A saga or two separate trilogies?

I can see you're not PT basher, LordHelmet but they do tie together.

Lucas is just a chump and he's not coming clean about how and why the two trilogies tie together. Anakin isn't just some idiot that fell from grace, but for some reason Lucas just doesn't admit this.

"The interesting thing about Star Wars--and I didn't ever really push this very far, because it's not really that important--but there's a lot going on there that most people haven't come to grips with yet. But when they do, they will find it's a much more intricately made clock than most people would imagine."--George Lucas--Vanity Fair--February 2005

See in this quote he's not talking about a trilogy that shows a father that falls from grace and a trilogy that shows a son that doesn't fall from grace. All of that is obvious. If you just watch the DVDs with the commentary turned on you can hear all that crap from Lucas. But see the guy doesn't talk about the depth and breadth of Star Wars. In fact about as close as he's come is in the above quote.

What he's referring to in that quote is Anakin Skywalker the people's savior. Anakin Skywalker the man who was predetermined by a higher power to become Darth Vader so the people would be forced to come together and form a resistance against Palpatine's Empire. Just like the people of Naboo came together and formed a resistance against the Trade Federation. It wasn't Anakin that was corrupt. It was the people that were corrupt before Qui-Gon even found Anakin and all Anakin did was give them the Empire they asked for.

 

"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."


Fatbird: I think you need to open your eyes and look at the OT objectively. All those elements are present but you have to pay attention. SW is not spoon fed material, it needs to be digested and savored carefully. I'm amazaed at how people assume many PT happenings are out of place. Even the one that re "new" concpets for the saga have added tremendous depth to the story.

The Chosen One plot is there according to ROTJ, whether you like it or not, it was Anakin, not Luke who killed the Emperor. So he was the hero in the end, Luke merely facilitated and modeled sacrifice. Also, please tell me Vader wasn't pretty much the central figure in ESB, eberybody knows ESB is Vader's movie!

Jedi being trained from birth is there too! Yoda is very emphathic in the beloved ESB that Luke is too old to start training, suggesting the Jedi's preference toward trainig from early age. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Jedi in their prime, with all their influence as protectors of peace, would have trained in this way.

Jedi not allowed to marry. This one baffles me. Why do people assume the contrary? Specially since the OT is pretty clear that this is exactly so. NO Jedi in the OT is married or has children, period. Ben and Yoda live by themselves and never mention family of any kind, suggesting both, no marriages and early child separation, and even warn Luke against developing relationships, a huge PT point, when they advice him to let his friends die at Vader's hand. The only people with relationships in the OT are Dark siders or their product, and non Jedi force sensitives. Vader has children and obviously had a relationship. Leia develops one, but she is not trained or recognized as a Jedi, and even Ben, perhaps knowing this, discounts Leia as a potential hope. As soon as Luke becomes a serious Jedi trainee he seems to forsake the idea of erotic love, though he does value his father and sister. The Skywalkers were something the Jedi had to learn to deal with.

Yoda IS clearly Ben's "Jedi master who instructed me." Perhaps if Qui Gon had been alive he would have pointed Luke in the direction of the "Jedi master of aprenticed me." Yoda is clearly shown training thr young Jedi, which Ben obviously was at some point. So I really do not see the problem there. It's entirely possible that Yoda trained padawans longer than most of their field instructors.

I will go with Lucas on this one, two trilogies which together form a saga. Perhaps the definition of "Saga" is necessary:

From wiki:

"The texts are epic tales in prose, often with stanzas or whole poems in alliterative verse embedded in the text, of heroic deeds of days long gone, tales of worthy men, who were often Vikings, sometimes Pagan, sometimes Christian. The tales are usually realistic (except, of course, legendary sagas, sagas of saints, sagas of bishops and translated or recomposed romances), sometimes romanticised and fantastic, but always dealing with human beings we can understand."

"The term saga originates from the Icelandic saga (pl. sögur), and refers to (1) "what is said, statement" or (2) "story, tale, history". Icelandic sagas are based on oral traditions and much research has focused on what is real and what is fiction within each tale. The accuracy of the sagas is often hotly disputed, being both overestimated and underestimated by various scholars. Most of the manuscripts in which the sagas were originally preserved were taken to Denmark and Sweden in the 17th century, but later returned to Iceland."

After posting that I thought about going in detail as to how this definition applies so perfect

 

"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."

I fail to see how originally having 9 or not changes what he did in the end. To me, as long as it works, and it does, as Anakin's story, the rest is just speculation. Also, that quote does not say that the first 6 aren't about Anakin. He is clear that the PT story EXISTS, while the Luke sequel trilogy doesn't, " is much more ethereal." Meaning it's not in any way developed, it's just idea, but this story about anakin does and it's ready. He "could proceed to figure out what would have happened to Luke" because he doesn't know, but chose not to explore that, instead focused on Anakin's story. So, in the end, we have a saga about Anakin, and it works like that so who cares how often he debated the idea or not, in the end that is what was filmed and it works like that.

Also, in the other quotes, he is very clear that after Empire comes the PT. The ST is "etheral." Sort of like: "could happen, but really don't know." I hope the ST does happen, in a different format, like animation or something. Besides, if I feel like a sequel, I can read Zhan.

 

ok, read the drafts and novels of the OT, many of the elements you claim are there are simply left ambiguous which allowed Lucas to revise the story.

I do not criticize this, instead i admire him for being such a clever writer that he was able to do this so well, however he lies if he says it was writen this way all along. He has claimed this on occasion.

Jedi not allowed to marry is not implied in the OT, it is spelled out in the PT, but left open in the OT. In many of the drafts there were family references, marrage was clearly accepted as an idea at one point in development. Further Luke's presence without explanation leaves the question either open or leans toward marriage being allowed at the time Star Wars was filmed.

as to your assertation that there is no mention of family of any kind, it's just not true.

The entire saga owes it's existance to one scene in the end, it's the scene that gave starwars it's magic, it's mystical quality that propelled it to legend.

It's the scene where ben and luke are sitting in ben's hut and Luke asks about his father.

Ben talks about the past, the republic and the jedi but he also talks about Anakin.

He does not talk about Anakin as it happened in

 

I think of it as a SAGA...

Ever since EP. IV-VI came on DVD, and ever since Ep. III came out, it all feels like one SAGA to me...

The ONLY thing that would separate them in my opinion, is some special effects issues...

MAINLY, some explosions-Death Star, and Executor...AND THE LIGHTSABER EFFECTS!!!

I of course would like to see some other things, like ships/vehicles added to battles n' whatnot, but if they fix ONLY THOSE two things, it would EASILY make it PERFECT!!

 

Listen to DARTHIRONCLAD, you must.

Like the Shaman of the Whills, he is.

http://boards.theforce.net/the_star_wars_saga/b10456/19957712/p1/?145

 

if only his in universe discussion of the story were relevant to what we're talking about.

He does a great job of sumarizing the entire story as it stands now, several rewrites later, but the question possed in this thread is one about the trillogies. One writen long before the other and since revised and how they are seen as well as why we see them that way.

His rather eloquent post has nothing to do with that.

 

OT Board

PT Board

2 Trilogies.

 

Winston_Sith, It would be better if you made an argument rather than just offering a link.

And one Saga Board

 

Shhh!

There are still trilogy boards though

 

Im noticing that the major dilemma for alot of people is the order in which they watch films. I like watching the films 4,5,6 and then 1,2,3 and I still think of it as a Saga. Its not conventional, but the films werent released conventionally. Even if they were made in order you still have this eighteen year break between sequels. This is OBVIOUSLY a generational thing more than anything else. You have your exceptions ( like me ) that think the PT is very good even though I was around when the OT was in the theaters. If I were to look at them as seperate trilogies, and I really dont ever do that, Id say the OT was better and if I had to say what was the best SW film, Id give it to RotS - slightly edging out ESB - so go figure. As a matter of fact, and this is a weird way of looking at it, Id hazard to say that the minute Obi-Wan lands on Geonosis in AotC to the end credits of RotS is the best three + hours of SW.

 

Good a time as any to chime in. The last few posts are getting at what I'm also thinking. I think there is a reason its called the prequel trilogy. Mark Hamill said that while they were shooting the homestead scenes he asked Lucas why he was starting with Episode IV. "It's the most commercial section of the movie," he replied. Listening to the audio commentary is really interesting because he says it was like Episode IV of a twelve part serial you'll never see the rest of. He didn't expect it to do well, but loh and behold it was the most successful movie ever. Then came The Empire Strikes Back, the mother of all sequels, and with it the revelation of these untold I, II and III. So the filling in of those missing pieces became inevitable in 1980. As for the saga post-Episode VI, I've heard so many stories now that it's making my head spin. I'm pretty sure that Lucas abandoned any plans of a VII, VIII and IX (and X, XI, XII for that matter) when he made Return of the Jedi.

It seems pretty obvious that the cgi beef ups in the '97 re-release were the first big step in Lucas' tying the (eventual) saga together. Sure, it could be true that he "always wanted to do this or that but couldn't because of the technological limits," but we all loved Star Wars before he told us that. Now LFL is finally releasing the unaltereds on dvd individually, perhaps to emphasize that these were the movies as they were in 1977, 1980 and 1983 respectively. I find that interesting because IMO the three movies don't hold together as a trilogy all that well, the different directors and cinematographers being a large factor. The movies really do stand apart from one another in many ways.

The prequel trilogy has a much more guided vision, which isn't surprising considering it's the backstory. Though for a number of reasons it just doesn't mesh with the OT. "The Chosen One" featurette on the ROTS dvd has Lucas saying that the whole saga is really about Anakin Skywalker, but those shots of Vader from the OT just seem soooo out of place. No matter how hard Lucas tries to bring it all together, from the Special Editions to the IV V VI box art, it will never be one saga.

 

The OT and the PT are two separate trilogies. That is pretty much obvious, considering the setting and the group of main characters for both trilogies. But it also seem pretty obvious to me that both sagas are a complete saga. An entire saga does not have to consist merely of ONE trilogy.

And I also agree with DarthBoba about some fans allowing their pre-conceived notions of what the PT would be about, influence their opinion of the PT. I would be interested to learn what future generations of SW fans would think. Considering the younger generation's preference for PT, I suspect that a new opinion will eventually become the mandate in another twenty or thirty years.

 

I see it as all one saga because there are a few chacteres that are different but the stories are so closely realted that it makes them seem as one.

 

What is going to happen to future generations who see it 1-6, is they will like the PT more, and say the same stuff about the OT that is said about the PT now by the OT fans. They will not love ANH, and I guarantee many will find it their least favorite. They will say the lightsaber duel is slow, the effects are substandard to the PT, and wonder why there isn't more Vader in it. What will happen is they will be tainted by the PT and Anakins story and miss the point of ANH and won't watch it for the fun movie about Luke, Leia, and Han that it was made in 1977.

They will be TAINTED by the Prequel Trilogy?? TAINTED??? Are you saying that because the younger generation's view of the PT is different from yours, it's TAINTED?

SW '77 is not a complex story of Darth Vaders struggle, he is this cool stereotypical bad guy, but this is the only movie that is a true serial in the style that Lucas did Raiders of the Lost Ark. Fun, not too much character depth, but still a great classic movie

Yes. So? It's a great, classic movie. It's not the ultimate STAR WARS saga.



So I ask you RamRed, will their opinion be bogus cause they don't like or love ANH, or will it be from seeing 3 PT movies that look and feel totally different than what they will see in Episode IV


Well, that is a mystery . . . isn't it? And it's only natural that the PT has a totally different look and feel, considering that it is set at least 20-30 years BEFORE the OT.


I keep saying it is all about the linear story of Anakin Skywalker, and unfortunately it is not, so you are going to have one generation of fans who love the story of Luke, Leia, and Han, and one generation of fans who love the story of Anakin/Darth Vader. Those OT fans usually like ROTS cause that feels the closest to the OT, and the PT fans usually like ROTJ & the cloud city part of ESB, cause that feels the closest to the PT with a more indepth Darth Vader.

And you have fans who love both trilogies and consider them a complete saga. Haven't you considered this? Because I'm one of them. And unlike many other PT fans, I saw the OT in the theaters first. But I still love both trilogies. Why do you find that impossible?

If there were a linear story with Anakin/Darth Vader the main character in every movie, I bet this debate wouldn't exist. Did this discussion ever come up before the PT was made, and everyone saw the OT as the story of Luke when watching the OT? But as long as the OT mostly focuses on Luke, Leia, and Han, and the PT mostly focuses on Anakin, you are going to have this split, and then a section of fans like yourself that love both stories.

I find this VERY unecessary. You act as if the saga had to follow some kind of rule in writing in order for it to be effective. Don't get me wrong, but isn't that being a little too dogmatic? This comment reminds me of a complaint that someone had made about L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, claiming that it wasn't a real noir film, because there was no "true" femme fatale. There was a fatale character in the movie, but it wasn't Kim Basinger.

 

Remember, this isn't a thread to say which is better.

 

Interesting question the first impulse I have when I read this thread was to say it is a saga, but it is a lot more complex than that, I see it as a Saga with two different set's of stories being told, one Anakin's and Luke's. Of course Anakin's story is continued in Episodes 4-6. What I find fascinating though is the difference in the PT heroes in comparrison to the heroes of the OT. I love all 6 star wars films. I do however realise that the PT is not the OT, and the OT is not the PT. I know the reason many fans can't indentify with the characters in the PT. In the OT the heroes are UNDERDOGS. Luke, Han, and Leia are REBELS who are mostly a bunch of nobodies with not much anything to lose. Luke is just a simple farm boy, Han is just a smuggler, and Leia is a Princess help captive. Naturally it is easy for one to route for characters in such distress. Everyone loves the way Han acts with such reckless abandon in throughout the OT, everyone wants to see the farm boy who basically started out with nothing become a full trained Jedi Knight and overthrow the Empire. In the PT however the heroes are difficult to relate to for common folk. Who can relate to a 14 year old Queen, who became senator and had all that power at such a young age. Who can relate to a boy such as Anakin who is the chosen one and such a supposed bright future ahead of them. All the Jedi in the PT are not the underdogs, they are on top living comfortably and I can see why people have labeled the Jedi as arrogant. That is what happens to people who have a lot of power. Palapatine is the sneaky underdog in the PT a lot of people love to route for. I think the charcters in the PT are well developed, I just don't think people were never going to relate to the characters well because they mostly had the silver spoon in their mouth and they were arrogant. The most ironic thing about the saga is Palpatine criticizes the Jedi for being arrogant and in ROTJ the only reason he and the empire fails is because of his very arrogance he criticized the Jedi for having, as Luke said, "your overconfidence is your weakness". I don't consider myself an OT or PT fan, I consider myself a fan of the saga.

 

I like what you've said, i don't really see a reason to repeat my earlier posts but i'll add this:

I'm a fan of both trillogies.

 

Because of the huge stylistic differences in the trilogies, namely special effects quality (still taking into account the Special Editions), it is difficult to see these as anything different than two separate trilogies. But that's just cause of simple aesthetics.
I find that when I look past those obvious glaring differences and just concentrate on the overall story, then these CAN work as a saga. It's all down to perception really I think.

 

One Saga. I see the movies as "The Tragedy and Redemption of Anakin Skywalker". When Lucas comes out with the saga box set with all of his new additions for all six movies it will be better.

 

elaborate please, the part in quotes is vague, i could even agree with that statement depending on how you mean it.

Really i think the OT has been tinkered with too much, AotC and RotS could stand to be greatly expanded to help the story flow but the OT doesn't need it.

 

Any one have any idea on how much the newest box set for all 6 movies is going to cost roughly?