those years.

That's not even remotely true. The character had evolved from being just a political figure head to being the root cause of the downfall of the galaxy, long before the PT was made. He was created very much as a person who had become the ultimate evil and his appearance embodied that. The story wasn't told in the OT, but he was more than just "emptiness". That was just the impression you got from it.

Except that Lucas had made it clear back in the day, that the Jedi and the Sith were more unique because they had to spend more time at being who they had to become. That put them above the ordinary people. The most serious of minds and the most deepest of commitments could become Jedi and Sith. As to the people being incidental, again I point out Lucas's earlier works. Particularly in the description of the droids in relation to the heroes of the Rebellion, as they had walked with gods. The droids had marveled at that. Today, it is the gods of Olympus battling it out on the larger scale, while on the smaller scale are the mortals who do their part in the overall conflict.

Rubbish. Anakin's journey is no different from those of myths and legends, many of whom were unique and others who weren't. Judas was a normal man who chose to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He wasn't the sole focus of the story, but his actions have a very mortal and grounded reasoning. Mordred chose to betray King Arthur because he sought the power for himself, when the opportunity arose. Being the Chosen One does not mean that Anakin isn't a man. It is more than just killing Palpatine, but it informs on his decisions to do what he does. In DC Comics, Green Lantern Hal Jordan becomes evil because he believed that he failed Coast City when it was destroyed by Mongul and the Cyborg Superman. He made a choice to destroy the GL Corps in pursuit of the power to revive Coast City. In fact, at the time, many fans and even DC staff likened it to "Star Wars" and this was before the PT's storyline was known. Likewise, Spider-Man over at Marvel blames himself for his Aunt May's near fatal condition, after she was shot by an assassin working for his old foe, Wilson Fisk. Peter becomes desperate to save his aunt and when Mephisto shows up, he and Mary Jane agree to give up their marriage in order to restore May to health. A true Faustian bargain.

Humans wanting to save their loved ones at all cost. Lucas links Anakin's motivations to Faust, who wanted power and knowledge beyond the mortal world and is given it by the Devil's agent, Mephistopheles. Faust himself was human and mortal.

It is lost through the actions of the Naboo Invasion and the Clone Wars. In TPM, Padme calls for a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor because he lacks the strength of character to do what needs to be done and this results in Palpatine gaining political prominence. In AOTC, the growing threat of the Separatists is what leads to a bill regarding the creation of an army to fight against a possible attack. But so great is the divide in the Senate, that when the threat becomes crystallized and with the knowledge of an army that's ready to go, Jar Jar goes before the Senate to propose that the Chancellor is given the power to make use of the army. Thereby bypassing the opposition to the Military Creation Act and ensuring that the Clone Army is put to good use. We see that there is a Loyalist Committee that is dedicated to preventing the passing of the act and the continuing efforts at achieving peace democratically. In ROTS, we know that the Jedi, Padme and Bail oppose Palpatine's continued gathering of power. We see how he is able to con the people into giving him what he wants.

And this is a problem how? In the PT, we're seeing the Jedi in their prime. We're seeing their points of view and their understanding of the Force, where we only see from Luke's point of view in the OT.

 

It's actually vaguely insulting this idea that preference for the OT has to be rooted in nostalgia. Why is the same rarely suggested of preference for the PT? TPM is now pushing 15 so there's plenty of scope for its fans to have the rose tinted goggles out when looking back to the good old late 90's. This is particularly so if those fans weren't around in order to attach sentimentality to their younger self viewings of the OT first time around. The PT and the OT are completely different movie experiences in so many ways. Different actors and characters predominantly, different philosophical emphases, different aesthetics, different pace. Why is it so difficult to imagine that a person would prefer one of these very different series to the other, without some kind of sentimental bias at play?

 

You don't see the distinction? Luke in ANH is told his father was a Jedi Knight. He is then trained, and has to work - hard - at becoming a Jedi. This is very different from the trope I am talking of.

But not, I think, the saviour of the galaxy. Certainly not the son of a demi-god.

There's a couple of responses to this, in terms of what Lucas "intended to tell from the beginning". It may be that his early drafts have hints of what eventually ended up in the PT and so one could say that it was 'intended'. there are so many ideas in the drafts though that I think had in mind as a possibility would be closer to the truth. In interviews at the time he spoke of the Ewoks being alike to the Vietcong, about how - despite their technological disadvantages - they overcame the 'evil empire'. His words at the time point toward the rebels having been victorious over the Empire.

But, perhaps that is what Lucas intended. Thankfully, if that was the case, he had others working on the film who saw to it that something different occurred.

The whole Jedi vs Sith decides it is a back projection onto the OT of PT ideas. If you actually watch the OT without the PT in mind there is no reason to believe that. The throne room scene doesn't even make sense in that scenario because, if the destruction of the Emperor is so important then Luke's actions become ludicrous; stupid. far from a revelation his actions here would demonstrate simply Luke's incompetence. But Luke thrwoing down his lightsabre - the illogical nature of it - is a signal (a film equivalent of a 'Zen' shock - as with the cave on Dagobah) that all here is not as it seems.

If stopping the Emperor is important then Luke's actions are catastrophically incompetent. He can calm himself and refuse to cut down Vader and then turn to dealing with the Emperor - but that isn't what he does and I don't believe that incompetence is implied.

In the OT movies he is nothing except a shadowy, hooded figure who commands Vader and goads Luke.

And so we must thank the stars that Lucas did not have a free hand in the OT. Where is that reference to the droids from? As to your last comment there...what do you mean by that?

A Faustian bargain is a legitimate trope, it has a power...but not in terms of explaining how a good person turns to doing bad things. As I said, most people don't go on near genocidal campaigns when their loved ones die. Super-heroes might, but people don't.

So...democracy is about strong leaders? I see....

Just a quick note on some poor logic here. So....the Senate is so divided that they won't agree to a bill to create an army of the Republic but...put a bill before them to give the Chancellor emergency powers (so, not just an army but an army with no democratic oversight) and all opposition dissolves? What the....?

But, here you give an example of a very typical Gestalt-shift, a subtle innuendo that is not yours but exists in the movies (as a consequence of the Senate 'representing' democracy); you state that the likes of Padmé and Bail Organa oppose the bill, and still fight against the Chancellor's power but then proclaim that "the people" are conned into giving him what he wants. So...the stupid/greedy Senators (not being 'leaders') have now become 'the people'

What's the problem with selling a story to our kids that authority is in-born and that they have no part to play in decisions about their own lives? You have to ask?

 

Replying to the OP...

Yes, this is what nagged me throughout the prequels, but ESPECIALLY starting with Episode II clone wars. Lucas did a piss-poor job of building up the villains, which is basically the whole central reason for the movie (stories, deep down, are all about villains). In a way it did mirror Lucas's own job in doing the PT in which he failed to truly bring in good collaborators. The lack of understanding of delegation and handling disagreements is obvious in how the PT discussed democracy, and many of the tropes. Yes, the Jedi Order and its Republic...when you think about it...is basically an Empire of Order. What you don't see in the movies so much is...disorder, and how someone can desire control to prevent bad things from happening. But freedom means that sometimes...bad things will happen. More times than not. Because you can't control everything.

And that robs Anakin of *any* legitimacy. And by doing so, the narrative becomes paltry.

I wonder how much of it came from the EU and its many many bad ideas.

I've always thought that I would have changed a few things. Anakin *Vader* (Vader being his family's surname) is a young heroic nobleman who goes off to fight the Clone Wars. The other side he is fighting against is *legitimate* and has *real* grievances. He wants to hold the Republic which had stood for thousands of years together. He and Obi-Wan are fanatical in their devotion to the *Republic*. At some point, Obi-Wan decides that a line has been crossed and *defects* to the *Rebels* fighting against the *Republic*. Anakin Vader is outraged and feels betrayed. He tracks down Obi-Wan and confronts him. Obi-Wan defends himself and disfigures Anakin. Anakin survives. He and the man who becomes Emperor go on to win the war while losing their souls in the process. That is because holding a large empire together is *inherently* dark side. It is imposing your will on life.

A few important things...

-- Jedi have to be shown as frustratingly mystical, to the point of inaction vs real harm

-- If Vader is born a nobleman, it is poetic that his son live as a simple farmer, adopted by the country-bumpkin Skywalkers.

-- The Emperor and his force lightning have to be like the pentultimate of corruption, and not just another tool like a lightsaber. Force lightning is the force made into direct energy.

Maybe one day an executive at Disney will greenlight a remaking of the Prequels...gotta love corporations

 

One more thing...

While the politics of Star Wars doesn't quite make much sense from a Western perspective on politics...it might make more sense from an Eastern sense. In the Chinese psyche, political unity is the natural state of being, while in the Western, political disunity is the natural state. And so while there must always be an emperor, when the emperor is corrupt it is a sign of being out of favor, of being dark side so to speak, and ripe to be overthrown by a champion of hte light side. WHo will then take the throne and rule over the people as a benevolent sovereign.

Since Lucas is obviously Western, I always hoped at least that his understanding of politics was deep down structurally western, while adding in eastern elements as flavoring, but it is possible that his political understanding is Eastern also.

 

About Nostalgia,

First, how it is used in arguments sometimes bother me. Because in some instances it is being used to invalidate certain opinions and say that they are not valid.
Basically the argument goes "If you prefer the OT over the PT then you only do so because you are blinded and deluded by Nostalgia." And sometimes we get, "Nostalgia have blinded you to the bad acting, crappy writing and overuse of special affects in the OT."

This type of argument can be flipped and we get "If you prefer the PT over the OT then you only do so because you have been dazzled by the fancy special effects and overlook the crappy acting, bad writing and overuse of CGI."
Probably some have used this type of argument and to me it is just as wrong as saying that you prefer the OT only due to Nostalgia.

In both cases you try to invalidate the opinion of others and this always bother me. I do not always agree with other people but I won't try to claim that they aren't allowed to have their opinion or that it isn't valid.

Second, what often gets overlooked by those that invoke Nostalgia is that it is a double-edged sword.
You can get the reaction that people are overly critical of a new film/book/comic/episode because it isn't exactly as they remember it. BUT you can just as easily get the opposite reaction, that people overlook flaws and problems because they are already invested in the material and just want more.
So while there might be some that judge the PT too harshly there could be as many that judge it too kindly.
And for essentially the same reason, Nostalgia.

Ex. I am a big fan of Monthy Python but I don't like all their stuff equally. Some time ago they made a 30-year special with some new stuff in it. And it was nice to see more new things, but if I had to be honest, that new stuff often wasn't quite as funny as their older work.

Third, when it comes to the OT and PT, most people here would agree that the OT is a fairly simple story. With more straight forward characters and a more black and white story of Good vs Evil. While the PT is more complex, with more complicated characters and more shades of gray. Neither of this is any kind value judgment of either series, only that there are some differences between them.
However, to me this means you can't tell these two stories in exactly the same way because they are different.
With a simple story, with simple characters you generally don't need a detailed backstory or loads of exposition to explain why characters do what they do. In the OT the Empire is called "Evil" in the opening crawl and everything we see reinforces that idea. They are bad guys who do evil things. Not terribly deep or complex but for the story that is being told, it is enough. With a more complex story you often do need more time to explain the backstory in more detail and flesh out the characters out a bit more if they are meant to be more complex.

In my experience this a fairly frequent issue of criticism against the PT, that some thing are glossed over, that motivations are underdeveloped or character actions make less sense. To me, in some cases the plot is sometimes contrived or "Forced". What I have also noticed is that the EU is sometimes used as a crutch to explain certain plot points or what really happened.
This I do think is a difference between OT and PT. When the OT was made, there wasn't as much if any EU. With the PT, the EU was much bigger and certain plot points could be developed there instead of in the films.

Also I have heard some argue that the story in the PT was so complex that Lucas couldn't really do in three, two hour films and that is why the EU is used. To this I say, if you can't tell the story you want to tell in the time you have, either shorten/simplify the story or add more time. If Lucas really wanted to, he could have done four prequel films, the first film could simply be the Prologue or EP 0. Or he could have made the films longer. I don't think many would have terribly minded that. People might counter with that the films are meant to mirror each other and all that.
Again, if the story in the PT is meant to be more complex with more shades of gray then you need the extra time to tell it well. Or make the story simpler.
Ex if you want to tell a story like "Ben-Hur" then you tend to need more time than if you are making "The Life of Brian."

In closing, I prefer the OT over the PT but I don't view the PT as bad or terrible films. A little above average to me.
They have good bits and bad bits and the bad bits are numerous enough to bring the films down a bit but the good bits saves them from being bad. Somewhat uninvolving or uninteresting characters and a somewhat forced plot line are my major problems with them. The OT has flaws too, RotJ esp but I enjoy them more and I am more involved with the characters and the story.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. Think of the villains in the PT - the various corporate powers, the Sith, etc. They could easily fit into the "evil" category created by the usage of that word in the ANH crawl. You might say that, okay, what about people like Dooku, who present good motives (disagreeing with the corruption in the Republic) with bad actions (using the dark side, etc)? But in the end, Dooku is revealed to be a Sith, and within the structure of the morals of the films as set up, he seems to be just plain evil, even if he has some tricky statements that would make you (or Obi-Wan) question it. The PT here seems to want to have complexity, but the characters and world aren't really given enough room for ambiguity for this to happen. Anakin's turn is the same way. There are lots of plot turns and epicycles of story, but Anakin turning to the dark side means that one minute he's a Jedi and the next he's against everything he just stood for. His emotions might be in turmoil, but the sides he's choosing between are pretty clear. It's not like he's choosing between 'order' and 'freedom,' both of which have arguments on either side; he's choosing between 'good' and 'bad.' That the worldbuilding is structured (or is explicated) in that way limits the possibilities for complexity and questioning. Nobody says, 'was Anakin right to do what he did?'

Now think of the OT (plus TPM, actually). Think of Piett. Think of Watto. Think of the people who stop to listen to Lando's message over the intercom. They're just regular people, doing what they think is right (even if they're part of the Empire), or what they think they can get away with (Watto), or just getting on with their lives. Examples of a world beyond, or at least on, the edges of the beat-you-over-the-head-Capital-Letters-Good-vs-Evil dynamic. If that counts as 'complexity' it might be even more evident in the OT than in the PT.

 

You're misinterpreting things a bit. No one is saying that they cannot prefer one over the other. But what is being said is that some of the reasons that certain people have made tend to ignore that the OT had its share of flaws. They viewed the films through rose tinted glasses and as such, they're not making objective claims.

Nope, because Luke's relationship with his father was established as a driving point in his even entertaining the notion of becoming a Jedi. The father/son dynamic was a part of the story long before Lucas decided to make the father and a major villain the same character.

Anakin's origin aside, Luke was built up as the savior. He's the reason why "Star Wars" became "Star Wars: A New Hope". He's that new hope. He's the one that the Jedi looked towards to save the galaxy from the Empire and the Sith. It's only when Lucas cemented Anakin/Vader story that he shifted it slightly and then more so with the PT.

Not really. In the first draft, there were different fronts for the final battle. The Wookiees working with Han, Luke, Owen and Beru to fight against the Imperials stationed on Yavin 4, while Annkin's example lead to Valoruum's redemption and then they rescued Leia and with Artoo's help, destroyed the Death Star. That very concept was modified to what became the Battle Of Yavin 4, but also became the Battle Of Endor, later on. Even in the rough drafts for ROTJ, it was the Jedi and Sith battle going on at the same time that the ground battle and the space battles were going on. Each was integral to the other.

YODA: "Stopped they must be. On this depends. Only a fully trained Jedi Knight, with the Force as his ally will conquer Vader and his Emperor."

OBI-WAN: "The Emperor knew, as did I, that if Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him."

PALPATINE: "He could destroy us."

Right there in TESB and ROTJ, it is clear that Luke is important in defeating the Sith and ending the war. Yoda even spells it out while trying to get Luke to stay. The thing is that Luke was not there to fight Palpatine, but to save his father. He was ignoring what he was told that he must do and was trusting his feelings and instincts. In doing so, he saves his father and himself and they end Palpatine's reign of terror.

And he was the one who enslaved the galaxy through treachery, greed and fear. These were the things that made him what he was.

How? His wife, Kershner, Kurtz, Marquand and Kasdan didn't change his story of the Jedi and Sith battle. That was still there in the films. Just as the story of the Rebels versus Imperials was still there.

In March of 97, Jan Hedler wrote an essay detailing the development of the first film through the various drafts. In summarizing the synopsis that Lucas shopped around, he noted that the character who became Leia was like a demigoddess and that the two drunken bureaucrats who were the early template for the droids, states that at the end of the synopsis, the two realize that their adventures were with demigods and not just ordinary people.

As to what I said in the last sentence, I was referring to the larger story which is the Jedi and Sith conflict which places those characters above the Rebels/Imperials and their war.

That's because Lucas was connecting back to what Obi-wan said about Vader's betrayal and his subsequent actions. But right in that Faustian bargain was a man who would do whatever it took to save the one he loved and in doing so, he would have to prove his loyalty to Mephistopheles, in order to gain that which he desired.

Not quite. A strong leader was required to sort through the political red tape, in order to carry out the will of the people. Valorum refused to do it to the degree that was necessary and thus he became a liability.

The Senate recognizes its flaws and supports the idea of giving power to someone who can make the decisions without the red tape.

They were always the people. They represented the interests of their home worlds and systems. The war had ravaged the galaxy and many feared further attacks from the Separatists and with the Jedi now exposed as frauds, they were willing to let Palpatine run the show. Those who did question were the ones who formed the Alliance. That's why in ANH, the Senate is dissolved and control is given to the regional governors who answer to Palpatine.

This assumes that what we perceive as free will is nothing but an illusion and that our lives were mapped out to begin with. That every decision was "God's plan" or "According to fate", not truly not our own. As to authority is in-born, well, we sell our kids on Mutants and Metahumans who are different from us and better because of their abilities. We sell kids on myths like Hercules and Perseus, who are divine sons of gods, who are more unique than we are.

Why?

Considering that Lucas didn't read the books and comics, I'd say no. It's really the other way around. Whenever there were questions about Jedi, Sith and the Force, it came from Lucas.

 

If I am misinterpreting, then my apologies. But I'm not saying that anyone's suggesting that one can't prefer one trilogy over the other. I'm challenging the idea that if such a preference is made in favour of the OT, that that preference is necessarily more strongly influenced by nostalgia than any other preference. Nostalgia doesn't necessarily increase as more years go by. One can be nostalgic for something that happened 5, 10, 20 or 50 years ago. It's about the associations with a particular time, not the amount of time passed. So, that being the case, why should nostalgia be such a strong factor for an OT preference, rather than a PT, or any other preference?

 

For me, it isn't about passage of time, but of content. Anyone who says anything about time passage, that's their reasoning and I don't claim to understand it. But on a whole, as I said, it's the rose tinted glasses more than growing up with one over the other. At least, as I see it.

 

I think we're talking past each other a bit here, so I'll leave it at that, other than to say that it's not just OT fans who are at times to be found sporting a pair of rose tinted goggles.

 

The line about the droids, at the end, remarking about journeying in the company of royalty/giants/whatever, has to be a reference to The Hidden Fortress.

 

First impressions followed by later impressions

A New Hope: I was unimpressed with it on a whole. It felt clunky and a lot of the special effects were a little lackluster. The lines were really rushed and the actor said it so fast that no one could understand (Luke, in particular). The part where they entered the death star and wound up in the garbage chute seemed like a waste of time. The maneuvers with the x-wing fighters were stiff.

later impressions: once I got to know the lines by heart, I started appreciating some of the economy of the story, getting to know real life I really started appreciating han solo, much of the creativity

Empire Strikes Back: good, no complaints.

later impressions: very impressed with how it hits all of these story-telling points in such a clever manner. Again impressed especially with Cloud City.

Return of the Jedi: was more impressed with it for the dogfights in the end than I was with the first movie. some special effects like the Rancor or the speeder scene weren't great, but weren't horrible either. I found the last part with force lightning to be horrifying at the time, and Vader's final move to be really emotionally significant.

Later impressions: never hated the Ewoks, and later on I really liked how Lucas intended on telling a story on how primitive peoples defeated a technological Empire. Last fight I notice more the huge flaws in choreography.

Phantom Menace: didn't leave with a bad impression like a lot of people did. Jar Jar was silly but I didn't mind too much. Anakin was young, but again I didn't mind too much. It felt like a prologue and I left wondering how they would resolve the saga.

Later impressions: I really can't hate this movie. Not even Jar Jar. I think that the last lightsaber fight might be the best lightsaber fight Lucas has ever filmed.

Attack of the Clones. I HATED THIS MOVIE. CGI all over the place. Yoda especially. Anakin horribly developed. Not enough of the story happened that I knew that it was going to be a mess.

Later impressions: none. First impression was enough. This is a bad movie.

Revenge of the Sith: actually looked forward to the movie. Left unsatisfied. Villainy and motivations not very well done. Grievous is an annoying distraction. Final duel just not well done. Had been waiting for transformation to Vader...and it just wasn't well done. Scene where anakin turns evil is nonsensical. Just...stupid.

later impressions: same. I was older of course at this point.

 

I have no doubt that the inception of this thread is due to my earlier comments of people siding with OT because of nostalgia. And what I said is absolutely true. This thread contains many people who are in self-denial with regards to nostalgia.

Nostalgia is not a bad thing but what's bad is that people are not honest about it. They instead start going off on how, in the PT, the plot makes no sense, how terrible certain characters are, etc. They don't want to admit that the OT left an impressionable mark upon them and that the OT skewed their lenses to a very specific set of characters, story line, etc.

Even some of the most devout, narrow-minded OT-ers who have been present on these forums in the past have admitted it so:

"But if I were born 5 years later than I was I'd probably love the Prequels. Wouldn't have the OT nostalgia clouding my thought."

"I am a confessed OT purist ... This is why overall I don't like the Prequels ... not very Star Wars-y for my tastes."

"I'm willing to admit some of the "we expected the OT" issue is part of the problem."

"I am frustrated that we won't get the original trilogy in it's original form and the originals are defiantly better than the prequels."

There are many more examples of these private truths surfacing. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to flatly admit it if I directly asked them. However, what they are willing to state as the source of their displeasure of the PT is a bunch of supposed flaws within the PT. A bit of a snowballing effect also plays into that.

Many of them have also elevated the OT to a near sacred status as films. When I stated a fact such as the OT being a simpler set of movies, some even reacted as if they had heard an unspeakable offense. And when I further articulated that the acting, motives, and tension were not at all the unrivaled, undisputed traits of the film, there wasn't a single explanation from the other side. Luke's reaction to the death of his stepparents and the concept of a world-destroying weapon are but a few examples of an entire list of simplistic writing and unbelievable events in the OT.

Then there are a group of people who operate under the Golden Mean fallacy. These people believe that the two trilogies are equal because both combine to a greater saga. This is a flawed thinking: you should take the movies, and the trilogies, as they come: not pander to some notion that the two trilogies must be equal. I've always stated how the PT entirely trumps the OT as a set of films, from the most base levels of visual enjoyment to more dense, less archetypal characters to appreciation of extremely ambitious subject matter. Just as the ST could be greater than the previous trilogies--this is dubious as I feel Disney is modeling towards the OT because of the current Star Wars fan base.

But back to the OP, nostalgia is a huge part of the differing views on the OT and on the PT. Furthermore, nostalgia has unfortunately created an aversion to a newer, and greater, set of movies in the Star Wars universe. Funnily enough, despite its influence, the presence of nostalgia is one of the least admitted things.

 

I'm 20 years old. I was essentially the target audience for the prequels. I grew up with them, love them to varying degrees, but I still find the OT films, overall, to be better films. I don't think they're perfect, but it think they succeeded far better at what they were trying to do than the PT.

I don't think the PT films are worthless by any means, in fact they are in my eyes severely under appreciated, but I think many of the criticisms that have been made over the years are at least valid. Nostalgia may have been large part of the initial backlash to the prequels, but I think the reason people still resent them years later is something that goes much deeper. It goes to where George Lucas's mind was as a creator at the time of making the films, the changes in his style and creative tastes, the changes in his influences and advisors, and how all those things seep into a work of art and affect how the audience reacts.

Anyways, I don't think it's just nostalgia. It is for some, certainly on this board I've seen a number of people who can't accept anything outside their little bubble of pre-1999 Star Wars, but that's not the case for most. Not anymore.

 

Of course it's not, just as a preference for the PT is not cultivated because one is ignorant of film and/or a "blind" Lucas supporter.

 

Thanks a lot. Didn't know about those technical forums.

Just changed to Google Chrome and works fine now.