PT The problem with calling Episodes I-III "prequels"

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Lars_Muul, Jan 22, 2013.

Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. DARTHVENGERDARTHSEAR Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2002
    star 4
    I kind of wished GL never labeled the episodes, because now they can't go further into the past.
  2. Lars_Muul Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 2, 2000
    star 6
    Sure they can - with movies that aren't part of The Skywalker Saga.

    @_Catherine_
    Don't be silly. I've already explained my reasoning more than once, just as Samuel has explained his. My reality is different from his, that's all there is to it.





    - I've been tracking a bounty hunter named Jango Fett, do you know him?
    - Bounty Hunters! We don't need that scum!

    /LM
  3. Samuel Vimes Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 3
    Well and Good so perhaps we should just drop this whole discussion as we seem to talk past each other and agree to disagree.

    Bye
    The Guarding Dark
    Last edited by Samuel Vimes, Jan 31, 2013
  4. KilroyMcFadden Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 3
    I agree with the concept that he should not have labeled them as being part of the same story. With the exception of the necessary need for the portion of ROTJ to wrap up the events of the PT, it isn't really necessary that the two be in the same narrative. In fact, I think having them labeled 1-6 has just confused people and unnecessarily led to the false argument that the two trilogies are somehow one cohesive story rather than two separate stories, (I-III, part of VI - story of Darth Vader; IV-VI the story of Luke Skywalker) I think as the movie progress and they continue to lable them 7,8,9... it is going to further confuse the issue. If we think if them as separate and watch them in the chronological order in which they were made, all of the stories in this universe will merely continue to organically build on each other, adding to the tapestry of the universe GL created.
    Last edited by KilroyMcFadden, Jan 31, 2013
  5. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    NERD FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  6. KilroyMcFadden Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 3
    I agree with the concept that he should not have labeled them as being part of the same story. With the exception of the necessary need for the portion of ROTJ to wrap up the events of the PT, it isn't really necessary that the two be in the same narrative. In fact, I think having them labeled 1-6 has just confused people and unnecessarily led to the false argument that the two trilogies are somehow one cohesive story rather than two separate overlapping stories, (I-III, part of VI - story of Darth Vader; IV-VI the story of Luke Skywalker) I think as the movies progress and they continue to label them 7,8,9... it is going to further confuse the issue. If we think if them as separate and watch them in the chronological order in which they were made, all of the stories in this universe will continue to organically build on each other, adding to the rich tapestry GL created.

    Double post *facepalm
    Last edited by KilroyMcFadden, Jan 31, 2013
  7. DARTHVENGERDARTHSEAR Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2002
    star 4
    That's true. They could always label them Star Wars: Chronicle I or something like that if it concerns a different family. And considering the Skywalker legacy started in Episode I, with no family heritage to trace back, it's a good reason to not make any before the Skywalker Saga.
    Last edited by DARTHVENGERDARTHSEAR, Jan 31, 2013
  8. Lars_Muul Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 2, 2000
    star 6
    That's also a good point! It might have been interesting to see the true origins of the Skywalkers, but that's probably best left to the imagination.

    Agreed! Sometimes, it's just pointless to keep arguing.

    I'll just add that you hit the nail on the head here:
    Bingo! That's exactly what I mean. I just stated the obvious, which is that the backstory is just as essential as any other aspect of the movies. The first three episodes tell the story of that backstory, which means that what this trilogy is about is essential to the other trilogy (since it's about that trilogy's backstory) - but that does not, in any way, make the existence of these three movies a necessity for the other trilogy to work. If that was the case, they would definitely have been made first.


    @KilroyMcFadden
    I actually believe that this new trilogy might bring the series closer to how GL used to envision it before thinking of it as the Saga of the Chosen One; as a series of trilogies where each trilogy works as a self-contained story but all of them combined form a bigger story about generations. On starwars.com, they've already used the label "The Skywalker Saga" for a video tribute and I suspect that this is now the generally accepted view at LFL.

    *throws glasses at Samuel, screams like a madman and runs blindly into a wall*





    - Begun, the clone war has.
    - Well, don't everybody thank me at once.
    /LM
    Last edited by Lars_Muul, Jan 31, 2013
    Cryogenic likes this.
  9. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    Maybe the man did that on purpose? Episode I features a Sith Lord whose name means "mallet"/"hammer" and Episode I is where the hammer falls. This is a saga that begins with a tax dispute and explodes outwardly from there. With its child-like, free-wheeling, yet also mannered, regal, and serious tone, I think TPM is the perfect place to begin.

    Have you ever stopped to consider how much of the Galactic Empire exists in the Rebel Alliance and vice versa? Or how alike Yoda and the Emperor are in their basic disposition and urging of Luke to confront/kill Vader? Or the symbiosis between Han and Luke, Luke and Leia, Artoo and Threepio, et al.? The correlations between Cloud City and the Death Star, Dagobah and Endor, etc.? A story can be cohesive without being consistent, segmented yet overlapping, disparate while integrated, and so on.

    Chronological order = Eh, whatever.

    Stories in the universe continuing to organically build on each other = I'll buy that.

    Adding to the rich tapestry that GL created = YES, DADDY!
    Last edited by Cryogenic, Feb 1, 2013
  10. 07jonesj Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2010
    star 4
    To those saying that the PT requires the OT because it ends on a sad note - I heartily disagree. The ending doesn't have to be happy to be an ending. The prequel trilogy is a very different type of story to the original trilogy. The prequel story is a tragedy. It is the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker. You can watch I-II-III and feel satisfied, as that tragedy has reached it's climax at the end of ROTS.
    PiettsHat and Count Yubnub like this.
  11. Lars_Muul Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 2, 2000
    star 6
    I agree. Of course, one could argue that the ending is too open for the trilogy to stand on its own, thanks to lines like "There is still good in him", "Hidden, safe, the children must be kept", "Until the time is right, disappear we will" and "Training I have for you".
    I would say that yes, it is left open for more, but at the same time, this trilogy has its own dramatic arc that begins with TPM and ends with ROTS. It works as a self-contained narrative and doesn't require any more story to get its point across. It's a complete story about the evolution of evil.
    It's also the backstory to Luke's trilogy, though, which is why it has to end the way it does; with a glimmer of hope for the future.
    Thus, the first trilogy ends and the saga continues...





    - And what of the boy?
    - He is my brother.

    /LM
  12. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Heard of negative numbers, have you not? :p
  13. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    It is also the tragedy of Padme Amidala, the Galactic Republic, Jar Jar Binks, the Jedi, et al. Mainly, I'd say it's the tragedy of Padme, however, because she is the sacred feminine that is worn thin and destroyed across this three-part opera -- destined to be undone by her cloaked attachment to Anakin, shrinking in horror from the mythical evil of Darth Vader, and going, very shrewdly of Lucas, like Ophelia, to an eternal watery grave (a full-circle motif that begins with her first appearance in the trilogy: as hyper-still (cold) queen on a viewscreen which ripples as if glimpsing an indistinct image through an enchanted pool).
    Last edited by Cryogenic, Feb 2, 2013
    PiettsHat likes this.
  14. Obi-Wan-1000 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 11, 2005
    star 4
    I prefer to use the term "Saga" instead of "prequel" and "original" or classic trilogy but people still use these terms so it's kind of hard to avoid using these terms.
    CloneTrooperFox likes this.
  15. CloneTrooperFox Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2013
    star 1
    I have cought myself saying saga as well. I usally say episodes 4,5,6, or 1,2,3, or i just say... return of the jedi, attack of the clones, etc... [face_flag]
Moderators: Bazinga'd