After seeing ROTS, do you still see a PT and a OT?

No it made sense, and I agree. I think the scope of the PT made it difficult for good stories to be told at times.

 

lucas was telling good stories just a larger canvas. more location more characters more ploting.

he had a lot to get done to tell the whole story. so the pt has a lot more going on. the ot is more focused telling a much more simple story.

the perspective changes as well the pt is seen mostly through obi wans eyes while the ot is told mostly from the droids. which lends it self to that smaller scope. droids being simpler creaters.

 

Done away with two Trilogies I have, and a Hexilogy has appeared before my eyes.

 

"I think that ROTS integrates wonderfully with ANH, but I don't think it integrates at all well with AOTC and TPM. In my mind, the saga is really Episodes III-VI, and Episodes I-II are just filler so that there would be a new trilogy of films. Of course, I-II introduce characters, etc. but the heart of the story is really III-VI."

How can the heart of the story start in EP3 when what happens in EP3 is all started in EP2. Like the beginning of Anakin's fall. The start of the Clone War etc....

 

I think that ROTS integrates wonderfully with ANH, but I don't think it integrates at all well with AOTC and TPM. In my mind, the saga is really Episodes III-VI, and Episodes I-II are just filler so that there would be a new trilogy of films. Of course, I-II introduce characters, etc. but the heart of the story is really III-VI.

Episodes I and II are not filler.

The direction and plans for the saga were in constant flux during the production of Episodes IV through VI. When ANH was written, it was pretty much self-contained, with the hope of a made-for-TV sequel at best. When ESB was written, there was this grand-but-vague plan for a nine-episode saga. When ROTJ was written, Lucas and the principal actors were getting burned-out on SW, and elements that were planned to be explored in Episodes VII through IX were used, wrapping up the saga with Episode VI.

Unlike the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy had the benefit of having a much more clear and definite direction in mind. Partially because Lucas already knew how things had to end, but also because he was able to craft the main plot points for Episodes II and III while writing Episode I. Sure, he filled in a lot of the details later, but you can be sure that he had already had the main structure of the trilogy in place. Far more so than Episodes IV, V, and VI, the prequels are crafted as a three-act drama, and it plays out very well. The idea that if you show a gun on the wall in the first act, it must be loaded in the second act, and then fired in the third act.

The dramatic climax of the prequel trilogy is the moment where Mace has Palpatine pinned down, and Anakin must make the decision to intervene. Everything that Anakin has experienced in Episodes I and II (and the first half of III) is a factor in the choice that he makes -- his relationships with the Jedi, Padme, Palpatine, his mother, and how those relationships have affected him. Everything that transpires after he makes this choice are the inevitable consequences of his decision. These factors are nicely summarized in dialogue during the early part of ROTS, for the benefit of those who have forgotten or just didn't see the first two films, but it doesn't have the same effect.

Anakin's relationship with the Jedi has always been characterized by resentment and mistrust. They rejected him outright in TPM, and only begrudgingly took him in. Losing his mother the way he did, and his fear of losing Padme the same way. It isn't filler, it's called character and plot development.

And in the background of everything in TPM and AOTC, we see the slow but definite erosion of democracy in the Republic. It's not a matter of it being the Republic one day, and suddenly the next day Palpatine declares himself Emperor. He slowly and deliberately sets all the pieces in place for his rise to power in ROTS.

I actually feel that the dramatic structure of the PT is superior to that of the OT. TPM and AOTC set up ROTS and ROTS plays off TPM and AOTC better than ANH and ESB set up ROTJ and the way ROTJ plays off of ANH and ESB. That's just my opinion, of course.

 

I concur with Eternal Jedi. Interesting stuff. TPM and AOTC do set up ROTS better than ANH and TESB set up ROTJ.

I do see it as one saga. I love the movies because they have so many themes. They are so many things you can learn, and it's extremely entertaining.

 

I can definitely see it as one saga now and see how things connect, but yet it really is still somewhat two plot arcs within the grand scheme of the whole arc. I mean you can see the continuation of the Anakin story as it connects, but yet there are two seperate parts. The PT trilogy shows the fall of Anakin and the OT shows his redemption through Luke. Like said above, the PT is more epic as all these galactic events come together to form this great tragedy while the OT is this smaller, more personal story about how Luke's involvement in this "insignificant" rebellion allows him to confront and save his father. Both trilogies opperate on a 3-part arc with the first part introducing the characters and setting things up, the second presenting the big problem(Anakin moves towards the dark side and Palps gets more power; revelation of Vader as Luke's father, Empire moving to crush the Rebellion) and the third act is the resolution be it good or evil.

 

I disagree completely.

Revenge of the Sith is not ANH1--or vice versa. Revenge of the Sith did not complete all of the dots (namely the rebellion aspect), and instead concentrated on the rise of Vader.

The film left out many parts. Talkin, most notably--but also how a certain group of people wanted to start the rebellion (Mothma comes to mind).

Lucas need not create a transitional movie to fill this void--but it is not saga without.

Two trilogies.

 

For me, OT = Star Wars, PT = Mildly entertaining
F/X movies.

 

Revenge of the Sith is not ANH1--or vice versa. Revenge of the Sith did not complete all of the dots (namely the rebellion aspect), and instead concentrated on the rise of Vader.

The film left out many parts. Talkin, most notably--but also how a certain group of people wanted to start the rebellion (Mothma comes to mind).

Lucas need not create a transitional movie to fill this void--but it is not saga without.

Lucas was correct to excise the minutia listed above, as it would have left "Revenge of the Sith" mired in a labyrinthine web of plot mechanics, sidebars, footnotes, and epilogues. What he does in this film, is focus his attention on the emotional urgency of the story, and the result yielded the most economical piece of storytelling in the saga since "The Empire Strikes Back"; most of the extraneous plot strands have been either reduced or removed altogether, the political dialogue and concurrent filibustering has been mostly contained, and thus the filmmaker is able to concentrate our attention on the Faustian trajectory of Anakin Skywalker's tragic character arc. The film is a precarious and masterful consideration of the gradually decaying moral and political fibres of the principle figures and deomocratic institutions occupying the picture's canvas; we observe the unspooling of such matters, but largely in terms of sweeping brush strokes, not laborious semantics. In other words, "Sith" is able to attain emotional completeness, and even profundity, while never succumbing to ultimately meandering, picayune details, creating a truthful, poignant bridge to the OT.

I tend to view the "Star Wars" films as a saga that is comprised of six films which constitute two trilogies that are disparate in terms of their respective tonal qualities. The prequel films are very formal and primarily derivative of pronounced, very theatrical films such as some of Wyler's 1930s soapers, Douglas Sirk movies, and Leo McCarey's work. Episodes I-III are quite stylized and largely antithetical to more contemporary planes such as method acting and ironic dissonance; the original movies, Episodes IV-VI, are more superficially entertaining, citing the terseness and hyper-real fluidity of comedies such as "The Thin Man", "His Girl Friday", "The Palm Beach Story", and "It Happened One Night." The point, I think, is to create a semblance of contrasting eras which suggests the underlying conflict contained within the respective aesthetic values exemplified in the two trilogies. This is useful in creating a palpable sense of progression in the saga's narrative course, both politically and otherwise - this cognitive artistic endeavor imbues the story with a manifest opulence and complexity which only enriches the resplendence of its scope.

Considered as an entirety, the saga represents an interpersonal generational conflict, expounding the conceit, as Wordsworth put it, that "the child is father of the man", juxtaposed against a detailed political consenescence which, as a whole, converges to reveal the cyclical nature of history. While I tend to observe the movies in relation to their accordance in a particular trilogy, I nonetheless see one story that is woven into a mellifluous filmic tapestry, replete with visionary wonders.

 

with the inclusion of the deleted scenes on the ROTS DVD, the start of the rebellion etc - it will add much to the trilogies being seen as one story

the inclusion of a qui-gon voiceover section (that mccallum now admits was never filmed) is also NEEDED to tie the 2 trilogies together, otherwise it seems like random luck that obi1 & yoda discover this amazing ability in the OT

also note that the clone wars add greatly to tying all the films together as they borrow alot of the elements from the OT and use them for PT stories

 

I'm watching ANH right now and I gotta tell ya - it does feel like ROTS part II. On the other hand, ROTS feels like AOTC part II. The whole Saga works like this. It's one continuing series, even though it's two trilogies as well.



Six episodes, two trilogies, one saga
/LM

 

Effing hell: an intelligent, Star Wars-concerning post. I appreciate your points, and I see what you are getting at. To start, Star Wars will be watched, per the director's instructions, as one full saga--from I-VI. Not that I disagree with that, however, yet I still think that it is two trilogies.

"Lucas was correct to excise the minutia listed above, as it would have left "Revenge of the Sith" mired in a labyrinthine web of plot mechanics, sidebars, footnotes, and epilogues."

That is an excellent point. Without the ***** (reference: the Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones) Star Wars would have alienated an entire audience--comprised entirely of those who dislike reading for backstory. To each his own, yes, but Lucas understands his target audience (and, more importantly, the non-believers!). He takes criticism well--as directors go--and refines his approach in his next work. Furthermore, you are right: instead of Senators bloviating, we saw Anakin and Padme with their struggles and conflicts--internal and external. He focuses on the story that the largest target audience would be interested in--whereas others would be interested in Yoda and the Outer Rim clone battles. Is this a good thing?: If Lucas removes plot strands altogether, does that not create somewhat a weaker story? I agree with this statement.

"I tend to view the "Star Wars" films as a saga that is comprised of six films which constitute two trilogies that are disparate in terms of their respective tonal qualities."

There ya go, fellas: Star Wars in a sentence.

 

I think i still see a PT and OT, but that's because I have the OT in a box set, and Ep. I and II on separate DVDs. Then again, once ROTS is out on DVD, I might change my answer to this.

 

in my opinion GL did a good job with making the films merge and i dont see them as two trilogy's but as one saga .

 

The PT and the OT showcase two very different sides of the GFFA. Matt Stover uses the phrase "age of heroes" in the ROTS novel, and I think that's very accurate to describe the PT era. It is a time where things seemed more black-and-white, thus the cartoon villains of the Trade Federation; when even war was more innocent, as most of the fighters were droids and clones. ROTS showed that facade beginning to split. Moral ambiguities were introduced, things became more complicated. Thus, the PT was epic in feel, while the OT was more realistic (although, of course, that's a relative term ). The PT dealt with prophecies, Chosen Ones, destiny, and the most powerful figures in the galaxy. The OT dealt with more human characters, although extraordinary things happened to them: a kid who grew up on a farm his whole life, a smuggler, a small and ragged Alliance.

ROTS does do a good job of bridging these two different times to form a full saga, which is one thing that makes the experience of watching it so mind-boggling for me at least: seeing the epic world of Episodes I and II and the more mundane world of IV-VI combining.

 

It's all Star Wars. One story, one saga.

 

Reads Eternal_Jedi's post above ^^^.

Applauds.

 

No it is know just the Star Wars Saga to me.

 

The idea that if you show a gun on the wall in the first act, it must be loaded in the second act, and then fired in the third act.

Never heard that before, but verrrry well put. I agree that the PT has a much stronger story arc to it than the OT. Elements are put in place much more cunningly and subtley than a fair few people realise.

 

It's a whole Saga for me. I always loved the PT films anyway, but obviously enough it needed the 'missing piece' of Ep3 to bring it together into a Saga.

And excellent sig, Cat

 

For me It's a saga, but It's also a two-part saga. Before I saw RotS I thought only in the terms of PT and OT. But now after watching all the movies in a row I think that the first part of the saga is TPM and AotC. And the second part of the saga is RotS, ANH, ESB and RotJ.

 

For me, it's become one long movie. I was anxious for this time to come, and I'm happy it's here at last.

 

Effing hell: an intelligent, Star Wars-concerning post. I appreciate your points, and I see what you are getting at. To start, Star Wars will be watched, per the director's instructions, as one full saga--from I-VI. Not that I disagree with that, however, yet I still think that it is two trilogies.

Thanks.....I think. I acquiesce to the notion which indicates that the respective trilogies are ultimately independent, because although they unveil a narrative and character trajectory that traverses all six films, there are disparate aesthetic matters which separate them. So, paradoxically, the movies are at once a complete saga, as well as a series which is comprised of two trilogies - at least from my perspective.

That is an excellent point. Without the ***** (reference: the Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones) Star Wars would have alienated an entire audience--comprised entirely of those who dislike reading for backstory. To each his own, yes, but Lucas understands his target audience (and, more importantly, the non-believers!). He takes criticism well--as directors go--and refines his approach in his next work. Furthermore, you are right: instead of Senators bloviating, we saw Anakin and Padme with their struggles and conflicts--internal and external. He focuses on the story that the largest target audience would be interested in--whereas others would be interested in Yoda and the Outer Rim clone battles. Is this a good thing?: If Lucas removes plot strands altogether, does that not create somewhat a weaker story? I agree with this statement.

I don't think that Episodes I and II were bad, just somewhat encumbered by a morass of convoluted political machinations - this is deliberately antithetical to the more obvious romanticism of the original films, and while I apprecite the respective tonal discord (I think that it would have been a mistake for Lucas to have simply made the prequels having employed the same rhythms and qualities that were used in the OT), the extensive passages of political dialogue impeded those pictures from a structural standpoint. I think that the allusions which seem to invoke Machiavelli are quite intriguing, but there are times at which the sagacious manuevering, along with the stilted and somewhat technical interlocution, becomes so dense and obfuscatory, that it is difficult to remain completely immersed in the story. As I have indicated, I am of mixed opinion as to the inclusion of such plot details - while they are conceptually fascinating, the execution is not always as straightforward and succinct as one might otherwise hope (ie. some of the Senate sequences, Obi-Wan's discoveries on Kamino, and so on). I find "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" to be more stirring as a result of their visionary scope and sense of operatic grandeur, rather than because of the voluminous and tricky plot revolutions. I have found that, on repeat viewings, my appreciation for the canvas of political intrigue has only been augmented - in that way, the prequels are not as widely accessible as the first three movies.

"Revenge of the Sith" is a more trenchant, direct, and emotionally resonant film than the previous two entries, yet from my perspective, its potency is heightened as a result of our knowledge of the events contained within those episodes. The first two, particularly "The Phantom Menace", were mostly set-up and exposition, but the underlying arc of the story is finally clear, and its application brings a sort of emotional tumescence to the picture. "Sith" is finally able to summon psychological urgency to its story, and while there are some issues which remain unresolved, I am not averse to having observed Lucas withdraw certain plot elements (such as the formation of the Rebel Alliance, etc.), as the absence of superfluous or even tautological matters, allowed the filmmaker to focus on that which gave his film conviction. Therefore, Lucas is able to realize the fullness of his protagonist's gradually unspooling moral quagmire, and eventual d

 

Revenge of the Sith is not ANH1--or vice versa. Revenge of the Sith did not complete all of the dots (namely the rebellion aspect), and instead concentrated on the rise of Vader.

The film left out many parts. Talkin, most notably--but also how a certain group of people wanted to start the rebellion (Mothma comes to mind).

In the ANH Crawl, it states the Rebellion has just recently won their first battle. There is a twenty year gap between ANH and ROTS. Had GL included the Rebellion in ROTS, it would make no sense. You can't fight for twenty years and not win a single battle.

Also, ROTS is not about the beginning of the Rebellion. If is about the Fall of Anakin Skywalker, and the Rise of the Empire. Really, ANH is about the Birth of the Rebellion. After all, it is called 'A New Hope'.

I don't think that Episodes I and II were bad, just somewhat encumbered by a morass of convoluted political machinations

The reason TPM and AOTC have said political machinations, is too show how the Republic functioned. If TPM and AOTC had not politics whatsoever, you would have no idea what the Republic really was.




On another hand, I think ROTS improves ANH more than any other film in Saga, not just because ANH is the next film, but because of one person: Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Before ROTS, when Obi-Wan was telling Luke about the Clone Wars, the Old Republic, the Rise of the Empire, the Jedi Purge, Vader's fall, he was so vague. You had no idea what he was talking about. But after seeing ROTS, Obi-Wan says these things and you know what he is talking about, you know what he went through, what the Galaxy went through.