Favorite 'Star Wars' narrative: SW, OT, or Saga?

The old saw of 'PT vs. OT' is a misnomer. Because the PT, unlike the OT, does not form a self-contained stand-alone narrative. It's not a balanced comparison.

Because Star Wars is much like this classic brainteaser:
[image=http://z.about.com/d/math/1/5/_/D/howmanysquares1.gif]
How many squares are there?

If you just count the small squares there are 9.
But there is also one LARGE square formed by the smaller squares.
Not to mention four medium squares made of four small squares each.

Likewise, for many people the story of "Star Wars" is the Saga, all six films.
For many others it is the original Trilogy, which has a complete beginning, middle, and end without the prequels.
For still others it's simply the original film Star Wars, which also tells a complete standalone story.

This is a thread for discussing the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each narrative. For answering the questions:
-"Does the addition of ESB and RotJ create a narrative in the OT that is as good as if not better than that of simply the original film?"
-"Does the addition of TPM, AotC, and RotS create a narrative in the Saga that is as good if not better than that of simply the OT?"
-"Does the addition of TPM, AotC, RotS, ESB, and RotJ create a narrative in the Saga that is as good as if not better than that of simply the original film?"

It is my hope that by framing the discussion more accurately than simply "OT vs. PT" we will be able to have a more productive and civilized discussion.

 

I like to think of them as the old style 3D (red and blue)

The OT is the red part
The PT is the blue part

The are completely different and each have their own picture

But put them together and you get a whole new picture, full of depth.

Or something like that...

 

My take on the subject: I think the smaller narratives are superior to the larger ones.

SW vs OT is a close one for me. ESB and RotJ both contain some great expansion and development, but they also introduce the problematic notion of Luke and Leia as siblings. This concept is just flat-out inconsistent with the relationship as portrayed in SW (and even the early parts of ESB). The character of Han Solo is also severely diluted in RotJ, to the point that he's basically just along for the ride. If not for those two problems, I'd prefer the OT to just SW.

(20/20 hindsight fix: cut the Luke/Leia sibling stuff. Redesign the Imperial Shuttles as much larger craft, and have the Falcon hidden inside the shell of the shuttle that they sneak onto Endor. When the fleet arrives, Han and Chewie take to the skies (filling the role Lando has in the existing film) while Leia leads the ground battle. The final act of the film cuts between the three leads, each waging their own battle)

My choice on OT vs Saga won't surprise anyone here. Merits of the individual PT films aside, I just don't think the OT films fit with the Saga story the PT sets up. SW in particular stands out as not fitting with the rest. The Saga, unfortunately, is just not as cohesive a narrative as the OT alone is.

My feelings are the same, obviously, with SW vs Saga.

 

I would disagree with the assertion that the PT does not have its own narrative. By showing the birth and separation of the twins, and the last conversation between Yoda and Kenobi, it obviously 'leaves the door open' for the story to be continued (in a way that ROTJ doesn't, which is why I wouldn't want an Ep 7-9 trilogy just for the sake of it), but there's still a beginning, middle and end to the PT story.

Suppporters of the PT will assert that the trilogy adds depth, expanding the political intrigue and subterfuge, manipulations of individulas and societies for the sake of power, and the mysteries of the cults, Jedi and Sith. It also includes personal tragedy on a level not seen in the OT - Anakin leaving his mother as a small boy, with dreams of returning to free her etc. but instead returns to watch her die, then goes on to sacrifice the very reason he left his mother in the first place in order to save the one person he had left, only for her to die too. So from that perspective the PT narrative is far richer than the OT narrative. The politics and mysteries of the cults are hinted at brilliantly in ANH but pretty much dropped after that to focus on the story of Luke redeeming his father, under the backdrop of the good guys beating the bad guys.

Which is better out of the three? I'm afraid I'm not a student of literature and story-telling, so wouldn't feel fit to make any in-depth analysis of each narrative, but for me the Saga narrative is clearly favourable because of the added depth the PT gives the OT, in terms of Jedi vs. Sith, Freedom vs. Oppression, and the relationships between Luke, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Vader and Palpatine.

In terms of the ANH narrative on its own: so much of the dialogue is related to what goes on in the other films that I just don't know what I'd think about it if it was the only part of the story ever told. Born in 1980, my first knowledge of Star Wars was of it as a trilogy, rather than the first film by itself. So to me, out of the three narratives you're discussing, the ANH narrative is the weakest.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I can't agree that the PT tells a complete story. At best it has a cliffhanger ending ala ESB: sure, the story COULD stop there, but it's obviously designed to continue, as the 'conclusion' of the film is full of setup for what's to come: ESB's talk of meeting on Tatooine to rescue Han, RotS's under-construction Death Star and taking Leia to Alderaan/Luke to Tatooine.

 

I'm a big fan of the current central character (Anakin) not being the hero of either cycle of the story, so Saga for me.

To me, the "big three" are Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Luke. Everyone else is just sorta along for the ride.

Obi-Wan is the hero of the prequels.

Luke is the hero of the originals.

And Anakin/Darth is the central character both of them have to fight/deal with.

 

While I'd agree that Obi-Wan is the closest thing, I don't really think there's ONE main character in the PT.

Qui-Gon is the main character of TPM; I mean, there's that sizable chunk on Tatooine where Obi-Wan just waits on the ship.
Obi-Wan is the main character of AotC; he's the one following the development of the clone army and the war, while Anakin/Padme's story is a more isolated thing.
Anakin is the main character of RotS; even though he becomes the bad guy, he's the central figure in the Empire-building Order 66 sort of stuff.

Whereas in the OT:
Luke is the main character of Star Wars. Hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
Luke is the main character of ESB; even though he's off in isolation, the Cloud City-Vader/Han/Leia stuff is ultimately all about Luke and his fate as a Jedi.
Luke is the main character of RotJ. Once again I trust this one is self-explanatory.

 

I think I didn't make myself sufficiently clear-Anakin is definitely the central character in ROTS, but he's not the hero. Heck, I can't think of anything he does in ROTS as being heroic.

'Hero' doesn't equate to 'central character' necessarily, is what I mean.

Basically, Obi-Wan is the hero of all three films-he dispatches Maul in TPM, discovers the sinister plots of the Seps in AOTC, and ultimately turns Darth Vader from being Palpatine's supervillain to a hollow shell of a man who needs a life-support suit to get around. He's not necessarily the central character of two of the three films, but he is the hero in all three, I think.


On a sidenote about Vader in the OT-I've always found the old OT movie posters to be quite fitting:

[image=http://www.starwars.com/movies/episode-iv/img/ep_iv.jpg]



[image=http://posterwire.com/wp-content/images/empire_strikes_back_style_a.jpg]


[image=http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/576/medium/Movie-Poster-Star-Wars-6-Return-Of-The-Jedi.jpg]


He's in the background in all three of them, behind the heroes. It's largely his actions that the heroes are reacting to, that push them forward. As an example:


In ANH, Luke at first passes on Obi-Wan's offer of Jedi training and going to Alderaan. It's Vader's troops' dogged pursuit of the data tapes which lead to Owen and Beru being killed, which in turn is Luke's impetus to leave with Obi-Wan. Then it's Vader's idea to plant a tracking device on the Falcon, which sets up the final sequence of the film and lets Luke become a Rebel hero in the Battle Of Yavin.

Luke has of course by far the most character development in ANH and is the hero, but Vader is making the decisions that ultimately make Luke the hero.

 

I think the most rewarding (and interesting) Star Wars narrative is told over the course of six films. That is not to say that the two trilogies interconnect seamlessly, as is evidenced between such two tonally disparate scenes such as Jar Jar's "exsqueeze me" moment and Luke's confrontation in the Dagobah cave, as well as potential plot point headscratchers such as the specific time required to build a Death Star or the infamous Leia remembering her mother issue. I can overlook these rough spots of transition, however, mostly because that I don't believe that the original film offers a consistent "vision" of what defines Star Wars. I love the first film ? don't get me wrong ? but at the same time when I watch it I can't help but feel that a great deal of the alien yet earthy atmosphere of the Tatooine passages is lost once the planet is left behind and the action-first second half of the film begins. Call it blasphemous if you want to, but I think the original Star Wars is a better film before the heroes actually get to battling it out in space (Similarly, I also think that the first Alien film is picture perfect...right until the alien actually shows up ? that's a story for another forum, though). Again, though, I don't actively dislike scenes such as Luke destroying the Death Star or Han trying to talk his way out of a jam before giving up and blasting the console ? far from it ? it just seems as though compared to Binary Sunset or C3-PO wandering alone in a vast desert lead me to believe that even in the first film Star Wars was shown to exhibit changes in style. And once we move into Return of the Jedi territory, I don't think I need to say anything more than the word "Ewok" to get the point across that I personally don't believe that the original trilogy was ever an entirely organic construction that obeyed one strict style or standard of quality.

Because of that belief, it was easy for me to accept a lot of the stylistic and thematic differences of the prequels, and in places where I couldn't quite "approve" of what was going on, most often the quality outweighed the miscalculations. Outside of The Empire Strikes Back, I tend to view the rest of the series more in terms of my favorite sequences than my favorite films. I think the conversation that Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan share right before the Coruscant sunset in TPM is one of most down to earth and quietly human scenes in the series since Luke and Obi-Wan shared a conversation in Obi-Wan's hut in the original film. Also, if I had to narrow my list of favorite Star Wars scenes down to two or three, I guarantee that Luke?' battering Vader into submission in RotJ would unquestioningly be there. At the same time, though, in many ways TPM and RotJ are the two most problematic individual films in the series. I could elaborate further on why, but as I said, these days I tend to focus on what makes Star Wars a great story told through the art of film, and I think each of the six films contains a variety of elements that contribute to that story's overall greatness.

 

My prefernce is the OT (maybe not surprising). Now, I fully acknowledge that there are some awkward inconsistencies between SW and the sequels, such as "from a certain point of view", and that Darth Vader was clearly intended as a name, rather than a title - "only a master of evil, Darth" is Obi-Wan, the mentor, speaking to his former apprentice on a familiar first name basis. But these inconsistencies are, in my opinion, acceptable given the added thematic depth provided by the sequels. This is best summarized in the fenomenal Luke-Vader-Palpatine climax at the end of the ROTJ. Luke can only win by NOT fighting.

This is, as far as I'm concerned, pretty unique for adventure movies. It transcends the simple "white hats vs black hats" storyline of the first movie (for how many "you killed my [insert family relation here], prepare to die"-stories can we see before getting fed up) and suddenly asks very profound questions about good or bad, and what makes the good guys good. It also provides the answer - it's the commitment to certain values, and the active choice to abstain from revenge, to reject anger and hatred as motivational force for actions, that makes the good guy good. Call me a sissy, but this basic message is very beautiful and very rare in pop culture and science fiction and fantasy, and it is probably the reason it got me hooked as a Star Wars fan.

My reasons for prefering the OT over the 6 part saga is that in my opinion, the PT doesn't actually add any new major themes to the narrative, and the few that are added (like the nature of the Clone Wars) are, in my opinion, generally poorly executed. Now, I know that many disagree, and that disagreement is to a large extent discussed in the OT vs PT thread, so no need to rehash that debate here.

 

My favorite? None of the above.

Star Wars -- The most successful of the aforementioned narratives, the spiritual heir to The Wizard of Oz, but like the '39 classic, it is one that never ceases to leave me wanting. The proceedings are largely bereft of the terror and sensuality that pervades through the most enduring fairy tales.

OT ? As stated elsewhere, there's no reconciling the disparate tones and retcons. I could have possibly accepted Empire as the genesis for a subversive re-imagining of Star Wars, but sadly, that too proved a one-shot, as ROTJ tore Kershner's vision to absolute tatters.

Saga -- In some ways, the prequels lend enormous depth to the OT (e.g., Padme's dying words elucidates Luke's otherwise inexplicable desire to redeem his evil father). But the CGI, additional retcons, and the emphasis on geopolitics muddles any aim for congruity.


My favorite narrative would be either the PT, or a Revenge of the Sith and Empire Strikes Back double-feature, which captures the fall and near-fall of father and son, respectively.

 

drg4

To preface, let me say that I have complete respect for your opinions, and a great appreciation for your frankness. You're an open-minded debater, and one of my favorite people on this board when it comes to debating the PT. So please know that I don't in any mean it as an attack on you personally when I say the following:

Your post above perfectly illustrates how Lucas has destroyed Star Wars.

If it weren't so frustrating, it would almost be impressive the way he's managed to develop his series in such a way that one can consider themselves a Star Wars fan when they dislike the one film that is essential to every permutation of the 'Star Wars' narrative. That's how far he has strayed from what Star Wars once was.

 

Despite the greatness of the scene, I feel that from the point at which Vader is revealed as Luke's father, the story starts to go astray and from that point on it seems as though it's chasing it's own tail and desperately trying to piece itself together retrospectively, with varying degrees of success. "From a certain point of view", Leia's memories of her mother, etc etc. So for me, I guess I'd have to go for SW.

 

JKH: Since '78, Lucas has indeed strayed. Drastically. And though I'm largely grateful for the transmutation, I understand your frustration. For the better part of a decade, I'd walk into a Pierce Brosnan Bond flick harboring hope that the producers finally conceded to the actor's stated wish to return to the character's early, earthy roots of intrigue. I had seen The Tailor of Panama, and knew what Brosnan could bring to the table. But each time, without fail, I left the theater crushed, lamenting what Goldfinger had done to the franchise, flummoxed at the number of people who lapped up the spectacle, gadgetry, and mega-budget bloat.

Needless to say, I was eventually rewarded with Casino Royale, and I'd like to see you guys rewarded with an alternate, or should I say orthodox, set of sequels/prequels. Where Obi-Wan isn't a damn liar. Where the squire and princess aren't blood-related. Where Darth Vader betrays and murders Father Skywalker. Where the Jedi are all-wise, and not the Emperor's useful idiots. Would this interest me? The ?twins? nullification notwithstanding...no. But I hate to see so much disenchantment.

Here's hoping George gets a little experimental. An adaptation of Splinter of the Mind's Eye wouldn't be a bad start.

 

Posts like that are why you're my favorite member of the 'other side', drg4.

I have to say, I kind of like this whole "continuing to disagree but understanding why the other side feels the way they do" thing...what do you think our chances are of bringing Go-Mer and Fenn around?

 

My vote is for "any and/or all of the above". I'm a very democratic kind of guy! I like the standalone quality of the original film, and truth be told I've probably watched the theatrical 1977 version more than any other episode of the Saga, or any other film period. It resonates with me nostalgically, of course, but it's also a damn good, nearly perfect movie, a textbook example of action-adventure-fantasy filmmaking. Somehow I never tire of it, despite having seen it upwards of 70 times.

I also enjoy the OT as an extension of the original. Naturally, since ESB is my favorite film of all time, I tend to follow up viewings of 'ANH' with another go at ESB. Technically the cinematic superior to SW/'ANH', ESB leaves me awash in emotion, and with a kind of slackjawed admiration at the filmmakers' craft. If 'ANH' is "nearly perfect", the ESB must be one of those rarest of gems, the flawless masterpiece.

And, since ESB is only one-half of the sequel story to 'ANH', I cannot leave well enough alone, and I must follow up most viewings of ESB with another crack at ROTJ. The least inspiring and least well-made of the three, ROTJ completes the arc, answers all questions, ties off all loose ends. Parts of it are weak, and in most places it does not fulfill the promise of ESB's genius. That said, I love it unashamedly, especially for the Throne Room sequence and the climactic destruction of Palpatine.

Which brings me to the 6-film Saga. Honestly, I find that ROTJ is improved by leaps and bounds now that I know the full story of Anakin's rise and fall as depicted in the PT. The prequel films, while flawed in some areas, are exciting in and of themselves, but any one of them is better than ROTJ (IMO!), and taken together they deepen that already-astonishing moment when Vader decides to lift the Emperor into his arms and hurl him into a fiery abyss. I can now "see" Anakin's face beneath the mask as he looks from son to master, from the last vestige of Padme to the destroyer of the Republic; I can "feel" his struggle like I never could before the PT was complete. So, if only to enhance and ameliorate the short-fall achievements of ROTJ, and to enjoy three new SW films in their own right, I love the 6-episode Saga and find great personal value and artistic worth in taking them as a whole.

 

I'll say now, this thread is NOT going down this path. Keep that to the OT vs PT thread. If this turns out to be another PT vs OT thread, I'll lock it.

 

But Hali, look how wonderful our exchange was!

We both voiced our strong contrary opinions, but were respectful of each other's. I also made a point of being clear that the particular comment you quoted is about the MOVIES, not drg4.

Yes, the discussion was blunt and frank, but if you can point me to a more civilized exchange between two such divergent viewpoints on this board recently, I'd be surprised.

 

There really is no problem here, halibut. When JKH alleges that Star Wars has been destroyed, he's referring to the spirit of the original film. Is the distinguishing feature of this thread not the suspicion that Star Wars '77 just might belong to a different species than its sequels/prequels, and that its success as a self-contained fairy tale invites comparisons to those of the OT and Saga?

 

Favorite narrative of SW, OT, saga?

Well the OT slightly edges out SW, for several reasons.
1) Acting, while Alec was best in ANH, Mark and Carrie raised their game in ESB and Mark was still good in RotJ. Harrison and Carrie were less than good there though.
2) It does tell a very good if simple story and ESB adds some very nice twists.

With the PT/saga I find it less satisfying.
The biggest problem I have with the PT is that I simply do not care very much about the characters. I do not find them very intersting or feel very sad when they die or cheer when they win.

For me I found the characters either unlikable/annoying (ex Anakin in AotC, who I did not like), underdeveloped (Maul, Dooku, Obi-Wan in TPM) or flat out dull (many characters).

Part of it has to do with the often wooden or stiff acting in the PT. Quite often I get the sense that the characters do not really care about what happens or about each other. It makes the story uninvolving to me. A character is saying "my planet is invaded and millions are dying" with as much emotion as someone complaining that there is no sugar in the coffe.

The overall story of the PT is quite good, it certainly is more complex than the OT.
But to me it is told less well and a simple story told well beats a more complex story told poorly.

Perhaps that is why I still post here, I can see the potential in the PT but it is slightly annoying that much of this potential is wasted.

Regards
Nordom

 

Nordom, I've mentioned this in other threads so I won't belabor it here, but have you tried watching the PT films in the foreign language of your choice (I prefer Spanish!), with English subtitles? The voice performances are much improved, more passionate, better controlled. If the main obstacle to your enjoying the PT is the performances, I highly recommend the foreign-language method as a way of appreciating the characters more, without the distraction of those dry, sometimes monotone, sometimes cornball vocal deliveries of the English dub. Give it a whirl!

 

I have no doubt that some posters are able to engage in civilised debates such as yours above. However, there are other posters who are unable to do that, and that's the slippery slope I'd like to avoid. We have one thread where that is prevalent. I'm just saying I don't want another one to suffer the same fate

 

This is the way it should be.

 

OT for exactly the reasons some consider negative-the disparity in each movie. I love that each of the three has its own identity. Lucas' early notions about having different directors, writers, and photography was fantastic, and a real anti-Bond/Rocky/franchise idea. It was just 3 distinct movies. The saga doesn't mesh very well to me, I don't need more than one Empire Strikes Back and I don't really care about perfect tonal continuity or enjoy it when I get it.

The larger saga story also doesn't feel very unique to me since I've heard more than enough about epic prophecies and chosen ones and destiny to last me a million years. On the other hand, "LOCAL FARM BOY AND DOPE SMUGGLER MAKE GOOD"- sign me up for that.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. But unfortunately the DVD's I own do not have an alternate language track, maybe only the Reg 1 dvd's have that? So English is the only option. I have done this on other movies and it can be quite interesting.

Regards
Nordom