A saga or two separate trilogies?

I tend to see the OT and PT as two separate trilogies. I believe it's because GL did it backward (OT before PT) and tried to change the story too much (The Chosen One plot, Jedi being trained from birth, Jedi not allowing to marry, Yoda not Obi-Wan's master etc). Both are enjoyable in their own ways, but they are not one complete story to me, but rather two stories that share some of the same characters.

 

Words of wisdom Fat_Bird. I for one completely agree with you, but alas, as you will soon see, we are the minority here.

 

As long as people are POLITE in disagreeing, there should be no problem.

 

How do you know that's was nascent in 1999? Perhaps there always was a prophecy but that information was just not divulged until the 1999.

You have no proof that this was not part of the old Jedi Code.

Again you have no proof this is new for the PT.

Sure Yoda was Obi-Wan's master.

 

I'm basing my opinions on what *I* saw in the OT. When GL may or may not have thought up the Chosen One plot for the PT does not matter at all. All I know is there was nothing indicating that Vader was anything beyond a failed Jedi turned Sith in the OT. As for the marriage, there was no indication that Luke and Leia's parents being together and having them was against the rules or done in secret. And Yoda most certainly was not Obi-Wan's master in the PT. Is that even in question?

 

In the PT I saw, Obi-Wan called Yoda "Master" a number of times.





Splitting hairs - it's fun
/Flames

 

Going by the films, these things weren't discussed in the OT. But a lot of them were always part of the story, dating back to 1974. The marriage issue, training young Jedi, Master/Padawan, Jedi-turned Sith-turned Jedi, the Jedi being declared traitors and a prophecy of a savior were all there in the early writings. But they were bits and pieces of story that were combined into one narrative whole.

"I had the Star Wars project in mind even before I started my last picture, American Graffiti, and as soon as I finished I began writing Star Wars in January 1973 - eight hours a day, five days a week, from then until March 1976, when we began shooting. Even then I was busy doing various rewrites in the evenings after the day's work. In fact, I wrote four entirely different screenplays for Star Wars, searching for just the right ingredients, characters and storyline. It's always been what you might call a good idea in search of a story."

--George Lucas quote from the Star Wars Souvenir Program, May 1977.

So these elements existed in different script drafts and they all made their way into a final script, from which the story would then be filmed and then modified during post production. Until he finally got what he wanted. When Lucas did the OT, he kept it to his most basic elements. This was the story that he was interested in telling the most. The backstory was something that allowed him to explore things in a much deeper sense, while connecting all these existing threads with new ones. That's why he cut out a lot of exposition in ROTJ, that explained how everything went down. He wanted to be flexible with what he would discuss with the PT.

That said, I will now give my $0.02 on the topic. For me, I see it as a one whole Saga with two sections. Section one is where everything starts off and goes to hell. Section two is where everything turns around and is resolved. In the beginning I had just the OT to go on. Once I started to see the PT, I started to see it as a Saga. I do classify things as PT and OT, but that is mostly to define where each element goes when talking about Star Wars. Either here or off the computer. But overall it is a Saga.

 

"And Yoda most certainly was not Obi-Wan's master in the PT. Is that even in question?"


what i want to know is where in the OT do you remember obi-wan saying yoda was his master. he says instructor and teacher, but never says yoda was his master in the way that qui-gon ended up being. yoda told bail and obi-wan what to do at the end of ROTS, sure sounds like he was INSTRUCTING obi-wan

but getting back on topic, i think of star wars as a saga, not two trilogies.

 

I'm with the Quote Master. One saga with two sections.





Star Wars is six, two and one
/Flames

 

.

 

I see it as two trilogies, that co-exist as one saga in the same galaxy far, far, away.

There will be fans on both sides of the issue til the day we die. Alot of it stems from when the viewer saw the films. Did they see the original SW in 1977? Was their first experience ESB or ROTJ? Was their first experience after the OT was released in theaters? Was their first experience the SE? And was the first experience seeing the PT? I think if you look at when a fan saw their first SW film, it can tell alot of how much they can connect and see as one saga. Now of course not EVERYONE will fall in the same category and please don't post saying I am 35 and I love the PT, but if you look it as a general rule, you will see a trend.

I for one saw Star Wars in 1977, so I have seen all the changes to the saga from day one. For the 6 movies for me to work, I have to look at them as two seperate entities, that prevents me from comparing. If I begin comparing movies, the trilogies are just too different, and here are things I fumble around with when looking at them as 1-6:

1. Two different stories: The PT is clearly about Anakin and more personal story, the OT is mainly about Luke, but still in a sense about Luke, Han, and Leia, not til ROTJ does Darth Vader story become more attuned to the PT. But the overall theme of the OT has always been Rebels vs Empire, there has always been a clear set of good guys and bad guys, as the PT is more grey area guys. Answer: Can you understand why I love SW & ESB the most? I don't find the Anakin story as interesting as Luke, Han, and Leia's. If this were a linear story 1-6 about the tragedy of Darth Vader, and he was more prevalent in the original SW, and more indepthed in ESB, I probably wouldn't be a huge SW fan. If you notice fans of the PT, absolutely love the throne room scene in ROTJ, cause that is in direct relations to everything they love about the PT.

2. Two different looks visually & special effects wise: The PT is a majority of bluescreen and matte painting environments, the worlds are more indepth, but don't look totally realistic, the space battles are faster yet look too cartoony. The OT used much more real sets, real environments, and more models in space. By using real settings like California for Endor, and Switzerland for Hoth, I believe the actors are in the situation, and though it isn't as grand as Kamino & Coruscant, it just feels more realistic. The space battles in the OT, while slower and not as nifty, still pack a punch, as it just doesn't feel like one big animated movie.

3. The characters are way different and something totally out of Lucas's control on this one. The big three of Luke, Leia, and Han against the big three of Padme, Anakin, and Kenobi. Give me the chemistry, the humor, and the love of Han, Leia, and Luke any day of the week. The OT characters are just simple you & me characters, while the PT characters are stoic politicans & jedi, and not as fun to watch.

4. Too many years between filming trilogies: They just feel like two different set of movies, because of the 16 year gap. Lucas changed through the years with Greedo shooting first crap, Kasdan was gone, Kurtz was gone, Lucas decided to direct and write the whole trilogy, and you do see a difference when he delegated more for the OT. If the PT was filmed in 1986, 1989, and 1992, I guarantee many more fans would be able to marry the trilogies.

5. The music can make me tie them together, cause John Williams is such a key to a SW movie, and more than we think, this guy is just as important as anyone else ever involved. And do you notice, Lucas used him for all 6 movies?

As I said, I enjoy the PT, but I love the OT, so what can I do? I can't force myself to love the PT as much? It like someone saying to me, "Why don't you like the Matrix Trilogy as much as the Original Star Wars Trilogy?" My reply, "Because I don't." It is simple as that, and that is why I can't see this as 6 episodes.

 

One story. One saga.

 

EDIT - Ooops double post...

 

I have to say, simply because I have been digging into the EU a lot more now, that it's a PART of a Saga. The OT in itself is great. A self contained story with a beginning and an ending. The PT comes along and I delve into games and literature and both the OT and the PT are just parts in an ongoing history of a fictional universe. The storyline does have some holes in it, but so do real world historical recordings.

Carnage

 

saga

 

its a saga-with a few discrepencies,not bad tho,considering the time span,most scriptwriters cant keep it together for a 90min movie.

 

hey,its a virtually impossible task,take a risky,expensive concept with virtually zero confidence from your peers that turns into the most loved and most profitible franchise ever,wait 2 decades then continue the story but go back in time and make 3 more movies based on the life of a faceless 2d villain using incredible technology that wasnt dreamed of the 1st time round!whos watched st enterprise and thought yes that ships nowhere near as good as cpn kirks!george lucas did it and maybe there are a few faults but if he says its a 6 part saga-thats what it is.

 

Considering that the actual prophecy was in George's original drafts, I'd say that the Chosen One plot is not "new" by any means.

I look at it this way:

The PT & the OT are one story-there's zilch in the OT that specifically contradicts the PT, and vice-versa. It may contradict some viewer's pre-conceived opinions on things, but as George doesn't have a reason to honestly give a damn about what other people think about movies he does his own way, that's to be expected.

However-the OT can be viewed as independent of the PT; you can watch all three films, never watch the PT, and just make up your own background, as alot of people obviously have.

The PT is much less flexible with working around people's notions about it, for obvious reasons; there's what I like to think of as an 'imagination off-switch' regarding what happened before them, because only one thing important happened before the PT, and that was the Sith war mentioned in the TPM novel, and, of course, the births of Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Anakin, Yoda, Padme, and Palpatine. The Sith war was so long ago, we're told, that noone in living memory remembers it, and as for births, well, people get born all the time.

As for whether or not this is a bad thing-I can't really say. My mind went largely dormant SW-wise between the late 80s and the release of TPM, so obviously I'm fine with the prequels; as I didn't have any pre-conceived opinions about how "this is how so and so should be", the film depictions went over fine with me.

The key thing to remember is that these are George's movies. Crude as it sounds, he's not making them to make everyone happy. He makes films to make himself happy, and if you like them as well, that's ok. Otherwise, I don't think what other people think is a very large priority for him. And that's how it ought to be, frankly.

 

hear hear,generally hes done an amazing job-there are probably more plot holes in

 

We have a plot hole thread. Let's not get off on debating that subject here. For this thread agree to disagree, and if you wish to debate plot-holes, discuss it in the plot hole thread.

I see it as two trilogies: 1) yes, because of plot holes, but also (2) the different look and feel as well as (3) the different focus on characters.

 

For me a number of textual and stylistic terms mark the respective trilogies as too disparate to be seen as one continuous narrative. The Prequels unravel in a decidedly erratic manner, with many individual events, characters, and locations briefly intertwining to support these films? greater goal of first and foremost presenting the story of a single individual, Anakin Skywalker. Here the thematic content reaches a significant level of depth, with philosophical explorations, commentaries on stagnant social organization, and intricate portrayals of political strife taking center stage.

Compare this to the OT, where instead the story is primarily one that focuses on action and adventure as the primary means of furthering the characterizations of the ensemble cast, all of which unfolds in a more organic and deliberate manner that often leads to a better sense of focus than what the PT offered. Visually, the OT is marked by a design and style that carries a lot more grit and realism, while the PT favors luminous CGI renderings that, while beautiful, lack the sense of actuality that something as simple as puppet can convey. Even with keeping in mind the ever-present influence of the Force, a lot of the physical movements seen in the PT strike me as actions I can?t imagine happening within the rules established by the OT?s design. Here I?m thinking of Jedi powers that allow for colossal flips, leaps, and bounds, as while as a scene like Kenobi being crushed by a rather large metal walkway, only to get up and walk away unscathed mere minutes later.

So in the end we?re left with two different arcs that combine both their strengths and weaknesses into something that can only exist as its been concocted.

 

Interesting to see what others think.

And to add to what someone said, I was indeed around to see the OT when it was originally released. That's probably a HUGE part of why I see them as two trilogies and not one saga. I had YEARS to form my opinions of the OT and it's just hard for me to take a revisionist view of it now. I can't unlearn what I already knew from those years. You know?

 

Regardless of what my opinion is of a particular episode it is a saga whether you like it or not because George says so. Check the numbers (1-6)! I think it also his intention that the saga be composed of two self contained trilogies (check the gold versus silver lettering on the DVD cases). What's wrong with that?

And by the way, Yoda was Obi-Wan's master and main instructor for the first 12-13 years of his life before becoming Qui-Gon's apprentice. This is evidenced loosly in AOTC, when we see our little green friend instructing the younglings. Therefore he was "The Jedi Master who instructed me." Granted, in hindsight, it may be better now if Ben said "one of the Jedi Masters who instructed me", but what can you do about it. George certainly isn't going to go Frankenstein on Sir Alec Guiness just to do a few pick-ups. Although that would be pretty sweet.

 

it's 2 very seperate trillogies, one was poorly writen and the other poorly rewriten to try to mash them together.

The glairing weakness in the "saga" idea is episode 4, clearly not about anakin.

It's not his story and no amount of editing and lies on lucas' part can change that.

EDIT:

what annoys me to no end is that lucas presents the story as though it was always all about anakin.

Here is an undisputable fact, at the time Star Wars was released Darth Vader was NOT Anakin Skywalker.

for proof see the novel, all early drafts, and the movie itself. I do however give lucas credit for covering this fact as well as possibly could be done by coming up with the "certain point of view" from Obi-Wan. Again brilliant writing, but for some reason the writer is not proud of what he did and why.

The two characters were combined when lucas had the opportunity to do a sequal with a budget and fanfar to his liking.

There is nothing wrong with this change in his original idea, in fact i think it's brilliant.

My problem is that instead of admiting he made a change and that this one idea created the greatest 3 part trilogy and 6 part saga of all time, for some reason i can't fathom, Lucas insists on lying to us about it.

I think he needs a lot of therapy, he's a brilliant writer who kept getting good ideas and making changes even after the first film was released but is not proud of that.

If it were me I would be shouting from the roof tops that i had a great idea and be very proud that i had adapted my story and created such a wonderful saga from it.

I have no idea why but for some reason it seems he's not happy to admit this and feels the need to deceive his fans, it's beyond sad---it's pathetic.

Second EDIT:

MasterVodo, i now see that comment by Obi-Wan not as talking about his early life but the time between episodes 3 and 4. It was then that Yoda instructed him for a very long time on how to reach "the next level" of jedi masterhood, the level only qui-gon had achieved before.

I grant your interpretation is valid, but this one could be as well.

This is not a plot hole, can you imagine ben trying to explain to luke the truth of the PT?

That would have bogged down the story, I rather like the way it worked out and how vague the past is in the OT.

 

Hey, I said we aren't arguing plot holes in this thread. Agree to disagree and then go to the plot hole thread and argue the point.

EDIT: Here's a link.

Regardless of what my opinion is of a particular episode it is a saga whether you like it or not because George says so.

Even as late as 1997, when GL was already taking active steps to release the PT, the OT was called "The Star Wars Trilogy" by LFL. So, according to them, pre-2004 DVD version is a trilogy. Now, the current versions (2004) have never been referred to by LFL as a separate trilogy (to my knowledge). However, for me and many (many) others, I don't watch the 2004-SEs. When I watch a SW movie its almost all of the time either the DVD version of TPM or ROTS, or the LD verrsion of the O-OT. So, by LFL defition, yes, I am watching two separate trilogies.