A saga or two separate trilogies?

A saga or two separate trilogies?

I've been into STAR WARS since before the first time I saw the movie STAR WARS (the original title of STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) in 1977.

EPISODE I, EPISODE II and EPISODE III feel like STAR WARS as much as EPISODE IV, EPISODE V and EPISODE VI.

STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE
STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES
STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH
STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE
STAR WARS EPISODE V: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
STAR WARS EPISODE VI: RETURN OF THE JEDI

I see the STAR WARS SAGA.

 

I've been into STAR WARS since before the first time I saw the movie STAR WARS (the original title of STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) in 1977.

What got you into SW? Did you read the novel in 1976?

 

I see it as a saga, but in flavor, style and "feel" they really are two separate trilogies in my opinion. Is anyone familiar with the Earthsea books by Ursula LeGuin? First it was the Earthsea Trilogy, with the first book coming out in, I think, 1969 or something. Much later, there was another trilogy; its first book came out in 2001. I loved both trilogies, and each of them provides an important view of the world of Earthsea. But they are VERY different in style and content. That's exactly how I see the two Star Wars trilogies as well.

The Holiday Special, Ewok movies, etc. are bastard stepchildren and don't count.

 

I don't even see an argument here.

Star Wars is a saga consisting of two seperate trilogies.

 

All six movies are nothing more than a complete saga to me. That's it.

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.

Did you expect the Anakin, Padme, and Obi-Wan trio to be like Luke, Leia and Han? Padme and Obi-Wan represented as conflicts in Anakin's life and psyche (personal attachments vs. the Jedi Order), whereas Han and Leia represented the final formation of a family for Luke.

As for the characters being more stoic in the PT . . . of course they were. Obi-Wan's words in ANH about the Republic before Palpatine's rise should have given us the clue.

 

Here is how Lucas defines it.

"It's a downer, the saving grace is that if you watch the other three movies, then you know everything ends happily ever after. Nevertheless, I now have to make a movie that works by itself but which also works with this six-hour movie and this overall twelve-hour movie. I'll have two six-hour trilogies, and the two will beat against each other: One's the fall, one's the redemption. They have different tonalities but it's meant to be one experience of twelve hours."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith, page 62

The two Star Wars trilogies share many characters but have different structures. Instead of telling another heroic coming-of-age story, Lucas has crafted the prequels a historical drama, at whose center is Anakin Skywalker. His story is tragic; that of the Republic-turned-Empire, uncomfortably familiar. Anakin begins as a nine-year-old boy who is physically enslaved. He ends the prequel saga a spiritual and mental slave to the Emperor, who is his metaphorical if not biological father....

But the end of Revenge of the Sith is not the end of Anakin, whose story really closes when it merges with those of his children, Luke and Leia, in Return of the Jedi.

Anakin Skywalker's final confrontation with the Emperor occurs during Luke's final confrontation with the Emperor, which compliments his father's dealings with the same man many years earlier. Indeed the life of the father and the life of the son are commentaries on each other.

"The Star Wars saga is like a symphony, which has recurring themes," he adds, "You have one theme orchestrated in a particular way and place, which then comes back orchestrated as a minor theme somewhere else. There are these little threads running through things that are constantly turning events on their head. You see two people confronting the same things, with different ends. It's a rhythm. I like the idea of seeing something from a different perspective. An advantage I have in this particular situation is that I have literally twelve hours to tell a story. It has the epic quality of following one person from the time he's nine years old to the time he dies. It's Anakin's story, but obviously there are many other characters in that story- his children, his best friend- and their stories carry through. So this isn't just a tune- it's a symphony. When you do it as a symphony, I think it actually becomes beautiful."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 221

"When I went and decided that I would tell the back story, it was a very difficult decision at the time. I figured I was done with Star Wars. I didn't want to do Star Wars any more, but then it technically became possible to do it and I had this back story. The back story intrigued me because it kind of turns the whole series on its head. The series was really about Darth Vader. People thought that it was about Luke, but it's not and never was. People would ask me back then, what's it all about? I said, 'It's about Darth Vader.' In the first film, they didn't even know who Darth Vader was. Is he a monster? Is he a man? What is he? You have to remember that originally, the first three were actually one movie.

So, you would sit down in one piece and that whole thing, that is now three movies, would be told in one piece. You wouldn't have it broken up. A lot of things, you're my father and the fact that he kills him, that is the climax of the movie, and it's a movie. And, uhm, in order--and I wanted to start in the middle.

I never intended for the back story to be told. Then later on I said, 'Well, if I went and did the first three, then it would sort of give you a stronger sense of where all this is coming from.' I kind of told it backwards.

You don't feel sorry for Darth Vader until the very end. If I tell you the back story, then you're sorry for him right from the beginning, practically, because it's his story and the relationship with the kids is very different.

When I said I'm going to go back and do this back story, even thou

 

ahh but see that is the discussion.

Many people, and at times Lucas himself, have represented the story as one saga, not as you have wisely done a saga comprised of seperate trillogies.

This is not a technical point, but a point of view discussion. The question could be reworded to be asking is the saga one continuous 6 part story, or two trilogies that comprise a saga. The difference while minor is significant in terms of how people see the over all story arc.

 

It is a saga made up of two trilogies, but it is NOT a linear story about Darth Vader, and I think that is the reason many fans don't connect them as much as Lucas intended.

The whole story is supposedly about the rise and fall and redemption of Darth Vader? Now the first 3 episodes focus solely on that, and there is no debate there, but when you get to Episode IV, that is where the story is not linear.

The OT was written as the story of Luke, Leia, and Han, and you follow those characters for 3 movies. You are supposed to follow and care for them, and Darth Vader is just a bad guy.

Not until ROTJ, does Lucas change the original story and this is the first movie where Darth Vader is actually more than one-dimensional character. Sure he tells Luke he is his father in ESB, but you still don't get any inner thoughts of Vader that you do in ROTJ. ROTJ is the only movie that matches strongly with the story of the Prequels, in a character sense. ROTJ is the first time you actually see anything more than Darth Vader whooping someones butt and being a absolute cool bad guy.

If this were a true linear story of Anakin Skywalker, Episode IV would be totally different, Vader would have a much more prominent role and have much more screentime. I ask anyone, if this is his story when watching it 1-6, why is he is only about 15-20 minutes of Episode IV? As a linear story about Darth Vader, that would make this movie in absolute waste in some sense, the same way many OT fans feel TPM is a waste in some sense.

To get the full enjoyment of the OT, you must follow Luke, Leia, and Han around for 3 movies and care about them, you shouldn't be watching Episode IV looking for the continuing struggle of Darth Vader, it just aint there. You will walk away from that film missing the whole point, as it wasn't originally filmed that way.

To get the full enjoyment of the PT, you must follow Anakin's story from kid to adult to Darth Vader in the suit. Many fans who loved the OT wanted more macro stuff as related to the OT: The force ghost explaination, the Clone Wars expanded, the birth of the rebellion, when they miss the whole point that you should care about this little boy Anakin for 3 movies, and the rest is just exposition.

That is why many have problems tying the trilogies together because it is the same universe, and in some ways many characters and themes are recurring, but it is not a linear story, and if Lucas filmed them 1-6 in that order, the OT would be much different, as it focus on Vader alot more like ROTJ than ANH.

I look at it as two seperate trilogies and two different stories that sorta tie together in the same universe. I love the story of Luke, Leia, and Han, and that is why I love the OT more than anything in the world. I don't love the story of Vader, I find it interesting, but I find the macro stuff of the PT more interesting, hence why I don't love it as much as the OT, I am not totally interested in the main story: Anakin.

There are many fans that see it as two trilogies cause they just love SW, and I respect that, and then there are many fans that love Anakin/Vaders story, and they probably love the PT & ROTJ more, and then there are fans that love Luke, Leia, and Han's story, and they love the OT more. Nobody is wrong, but that is what happens when you don't write a linear story, that when the whole story is about one character, you must make him the main character and focal point in each movie. Once Lucas decided to change Vader to Lukes father right before ESB and then change in ROTJ to the redemption of Darth Vader, this problem was eventually going to crop up after more movies were made.

 

/applaud

thank you for saying what i have been able to find the words to say.

 

Thanks man. For 6 years I watched the prequel movies, and enjoyed but never loved them as much as the OT, and I was always puzzled as to why? This wasn't about Jar Jar, the AOTC romance, or any stuff that fans bash, it was the simple structure of the two stories.

One day it finally hit me last fall after I watched ROTS on DVD, that the only way Lucas could have tied the sagas better would have been to focus on the macro-story of how everyone arrived to Episode IV through ObiWan & Anakins eyes. Anakin could have still been the main lead, just as Luke was the main lead in the OT, but it would focus on the downfall of the republic through the story of Anakin & Kenobi, the two jedi's. Instead it is the story of Anakin's fall and the backdrop was the downfall of the republic.

It would then be a linear story that would have nothing to with the tragedy of Darth Vader. It would be 6 movies in a galaxy far far away that would show how the republic goes from a democracy to an evil empire back to a democracy through two generations of Skywalkers. The first story would revolve around the downfall of the republic through Anakin, Padme, and ObiWans eyes, and the second story would revolve around the fight to defeat the empire through the eyes of Luke, Leia, and Han Solo.

With that story there would be no need for Jake Lloyd Anakin, because the story isn't solely about Anakin anymore, so you could start Episode I with the same story on screen as shown with Palpatine playing everyone, but it would be Hayden Christenson & ObiWan as the two jedi that try to save the queen.

Then you could watch the two trilogies with much things that parallel each other: father/son, mother/daughter, master/apprentice, Sith/Jedi, but you wouldn't have this jarring shift of 3 movies about Anakin, then you dont focus on him again until Episode VI.

Lets put it this way, my favorite two SW movies are the one that deal with rebels vs empire: ANH & ESB, while I like, but not love the ones that deal with Vader/Anakins story: ROTJ, TPM, AOTC, ROTS. Any coincidence?

Plus with my story there would always be the possiblility of Episodes 7,8,9 and how the third generation of Skywalkers re-built the republic. Then again, maybe that is why Lucas changed the story to 6 movies so he wouldn't spend the rest of his life doing SW!!!!!!!

 

EXACTLY!!

I cannot see the six movies as ONE saga (or story) about the rise and fall of Anakin. That's simply a revitionist view by GL to justify focusing the PT on Anakin. And it really doesn't make much sense when you view the OT (where Anakin/Vader was clearly NOT the central character). I and others would have preferred a much broader story of the fall

 

It's a shame, cause if Lucas stuck to his guns and instead of saying you are suppose to watch the saga 1-6, and kept saying to the fans this is a backstory on 'Anakin.' It was always just a backstory, and that is different than a linear story. A backstory can be watched after use see the red meat of the main story, a linear story has to connect and flow better.

You can watch these 1-6, I have done it, but again it is not a linear story, it isn't as much the characters that make it it hard to tie together, cause that was going to happen, but it is the focus of the story from one individual(1-3), rebels vs empire(4-6).

So many older fans who loved the OT went in with the wrong context of the PT, they wanted to see another broad story of SW revolving around Anakin, instead Lucas did it the other way around. Now I see just as many younger PT fans who rank ANH as their least favorite, do you know why? Because it has the least amount of Darth Vader in it, that movie has nothing to do with him as a main character, so in a sense they are doing exactly what the older fans did going into the PT. Isn't that ironic?

How many older fans who love the OT say what they missed about the PT: One sentence on the force ghost? The birth of the rebellion in the ROTS deleted scenes? The Clone Wars expanded to a cartoon? Anakin as a 10 years old for one movie? Where is the friendship of Anakin/Kenobi?

That was never going to happen, and I am saying this in hindsight, cause I asked those same question from 1999-2005, then I realized if I don't love the story of Anakin as much as I love the story of Luke, Leia, and Han, I am never going to love this trilogy and I sure as heck am not going to be able to see it 1-6.

The best way I do it, is still look at the PT as the backstory of just Darth Vader, that was Lucas's original intentions, he even says it on the '95 VHS editions talking about this upcoming trilogy. He never says anything about watching it 1-6. The point of ROTJ was to get you to really wonder about Darth Vader, and what made this guy tick, that was the only movie where you see Darth Vader with true emotions. So then 1-3 would explain about his origins, hence Lucas starting Anakin as a 10 year old, and in that respect the saga works. But if you try to watch it 1-6, trust me guys, I have tried, it just doesn't work as well cause it ain't a linear story.

 

that would be a good way to do it, the broader story.... I would at least be happier if Lucas wasn't trying to pretend that the OT is just as much Anakin's story as the PT when it clearly isn't.

What is even more frightening to me is how many fans have bought into Lucas' revisions.

The only way i can watch the OT and have it be Anakin's story is to fast forward through a great deal of the movies, and i have done this with RotJ.

When you do that with RotJ the movie is about 35 minutes in legnth, so for about half an hour of that film for example it's about anakin, but the rest is not.

doesn't seem to focused on him to me.

 

I think the real question is: Is there anything wrong with someone liking one trilogy over the other?

And that is where Lucas fell into the trap. I love the OT, and I like the PT, so what is wrong with that? I love the OT, and like the Back to the Future Trilogy, but I don't compare them.

When Lucas made it a 1-6 story, you gonna have fans compare trilogies, it was inevitable. And that is where it doesn't mesh.

-The effects are better in the PT
-The characters are funnier in the OT
-The OT used real environments and sets, and not just CG
-The PT lightsaber battles are faster and better
-I like Luke, I don't like Anakin
-The PT needed a Han Solo character
-Why couldn't any of the PT movies be as good as ESB
-Why couldn't any of the OT movies be as good as ROTS

This is the stuff that happens when making trilogies 20 years apart and changing the focus of the story, you constantly compare, and it just isn't fair to either trilogy.

If Lucas would have sold it as a backstory, and you still have to see it as two trilogies that comprise of one saga and don't necessarily need to be watched 1-6, I think fans would take each trilogy for what they are, because they wouldn't have to try to watch it 1-6 all the time. I watch them as seperate trilogies, and I am finally at peace. So I know what Lucas said, and it didn't work for me, so I went with his first instinct in the mid 90's of just watching the PT as a backstory.

 

Well there is a difference between "buying into it" and accepting it to try and see the bigger picture.

Why does seeing it as two trilogies have to conflict with viewing it as a "saga"?
It's both.
(I'm never good at explaining why )

 

everything you have said is true, and it's a saga, but not a continuous story arc.

Let me be clear since i'm now a "PT hater", heh that's ammusing btw

What i hate is lucas' insisting he planned it this way all along, our eyes tell us otherwise.

The saga stuff doesn't wash for me because when people talk about saga they have to define what saga it is, and when they do that they define the saga as being "anakin's story".

That's total bull****.

The OT is not Anakin's story and it never will be no matter how many changes lucas makes, it wasn't filmed that way.

This is where my problem with the saga lovers, and lucas' Kool-Aid drinkers starts.

here is what we have in the saga.

a trilogy all about anakin.

a trilogy all about his son and his friends.

these two seperate and completely different stories equal the so called "saga".

I have no problem calling it a saga if we're going to admit the second half is not about Anakin.

By the way i agree lucas went vader nuts with ESB, but then so did the fan base so he had good reason to.

 

I don't understand why those who choose to see it as one saga need to accept it as "Anakin's story". I've always considered it a saga about the "Skywalker family". While it's true - the OT is not Anakin's story - no one can argue that Anakin's arc isn't completed in the OT. I find it easy to accept that two generations of characters are explored within the saga. It's what makes the last scene of RotJ so emotional - it's the final resolution of both tales.

 

I have no problem calling it a saga if we're going to admit the second half is not about Anakin.

Yep. I just can't buy into GL's re-writing of history. I was there when the OT was released. Never once did I or anyone I know think of it as Vader's story. It was Luke's story along with Leia and Han. Vader was just the bad guy. Yes, he was an iconic bad guy but he was still JUST the bad guy. In my opinion, Lucas should have left it at that. I honestly had NO desire for the PT to be about Anakin. Especially all the Chosen One nonsense. I liked Vader more in the OT. I honestly think the PT diminished him.

 

I don't get the whole 'Ep. IV Vader doesn't fit the Saga' thing.

Vader was Palpy's little *****, uninterrupted, for 20 years! Why would you expect him to stand up to Tarkin, if his Master, the Emperor told him to be all cooperative like?

ROTJ shows us that Vader was like Maul, in that, Sidious couldn't care less for him, but as long as he did his bidding, he was willing to keep him around (a la Dooku)... until he found someone better.

But when you go through that many apprentices in so short a time, one of them might finally come to his senses, and put an end to this 'Sith' thing, once, and for all.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...You know, Star Wars was a success, but I didn't have any idea then what was going on. I didn't know whether I was even going to be able to make the next two films. I had taken two-thirds of the original script and thrown it away. In my mind, I was saying, "Gee, if this is really a big hit, then I can make a movie out of all the early material that I developed." Empire and Jedi were what that first film was supposed to be. And after that, I can tell another story about what happens to Luke after this trilogy ends. All the prequel stories exist: where Darth Vader came from, the whole story about Darth and Ben Kenobi, and it all takes place before Luke was born. The other one - what happens to Luke afterward - is much more ethereal. I have a tiny notebook full of notes on that. If I'm really ambitious, I could proceed to figure out what would have happened to Luke..." - George Lucas on Return of the Jedi in Aug, 1983.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a quote from 1983 during ROTJ, and at this time Lucas does not mention once that the story is about Darth Vader. Of course we all were going find in the PT about Kenobi and Anakin, that was given.

But the key sentence is Lucas talking about the third trilogy about Luke, and what happens to him after ROTJ. That throws the whole argument that the story was always about the tragedy of Darth Vader. If it was, then Lucas would not even mention about 7,8,9 and what happens to Luke, cause if the saga is about the tragedy of Vader, it should end at Episode VI.

My whole point is the OT was never about Vaders story, it was originally about 3 trilogies about how the a democracy goes from control of the republic, to the empire taking over, the rebels beating the empire, and then the rebuilding of the republic. Within that story the Skywalkers, Luke, Anakin, and maybe Luke & Leias kids in 7,8,9 are the backdrop for everything that happens. The Skywalker family is the focal point, but they are not biographic, and that is where Jake Lloyd comes in, that makes the PT a biography about Anakin.

Lucas changed the story to just the tragedy of Darth Vader becauase he didn't want to do SW all his life. He cut it to 6 episodes right before starting the PT, and said now it was always about Darth Vader, it was never about Luke in the OT.

So I ask anyone here after reading that quote from 1983, if it is Darth Vader story, or biography from little kid to death, why the heck would Lucas talk about 7,8,9 about the continuing adventures of Luke Skywalker? That is why fans have trouble marrying the trilogies, Lucas changed the scope of it, and that is why it isn't a linear story, the PT is a simple backstory. Now I have said that I don't blame Lucas, cause each trilogy takes about 10 years, and I think he knew that would be much draining.

And as I said, I like the PT backstory, tho

 

Hey, well, then it all comes down to whether any given person wants to look at it as a Saga or not. And thats fine. You could make some good arguments, the best one being that from a filmmaking as well as a storytelling standpoint there was too much time between the two trilogies. Thats, true, IMO. Visually you have 17 years with no details of activity or character. The main problem being that 4,5,6 are 4,5,6 and not 1,2,3. Making a prelude story in big budget fantasy/sci-fi is/was unprecedented. The obvious problems shouldve been a given before you even saw TPM. The technology of filmmaking, esecially with the advent of CGI, presented some big problems in an undertaking like the PT - that is if the viewer chose to be that critical. But to me that, like I already said, shouldve been a given. Even with what your saying Lord Helmet1 - that Lucas intended nine films, hence its not a Saga because we dont have the three on the backend - that still doesnt change that 1,2,and 3 were ( from 1983 on ) going to be about Anakin and Obi-Wan. So really its about defining it for yourself. Isnt that what all art is anyway. I still wonder, though, if Anakin had been better represented in the PT if we'd even be having these kind of conversations. Lloyd, Ill admit was horrible, and Christensen really doesnt come into the character until RotS and some would even argue that. Personally, and Im not alone, I wouldve prefered Anakin represented by the same actor in all three movies. STill, to me its a Saga. Like I said by the end of ESB these problems began - not 1997 pre-production of TPM. I choose to see it as a Saga. Its a little bit more than two " loosely " connected trilogies. Almost all the problems Im hearing from people who see it as two trilogies, as well as the ones Ive listed above to play devils advocate, are aesthetic.

 

More like 1, 2, and 3 (from 1977 on) were going to be about Anakin and Obi-Wan.

PAUL SCANLON(Rolling Stone Magazine): Why does Darth Vader breathe so heavily?

GEORGE LUCAS: I had wanted to do that and tie it in with the dialogue.

PAUL SCANLON: It was a nice touch, because it adds to the bogyman quality of the character.

GEORGE LUCAS: Ben had a lot of work in that too. He did about eighteen different kinds of breathing, through aqualungs and through tubes, trying to find the one that had the right sort of mechanical sound, and then decide whether it would be totally rhythmical and like an iron lung. That's the idea. It was a whole part of the plot that essentially got cut out. It may be in one of the sequels.

PAUL SCANLON: What's the story?

GEORGE LUCAS: It's about Ben and Luke's father and Vader when they are young Jedi knights. But Vader kills Luke's father, then Ben and Vader have a confrontation, just like they have in Star Wars, and Ben almost kills Vader. As a matter of fact, he falls into a volcanic pit and gets fried and is one destroyed being. That's why he has to wear the suit with a mask, because it's a breathing mask. It's like a walking iron lung. His face is all horrible inside. I was going to shoot a close-up of Vader where you could see the inside of his face, but then we said, no, no, it would destroy the mystique of the whole thing.

And let's see we have the Spring 1980 issue of Banth Tracks:

SW: At one point there were going to be twelve Star Wars films.

GL: I cut that number down to nine because the other three were tangential to the saga. Star Wars was the fourth story in the saga and was to have been called Star Wars: Episode Four A New Hope. But I decided people wouldn't understand the numbering system so we dropped it. For Empire, though, we're putting back the number and will call it Episode Five: The Empire Strikes Back. After the third film in this trilogy we'll go back and make the first trilogy, which deals with the young Ben Kenobi and the young Darth Vader.

Yes it is.

Yes we would.

I thought both of them did a fine job.

No. Lucas is making a point that he'll probably never acknowledge. Lucas is showing how corrupt and indifferent the people of the galaxy are by showing an innocent child born into bondage.

 

I don't know if there is a right answer, and I really don't fault anyone for looking at it a certain way. I think most if not all fans try to to see it 1-6 if they enjoyed the Prequels, I know I did.

But as always when I watched them 1-6, it just didn't work as well as seeing them as two seperate trilogies, that in one way or another tied together.

I usually have time to watch one SW movie every other weekend, so that is when I tried this method at the start of 2006:

I tend to watch them now in trilogies, maybe more than once, but never linear of 1-6. I was in the mood around the New Year to watch the OT, so over the month of January each weekend, I watched 4,5,6. Then in February I was still in the mood for the OT, so through March I watched 4,5,6 whenever I had time during those weekends. Now in April of this year, I was in the mood for the PT, so I watched 1,2,3. I didn't watch anything for a couple of weekends, and last weekend I had the itch to watch the OT again, not thinking about continuing the story, or I would start comparing again, so I just watched Episode IV, and the next open weekend I will watch Episode V.

As I said, it works for some 1-6 and it doesn't work for others. I don't worry what is right anymore, although I used to, but now I just do what works for me. I don't compare, I don't think about how much more I love the OT, I don't think about the difference in CG use of each trilogy, and I don't think about how one story is a biography and one story is a macro story of rebels vs empire.

I just watch the OT & PT seperate and it really works for me now. I still see them as SW movies, cause for some reason any SW movie has good replay value, and that's what counts. I have never had a problem watching it 1-3, or ever had a problem watching it 4-6, so why try to combine them when it actually flows better for me with a huge peg blocking Episode III & IV from looking at each other.

For anyone who loves the OT, and enjoys the PT, but not as much as the OT, stop comparing! Don't try to tie them 1-6! Watch them as two seperate trilogies, and of course you will always love the OT, but I guarantee you will enjoy the PT a hell of alot more.

 

I was watching ANH today and I was thinking this also, that they seem like two different Trilogies other than one epic Saga. Either way, I enjoy all the movies none-the-less.