Saga The Strange Perspective of the OT with PT-colored glasses

Okay, so everyone knows it, I'm a fan of the PT. But I'd still only call it about 60% of what the OT is to me. But I have to say that in the short time I've been here, I want to address something that strikes me as strange: people describing the OT with PT-colored glasses. I mean no disrespect, but for instance, I'm amazed that people claim the OT is flawed for this reason or that because it fails to mesh with facts established in the PT. May I remind everyone that the OT was created first, that GL truly did not have a very specific plan for the PT, and that if there are discrepencies between the two, it's because the PT does not mesh perfectly with the facts first established in the OT. I have no problem with anyone who prefers one over the other, but I just don't give much credence to anyone who says, "Well, Vader is boring and his motives don't make much sense and the lightsaber fights are boring and yadda yadda," when clearly events and facts were set up differently before, then retconned when creating Episodes I-III.

You don't say!

You're new, but there is a long history behind your observances and you are unaware of some of that history. AND it only partially applies. There are plenty of other threads that do go into this, though.

Well, I'm sort of playing both sides of the fences, and in both cases trying to argue for the other somewhat. But I really am surprised when I see people framing their questions as if Episode IV is really a sequel to Episode III. It seems to happen a lot. I'll keep my eyes peeled and see what turns up, and perhaps I'll change my perspective.

ANH is a sequel to ROTS. I see no discrepancies in the story, though.





"You must unlearn what you have learned"
/LM

Not to be disagreeable, but that's like calling Raiders of the Lost Ark a sequel to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. After all it takes place later chronologically. TOD supposedly came earlier in time.

A sequel continues a story. But Episode IV doesn't truly continue a story because it was the establishing story. The PT is a set of prequels to the establishing story rather than the OT a set of sequels to the establishing story.

It is those who see Star Wars in its numerical order that startle me. Clearly there is little need to think about whether or not Darth Vader thought about a certain Jappor snippet when saw Luke, or if he thought, "Now this is podracing," when he chased Rebel pilots down the Death Star trench. Those ideas weren't even developed yet. Star Wars was originally from The Adventures of Luke Skywalker before it became the Tragedy of Darth Vader. Regardless of your preferred way to look at it, I think it's important to remember its original intent along with its changes.

Yeah but there were retcons in the OT itself. The "original intent" was that Luke's father and Darth Vader were not the same person. And that Obi-Wan is not a liar. And Leia is not Luke's sister. And so on and so forth. It's certainly unfair to blame OT for any inconsistency (but honestly, I haven't seen a lot of that). However, it's totally valid to look at certain characters' development over the entire saga since the PT was meant to lay groundworks for the OT.

My reasons for criticizing the OT has nothing to do with some belief that it failed to mesh with the facts established in the PT. I criticized the OT for the same reason I criticized the PT . . . for any flaws I might find in its narratives and characterizations.

I disagree. Episode III is telling the backstory, and finishes up at a point convenient enough to lead to Episode IV.

I ask you honestly, if you had an absolute Star Wars virgin friend whom you wanted to show the series, would you prefer showing them Episodes I-VI, or would you prefer to start with Episodes IV-VI, then go back and show Episodes I-III? Bear in mind that there was this surprise about a certain Dark Lord being Luke's father, that this little green imp was actually a powerful and wise Jedi Master, that most exposition on what the Force actually is comes in Episodes IV and V from Ben and Yoda, and other elements critical to a full understanding of the story are provided in the OT. If you were to watch the PT, all surprises would be ruined, and you might wonder what this "Force" thing is or who the Jedi are.

The PT was built around the framework of the OT, not the other way around. If you're going to watch the whole series, one's greatest understanding comes when you see it that way.

Let me give an example of the sort of thing I just don't understand, with my apologies to Mystery_Roach in advance.

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...-love-the-empire-strikes-back-again.50006630/

He grew to dislike TESB in part because his understanding of Vader's motives and fall had changed. Now that he understood that "all along" Vader was just motivated by love for his mother and his wife and that was what led to his fall, he felt like a poor, misunderstood, tragic figure turns into a one-dimensional bad guy. Only when Mystery_Roach "recognized" that Vader was still motivated by family ties in his obsession with finding Luke and confronting him did he actually come to appreciate the movie again. Now of course, everyone's entitled to his/her opinion, but I personally enjoy Vader as the epitome of evil, the character with no character except pure evil. The Vader surprise is heightened because he is no longer the archetypal bad guy we always assumed he was: he is actually a real person, a person who had a life before, a man who fathered a child, a man who was not always evil. It is far more interesting to me to see that the horribly evil Vader actually was once good, and then get the backstory, rather than seeing the once good and noble Anakin become evil, and then follow his exploits and pretend that there is no lapse in continuity.

OT first, then PT.

I disagree to an extent. I think that the PT doesn't really function well as a pure backstory mainly because it seems to me that Lucas crafted it so that it could be viewed before the OT. Now, of course, there are references to the OT, but it does not have such a set-in-stone narrative structure that it necessitates being watched after the OT. To give you a comparison, Peter Jackson recently released the first part of his Hobbit prequel trilogy and you can see that how he approached its crafting means that the viewer must have watched Lord of the Rings before. The opening scene, for example, reveals that Bilbo is alive and thus robs the narrative of the tension concerning whether or not he would survive (if anyone, for example, were to start with The Hobbit rather than LOTR). Also, it includes Frodo who really serves no purpose being there besides as a reference to The Lord of the Rings and, in fact, unnecessarily extends the opening. Add to that some of the additional material (such as including Galadriel and Saruman -- who were not in the book and rely on the viewer being familiar with their appearance in LOTR) and it's clear that PJ crafted this with the desire that it should be watched after LOTR.

Contrast that with the PT:

There is never any spoiling of the narrative surprises -- the fact that Anakin will become Darth Vader is (while foreshadowed) not made explicit or even implicit. Side characters are included from the OT, of course, but these characters (such as Yoda, R2D2, and C3PO) come to have prominent roles in the PT itself, rather than simply being an additional nod to OT fans (as Frodo's appearance in The Hobbit was).

The OT was made first, yes, but I think that Lucas, when crafting the PT, designed it so that it can easily be viewed from I through VI.

No need to ask any friends here. I did watch PT films first. TPM was my first introduction to Star Wars and I never had an issue with the Saga. Thus, I can honestly say, given that I love the Saga as much as I do, I would feel very comfortable introducing a friend through I to VI. To be honest, I think people overstate the surprise factor of the "I am your father reveal." While shocking, I think you have to consider how often it's been emulated and that the revelation of familial relationships are common in media. What knocked me on my ass was watching Anakin turn to the Dark Side -- for someone who knows nothing about the Saga, that's the plot twist that will knock the breathe out of you. Or at least it was in my experience.

Moreover, there's a lot of great exposition about the Force in TPM. We see the Jedi use their powers in the opening, Qui-Gon elaborating on the Living Force, his discussions with Shmi about Anakin's potential, etc. It's more organically woven into the narrative, true, but I never found it hard to understand, personally. There was no trouble understanding who the Jedi Knights were either -- guardians of peace and justice in the Republic. It's right there in the opening crawl.

I don't think there's anything wrong with I through VI personally.

There's no "right" answer -- different people will prefer different things. But I don't think there's any "wrong" answer either.

To be honest, most of the issues I have with the OT don't stem from the PT, but rather from inconsistency within the trilogy itself.

The duel in ANH, for example, I never really appreciated but (in contrast) I never had an issue with the duels of ESB or ROTJ. There's also the differing emotional tone. Leia seems absolutely heartbroken (for a time at least) watching Han get frozen in ESB. Yet, she never shows any reaction to Alderaan's destruction or the revelation that Vader is her father. It's those inconsistencies that I find problematic

Luke's arc, though I love it, I also find has issues because I feel that a transition was needed between ESB and ROTJ.

I also never really was sure what Han's purpose was. His arc seemed to have run out of steam by ANH and in the following two films, he just seems there as a love interest for Leia while the real conflict is with Luke.

There's also the fact that Luke never really calls out Obi-Wan for lying to him, he just seems to accept it and any of the dramatic tension that could have been drawn from such an event is lost.

All in all, my issues with the OT don't stem from how it doesn't "mesh" with the PT, but how the character arcs and the tone aren't always as solid as they could be.

The PT, actually, does a lot to lend greater depth to the OT and make it easier to accept. Luke's sudden decision to save his father, for example, is far easier to swallow with Padmé's words in mind. There's also interesting details which emerge, such as Vader torturing Han to draw Luke out mirroring what happened to his mother. Anakin, at this point, is using his own pain at the loss of a loved one to try to manipulate his son -- which is chilling in its cold calculation.

@eht13, I don't disagree with your first sentence, but rather with your second:

I don't find it to be such a clear continuation.

@PiettsHat, I appreciate your perspective and your taking the time to explain your introduction. I'd like to address it in greater depth, but when I say "an absolute Star Wars virgin," I mean someone who has never even heard various media references to what was once among the greatest surprises in cinema history. I'll have to get back to you on the rest, but thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I was speaking more generally in regards to "media references." What I meant, essentially, was that the revelation of being someone's father, mother, brother, cousin, etc. is no longer as shocking as it was in 1980 because it is so commonplace now. ESB was an incredibly popular movie and thus it inspired a lot of creators to utilize a similar plot twist. For this reason, it's not as shocking as it could be.

As an example (spoilers), the revelation in Avatar: The Last Airbender that Avatar Roku was Zuko's great-grandfather didn't really shock me. Certainly not to the extent that his choice at the end of one of the seasons did.

Or, in one of my favorite video game series (Ace Attorney), the revelation of a sibling relationship didn't shock me that much either.

When you get used to such plot twists, the revelation of ESB loses some of its impact whether or not you were aware that Darth Vader was Anakin.

I went into TPM knowing nothing and I still came out a fan. So I don't see the I through VI order as problematic.

I've never been convinced of any "discrepancies," but maybe someone, sometime, will present us with a valid one.

There's already a thread on this.

Most of that stuff is just the whining and&/or the complaining nitpickings of those nostalgic old school fanboys/fangirls!!!

Yeah, and if there's anything we don't want, it's something oldschool. Out with the old, in with the new! And fanboys. What a clever name! It couldn't possibly be because the general public feels the OT is superior to the PT. No, I'm just a blindly loyal fanboy.

I do appreciate the PT. I'm a fan. There's not a Star Wars film I don't like. Yes, that means I even enjoy the Clone Wars movie a bit. I'm just pointing out that those who criticize the OT for not conforming to the PT are kind of missing something.

I'm not starting a new thread about film order, but rather using thread order to make a point. Though since I didn't bother to search old threads to make my point, I have a feeling my points have been made before.

But let's talk discrepancies. Then hopefully I can get back to a lengthy reply to PiettHat. "Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough." But Anakin never mentioned giving his lightsaber to his child. "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil..." sort of implying that he was not his only pupil. One Death Star takes 20 years, another larger model takes four. The uniqueness and value of the sacred lightsaber is cheapened as they are constantly lost or damaged in the PT, yet seemingly treasured in the OT. The Clone Wars is only one war. Yoda probably trained Obi-Wan as a kid, but we don't see it for sure, though we are told that he is his instructor. "I haven't gone by the name of Obi-Wan since, oh, before you were born." But we never hear him called anything but Obi-Wan in the PT, even after Luke's birth. These are off the top of my head, and some are rather simplistic, but really they create problems in my mind. If I take the time, I'll find more.

Sort of not.

The second one may have been started earlier than people think, and the first may not have required 20 years.

This is a non-issue. If thousands of Jedi are running around using their lightsabers, some are going to get damaged, lost or destroyed. Nothing said or implied in the OT contradicts this reality.

Saying the precise literal truth - "I haven't gone by the name Obi-Wan since right after you were born" - potentially reveals too much through implication.

Regardless of how you feel about my previous points, this quote here proves what my ultimate point really is--that the OT is conforming with events in the PT. How could he have given too much away? When Alec Guiness said that line, there was nothing to give away. There was no other Star Wars movie! George Lucas wasn't even sure if there would ever be one. The fact established during the filming of that movie was that he hadn't gone by that name since before Luke's birth. The PT retconned that. Now we can easily rationalize it away: maybe he forgot exactly when he dropped the name, maybe he was trying not to give anything away, and heck, ESB and ROTJ retconned ideas as well. But considering the only reason that this sort of discrepancy exists is because someone forgot to fix it when making ROTS nearly 30 years after ANH is a bit of a problem to me. The PT was modeled around a frame originally established by the OT. Those who try to shape their views of the OT around a framework of the PT have it backwards, IMO. However, as was pointed out, perhaps a worthwhile perspective comes from looking through the other end of the telescope. But I feel pretty strongly that the original intent is being lost, and it makes me sad.

Still looking to reply to PiettHat's post, but it's long, and I keep having mere bursts of free time.

This thread you've created is about a synthetic process not unlike Gospel harmonization. There are a few of us who've been carrying the same fire here for awhile. The prequels and originalquels match up today, but if one looks at what was going on in the creative processes of the each, in their own times and contexts - or just takes certain lines at their face values - discrepancies do appear. They can absolutely be explained away, but simply doing that alone misses the history of the saga, I think.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the OT is conforming with events in the PT so much as the viewer's perspective is informed by what was viewed in the PT. If one so chose, you could watch ANH and pretend it's a standalone film with no sequels/prequels ever made. Sometimes I like to watch it in this frame of mind just for fun. But nothing about ANH is fundamentally altered besides how you, as an individual, interpret the story. And that depends on whether you accept the PT or not.

Yes, the PT retconned some things. But really, is the lightsaber honestly that big of a deal? Especially in comparison to the much larger and more powerful lie told in that scene -- that Vader killed Luke's father. And one then might question why, as you put it, ANH must be modeled around the frame established by ESB and ROTJ rather than the other way around. Do you see what I mean? Because each film introduces significant retcons -- you want to talk about one that is blatantly problematic? Look at ROTJ retconning Leia as Luke's sister. Not only is there an incestuous kiss in ESB now, but ROTJ doesn't even attempt to make an explanation. In fact, it arguably makes it worse with Leia's line about how she's "always known."

Compare that to the rather minor "inconsistencies" you brought up about the PT:

--The lightsaber (which was a rather minor lie amongst large lies)

--Obi-Wan being slightly imprecise about his name and when he used it

--Obi-Wan not mentioning Qui-Gon (which is perfectly acceptable given that Qui-Gon is dead and hardly relevant to Luke)

--The Death Star II taking so much less time to build (even though the one in ROTS could very well have been a mere prototype, it's never established in the film)

Compared to all those, ESB and ROTJ do much, much more to alter the "original intent" of ANH than the PT ever did. ESB and ROTJ made Obi-Wan lie about something enormous and manipulate Luke, they made Vader into Luke's father rather than his father's killer, they made Leia into his sister rather than a romantic interest, they made Luke the "last hope" of the Jedi.

What exactly did the PT do that altered the original intent more profoundly than these things? The points you bring up are extremely minor in comparison. They are points which can easily be explained away as not being relevant to the characters (such as Qui-Gon) or simply imprecise due to the passage of time (Obi-Wan talking about his name).

For that reason, I find your lamentations that the original intent is being lost due to the PT to be perplexing. It was the other OT films that made the largest changes to how ANH is viewed.

So far I'm with you. Not that I completely agree, but I certainly see your POV. Yes, The Hobbit definitely necessitates a viewing of the establishing films before watching the prequels.

I'm a little more confused about this one. You are correct that they are not simply nods to the OT but really do have a story function. But to me, the surprise about Yoda is spoiled when watched in order, and I think it was a powerful message about not judging, even for the audience. Even more confusing is that you state that Anakin-->Vader is not explicitly or even implicitly stated. I mean, he's called Darth Vader and puts on the armor in Episode III. You're right that there is foreshadowing before that, but I wish Lucas had just left it at that.

I feel he could have done better. However, your later comments give me pause, as perhaps the "proper" viewing order of I-VI could have a different value than I've been expecting.

No need to ask any friends here. I did watch PT films first. TPM was my first introduction to Star Wars and I never had an issue with the Saga. Thus, I can honestly say, given that I love the Saga as much as I do, I would feel very comfortable introducing a friend through I to VI. To be honest, I think people overstate the surprise factor of the "I am your father reveal." While shocking, I think you have to consider how often it's been emulated and that the revelation of familial relationships are common in media. What knocked me on my ass was watching Anakin turn to the Dark Side -- for someone who knows nothing about the Saga, that's the plot twist that will knock the breathe out of you. Or at least it was in my experience.[/quote]

Well, you gave your reasoning for media spoilage. I still feel it could be a shock. Regardless of soap opera cliches, this is the most villainous creature of all time declaring he is your father. I mean, it really still impresses me when I imagine it being my first time. What a shock! I'm sad that was lost.

I'll be honest, at originaltrilogy.com, people talk a lot about fanedits. I won't discuss the legality or merits of those here, but I will say that some very interesting ideas have been put forth to preserve as much of the PT as possible, yet maintain the surprise, and there has been a great deal of success in the efforts of some. However a few problems remain. If Lucas had filmed his movies just slightly differently, one of the most powerful reveals could have still been just as powerful to those who watched the film in the same order as you. But considering he did not film it that way, I feel it was pretty clear he expected most of his audience to already be aware of the Luke/Vader relationship by the time they started watching TPM. Again, my original point stands that the PT is meant to be viewed in light of the OT.

But that said, I appreciate your testimony of the effectiveness of a I-VI first experience. I have to rethink the value of watching the films in a different order than originally intended. I have a feeling that your and my perspectives of the Saga will always be different simply because of the order of exposure, and little can be done to change our expectations. And to read your perspective on the "surprise" of Anakin's turn...I guess it hadn't occurred to me that there could be value in such a different expectation. I'll reiterate that I don't enjoy the PT nearly as much as the OT, but as I consider most opinions as valid, I can see why this different "version" of the exact same tale could be pleasing. I mean it when I say thanks for sharing.

I feel Obi-Wan tells Luke far more in his hut than we learn throughout the whole TPM. The film starts with these mysterious "Jedi" who, if we knew nothing about them before, seem like police guys with cool unexplained powers. Finally when exposition comes, it does so in a muddled manner, assuming the viewer knows something about it already. Having watched the films I-VI, did your friends spoil what the Force actually was for you, or did you have to infer it completely from the films? Again, I suspect that you already had something of an idea. If I am right, this confirms my opinion that the PT is and should be shaped by the OT rather than the reverse. That said, if I am wrong, I am once again am fascinated by the different perspective that must come to a person seeing it through your eyes.

I agree, there may be different complaints, (and I recently pointed out the Leia one at OT.com), but that seems minor. She'd had some time to come to grips with it. She may have put off her grief till she had less pressing stressors affecting her. And she was clearly distraught when learning about Vader, though it does seem like she didn't really make the connection: Luke is my brother+Vader is his father=Vader is my father. Is it shock or merely an emotional disconnect? I'm not sure, but it's not unbelievable, as we often have difficulty accepting horrible truth. I remember a friend of mine lost her husband and didn't seem to react for several hours before she finally started crying. But I see your point.

I've heard this before, and while there is some validity to it, I also don't see why it's such a big issue. Obviously he had a lot of natural skill and trained himself during the intervening time. But even a lot of the hardcore OT.com members find this an issue, and many aren't even fans of ROTJ, clinging mostly to ANH and ESB.

Then what is the point of any lesser character? What's the point of Jacob in Twilight? What's the point of Gale in The Hunger Games? What's the point of Ron in Harry Potter? There may or may not be love interest, but they are given other tasks. Han had several.

In the novel he was angrier. I wish they'd done the same in the film. Won't argue with you here.

This just amazes me because I find the character arc of the very central Anakin to be rather weak in the PT, and very few characters are really developed as they should have been in spite of having terrific actors.

This is where I agree with you most. The PT lends an interesting dimension to the OT, and this is why I do accept and enjoy it to a degree. It expands my understanding. It enlarges an already complete tale. But this reiterates my ultimate point: that the PT should be seen through the lens of the OT. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply, and I hope I haven't offended.

Nice comparison. Yeah, it occurs to me that I'm granting ESB and ROTJ more leeway in reinterpreting the previous tales than I am the PT. Perhaps that is because I find such a substantial drop in quality. On top of that, I enjoy the history of the saga, and so I find myself agreeing with you. I'll have to relate my personal canon rules (which might take some time), but when I put the PT and OT on equal levels of canonicity, it is in the light that you state.

Sometimes I do this, or even interpret ANH and Splinter of the Mind's Eye as the only two stories heading in a different direction (as they were originally intended to be). But I am confessing again that my interpretation was drastically altered when seeing the PT, and in ways that I don't believe were originally intended, but were rather part of GL's fluid creative process, since he didn't really have it all planned out in the beginning.

See my earlier post. I think I am more forgiving of the retcons within the OT than those of the PT because of the drop in quality. Plus, many of the retcons are well explained to me, such as the "a certain point of view" line explaining Kenobi's lie. This is probably in part because ROTJ follows ANH and can thus use surrounding events the help explain the change, while the PT precedes ANH and thus is subject to more restrictive rules when retconning, as it can't rely so heavily on surrounding events and instead relies on conveniently untold details. But I will definitely concede your point with the Leia thing. As a child I believed that was always a part of the deal. Only as an adult did I learn that such was a retcon, combining ideas of Luke's lost sibling being "another" hope and the idea of twin boy and girl heroes, much of which was intended originally for the ST. I have been very forgiving of this one for years, but even in very recent months I've become more and more dissatisfied with it. Shhh...don't tell my friends at OT.com

Besides Luke/Leia's relationship, I feel most of these are actually quite well done and make the story very interesting.

Unfortunately, I'm running out of time. I know the timing is inconvenient, but perhaps I should make a pretty comprehensive list. But truly many expected or implied truths of the prequels were lost or changed, and I feel it could have been different.

Your point is well made, but as I said, it actually makes the tale better. And I don't criticize ANH for not conforming with ROTJ. If there is a problem, I criticize ROTJ because it came afterwards. Please don't lose sight of my ultimate point that the OT is not to blame for not conforming with our expectations set by the PT.