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

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by darth.ender, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Ah, my apologies. I should have clarified that TPM and AOTC do not "spoil" the fact that Anakin is Vader. I was thinking of it more in this sense: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey essentially spoils the ending of the LOTR PT because Peter Jackson intends for it to be watched after LOTR. TPM and AOTC, in contrast, do not spoil the ending of ROTS. Lucas never discloses a narrative surprise in the same manner because, I would argue, he intends for the PT to be watched I through VI should the viewer so choose.

    In regards to Yoda, I agree that that does spoil the reveal in ESB. But, by my estimation, the greatest value of that scene wasn't so much the surprise as it was witnessing Luke recognize, as you say, that he should not judge. The surprise itself also arrives relatively quickly within the story since it's revealed not too long after Luke meets him that Yoda is Yoda.

    Oh, I think the ESB reveal can still be a shock, most certainly. But I think there's value in watching the Saga I through VI because the PT has its own set of shocks, chief among them being Anakin's turn. Perhaps its just me, but I've always been much more shocked by unexpected character actions rather than the revelation of new information. Seeing the characters make choices is much more fulfilling, for me, in this regard. For instance, even in ESB, I've always found Luke's choice to let go and die rather than take his father's hand to be the most compelling aspect of the reveal scene. And for this, it doesn't matter if you've watched the PT first or last.

    I think one of the other chief issues, also, is that the father-Vader revelation was so compelling for a lot of people was because they had to wait three years between ESB and ROTJ to find out the truth (along with what happened to Han). But nowadays, with the Saga released on home video, you immediately get an answer to that question within an hour. In that sense, the reveal does lose a little bit of steam because there isn't the same rabid speculation.

    When you compare it to something like Anakin's turn, there's really no question to what Anakin is doing. What made it rather astounding, to me, was that he made such a choice in the first place. Vader's information, I would argue, grabbed people's attention as strongly as it did because they didn't know if he was telling the truth or lying and they had so long to mull it over along with the implications. I think it's been noted, for instance, that ESB had one of the first major "cliffhanger" endings, which I think likely played a part into why the reveal worked so well for so many.

    I think that the PT is meant to be seen in light of the OT, but I don't necessarily think that that says anything about the viewing order. The films are all reciprocal and new information you learn in later installments will affect how previous installments are viewed. That's the nature of the beast. So while ANH will inform how you view ESB and ROTJ, ESB and ROTJ will also exert an effect on how you view ANH. Especially when one takes into account their revelations. The same is true of the PT, regardless whether it is viewed before or after. There's an interplay amongst all the films.

    But anyway, thanks for reading through all I wrote. I hope, at least, that even if the PT doesn't always work for you, that you can still enjoy the Saga the way you like.

    I don't necessarily agree that the Force comes across as muddled in the PT without watching the OT first. TPM does a lot of great establishing and while it doesn't have a discussion of the Force of the same length as ANH, it does also employ a lot more "show, rather than tell." Just in the opening, for instance, the audience gets new information -- that there's the Living Force, that the Jedi can sense malice and hidden intent (to a certain extent) through the Force. Obi-Wan himself senses an elusive presence while they both know, instinctively, that there's a great deal of fear regarding their presence. This builds later in discussions of Anakin's powers and how his skills are Jedi traits.

    Plus, I think the word "police" is a pretty apt descriptor for the Jedi, in many respects. They're guardians of peace and justice which is (ideally) what police should be to our own world. The Jedi are much more institutionalized in the PT compared to the OT (for obvious reasons :p) and thus I think it works well. Especially since Yoda and Obi-Wan undergo a transformation (in part) between the PT and the OT, I think these differences work in their favor as it establishes how deeply they were affected by Order 66 and the loss of their Jedi brethren.

    Honestly, it's been a while, but I don't think I had a clear idea of the Force before watching the films. For a variety of reasons, Star Wars was never much on my radar so I went into it completely blind. My friends, I can assure you, most definitely didn't spoil anything for me since it wasn't the type of film we discussed or paid my attention to (we were huge Harry Potter fans, rather). I honestly never had trouble understanding who the Jedi were nor that the fact that they were Jedi granted them powers through what was known as the "Force."

    For me, I think I would find it more believable if her reaction to the carbon freezing chamber was not so much more potent and visible. Had she consistently handled loss and pain by shutting down and pretending everything is alright, I think I would have found it easier to swallow. But she doesn't, especially not as Han is frozen and you see the anguish on her face. And it's more than that, in the sense that once Alderaan is destroyed, it's really never brought up again. This I found especially perplexing given that a Death Star II was being built. Wouldn't that be horrible for Leia? A terrible reminder of what she had loss and could lose even more? And yet she's all smiles and cheerful. Emotionally, I find it very difficult to get into her head for that reason. And, in large part, I think it's down to the tone of the OT. ANH is a more light-hearted adventure while ESB is much darker and more character driven and thus her reactions come across (at least for me) as rather jarring.

    For me, it mattered a lot because I have always been very invested in Luke's story and one of the things I think could be most compelling would be watching him work through the confusion and pain the revelation would have brought him. It would have made the "I am your father scene" all the more significant and powerful. But he doesn't. Instead, he enters ROTJ already determined to save Anakin/Vader and, while I can accept that he would eventually come to this conclusion, it feels as though we are robbed of a pivotal point in Luke's story. Regardless, though, it is something like this that I find more problematic than, say, Obi-Wan making a minor lie about the lightsaber (among of field of lies) since it so strongly affects the narrative of the OT.

    Personally, I consider Jacob (and all the Twilight cast) rather poorly done, so I won't do Han the dishonor of making the comparison. Likewise, I'm not that familiar with Gale. I can address Ron in Harry Potter, though, to give you some idea of what I mean. Ron himself might not be central to the proceedings, but he does have a character arc. Even by Deathly Hallows, we see that JK Rowling shows how he needs to overcome his jealousy of Harry and get over his feelings of being overshadowed by his brother.

    In contrast, it seems as though Lucas wasn't sure what to do with Han once ANH was over. This might be because they weren't sure if they could get Harrison Ford for the other films, but regardless, he often seems to simply be there. Han basically has no conflicts and very little development after ANH (where he goes from selfish smuggler to hero). He works as a love interest for Leia, but a romance, in my opinion, can't stand in for character development. It's a real pity, to me, because I always felt that, through Lando, a lot of Han could have been explored -- such as how he dealt with a friends' "betrayal", but such a thing is never addressed.

    When you look, for example, at how deeply Luke is affected by events in the films and how greatly different he is in ANH vs. ROTJ, I just can't help but feel that Han lost steam and became ancillary.

    I will simply say that I disagree. Overall, I think Anakin is far and away the best developed character in the Saga (with Luke being second). His motivations as a character, his actions, and the way he responds to crisis (for me) are the most compelling part of the Saga. But your mileage may vary, I suppose.

    None taken, it's been a very interesting discussion so far. :) I will say, though, that I don't think it needs to be a an "either/or" scenario where one views the PT through the lens of the OT or vice versa. I think a more holistic approach -- where the Saga is seen in it's entirety, works better and most enriches the films.
  2. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I agree that it's likely that Lucas, when making ANH, didn't originally intend for some scenes to be interpreted in a specific manner (Obi-Wan relating to Luke his father's history being the most affected), but I don't necessarily view this as a negative. All authors and creators, to some extent, undergo such a transformation as their ideas become clearer and take form.

    I think, then, that it merely comes down to personal preference in the end. Personally, I prefer the PT to the OT by a tad because I feel it has a greater level of internal coherency. And while the PT may have some minor inconsistencies with the OT (most of which, I feel, can be explained away relatively easily), the OT itself makes the largest revisions to how ANH is viewed. As an additional benefit, though, I think the "inconsistencies" are easier to reconcile when the character perspective is considered. Obi-Wan's lie about the lightsaber, for instance, isn't as problematic when one considers that he's lying to Luke about something much more important, but that Obi-Wan is also trying to persuade Luke to become a Jedi. So telling him his father would have wanted him to have his weapon further facilitates that course of action.

    There's one inconsistency, for example, that I find bizarre. In ESB, as Luke is leaving to save Leia, Obi-Wan laments that Luke was their only hope while Yoda says that there is another. Now, many people take issue with Obi-Wan "forgetting" about Leia because he was there when she was born but, in actuality, Obi-Wan is right. The reason they are lamenting Luke's departure in the first place is because he could fall into Vader's clutches. So it doesn't make sense to count Leia (who is the other hope) as another option because she's already in Vader's clutches. It's a vey odd situation.

    When it comes down to it, though, I do think that a great deal of how accepting one is regarding retcons comes down to how much one enjoys the films. If you feel that the PT is inferior to the OT, you might therefore feel that it's dragging the OT down rather than enhancing it. But in the end, this is just a matter of taste.

    Ah, but see, that's rather what I'm getting at. ESB and ROTJ retcons radically altered the story. The PT "retcons" changed minor details. Thus, I think if you're looking at a significant shifting of the "lens" it is to the OT that one must look. The Death Star II being built so quickly, I don't think, would shift the lens on the OT in the same way that finding out that Vader is Luke's father would.

    If we're looking at "implied" truths though, then this could get problematic because these often rely heavily on interpretation. We might not see eye to eye on a lot of them but, if you're willing, I'd like to look over your list.

    Much the same argument could be made for the PT though -- that it makes the OT better -- I guess it just all depends on your point of view.

    I do think, though, that you have a point in saying that it isn't necessarily fair to criticize ANH for not conforming to the other films. But I do believe that it's fair to prefer elements of the other films over ANH, even if ANH came first. As an example, ANH is my least favorite of the Star Wars films not because I find it to be a poor film but because it has less emotional resonance for me and I find it more simplistic than the other films. That's not its "fault," but I don't think there's anything wrong with laying out why one might prefer a PT film (such as ROTS) because it's found to be a more fulfilling for the viewer.
    Last edited by PiettsHat, Jan 9, 2013
    darth.ender and kainee like this.
  3. kainee Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 1
    I'm not sure why it is being presented as if viewing the OT with a perception colored by what you know from viewing the PT is bad? I am of the stance that the PT enhances the OT, giving it far more depth than it originally had. If you want to use an analogy, the OT is the ripples on the water surface while the PT is the water underneath. Opinions of the quality of the PT notwithstanding (I am of the opinion that the PT are worthy additions to the Saga although I know people do vehemently disagree although I view such "fans" with a skeptical eye since if you treat half of something you claim to love with such hate, then why are you a fan?), I think it is a rather annoying double standard to imply it is a bad thing to view the OT from the lens of the PT while seeming to imply it is a good thing to view the PT from the lens of the OT simply because one was produced first although has a later in-universe chronology. I would rather treat each film within the context of the Saga in general because that is what makes the story so compelling for me. Vader's redemption makes RotJ for me but RotS is what improved my opinion of RotJ because only after seeing RotS do you realize just how much of a loss Vader's death is. I have to admit that a pet peeve of mine are people having double standards and not recognizing the hypocrisy of such. How is it not a double standard when one retcon is accepted but another isn't, simply based on someone's subjective opinion of which is better? It all just seems so arbitrary.

    Like PiettsHat, I'd rather be accepting of all film entries of the Saga. I find it rather tiring to nitpick and hate all the time. I'd rather use that energy to be creative and speculate on the things that aren't outright explained and yes, gush over Star Wars. Isn't that what being a fan is?
  4. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    Now we're talkin'! I'm really enjoying this conversation, and I apologize that I really don't have more time to keep it going at a better pace. Let me do one thing for you, as now I think you're seeing my original intent a little better. Here I quote my first post with certain emphasis:

    emphasis added.

    I've made no secret about my preferences and have provided reasons for that, as well as pointed out troublesome inconsistencies from the PT. But those things continue to detract from my intended purpose in starting this thread, which I think you now understand better: you can't criticize the earlier story for not conforming with the later. You can't say ESB is a bad movie because Luke and Leia kissed. You can criticize ROTJ because it made them brother and sister when such was not the original intent. You can't criticize ESB because Vader didn't recognize his old droids. You can criticize TPM through ROTS because they made those droids belong to Anakin in the first place. But strangely I read stuff like, "ANH sucks cuz of something shown in the PT that they failed to utilize or expand upon." It's an exaggeration perhaps, but based on real posts I've seen here.

    The PT has improved the OT for me in many ways (when I'm thinking about them as a continuous saga). I love the thought of the Rule of Two and the constant backstabbing between Sith, as it broadens the motives of Vader and Palpatine as they try to turn Luke to the Dark Side. But to use the PT to put down the OT for not conforming...I just don't buy it. I hope you and everyone here see what I'm getting at.
  5. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    While I've provided my opinions for preferring one over another, my true point is not a double standard. It's because I'm bigger fan of the OT (while still a fan of the PT) that people seem to be missing what I'm really driving at here. I am quite happy with everyone else's difference of opinion. I respect the fact that people can enjoy the PT more than I do. But I can't respect people putting down the OT when it is not congruent with the PT. Heck, when you read those types of posts you'll see inconsistencies I haven't even brought up. I'm not using those inconsistencies to say the PT shouldn't exist (though I might use them as justification for why I prefer the OT). But the fact that those inconsistencies exist is because the PT made them exist, not the OT. But some people seem to post as if it's the OT's fault.
    Last edited by darth.ender, Jan 9, 2013
  6. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    Let's examine a problem created in the OT: Luke Skywalker; Anakin Skywalker; Leia Organa. If I were trying to hide twins from their evil father, why would I only make sure one of them changed their last name? Not a big issue, but a reasonable problem. If I were to say, "A New Hope is flawed because Luke gets the last name of Skywalker and they should have changed it," I'd be wrong. If I had a significant problem with it, the problem would be with ROTJ because that film gave Vader the name of Anakin Skywalker and made Luke and Leia siblings. Perhaps if GL really did have every single film laid out as-is in the beginning, then you could criticize the first film. But he didn't. The problem lies in the story that followed and created the discrepancy.
    sinkie likes this.
  7. Samuel Vimes Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 4
    I will disagree that starting the film with old Bilbo robs the narrative of tension. There are quite a few movies that use the same framing device, with an older version of the character telling the story or being involved somehow. Example include Titanic, Lawrence of Arabia, Forrest Gump, Amadeus, The Usual Suspects and so on.
    Also, about Saruman, his role is explained earlier in the film where Gandalf talks about the other wizards in his order and mentions him and his color.
    Galadriel gets little explanation yes but there are two more films to come, it is possible we will see more of her and who she is. Mace is seen in TPM but is never given a name. Yoda is talked about and seen but is he directly named as Yoda?

    As for the PT, how prominent a role did Jabba play in the PT? Or Tarkin? Or Owen and Beru? They have little beyond a cameo in AotC and are mentioned and briefly seen in RotS. Did Beru have any lines beyond a "Hello"? Or even Chewie, without the OT he is no more important than the other wookies and yet the films spends some time with him. Frodo is a nod yes but the PT does this as well.

    As for narrative suprises in the PT/OT, we argued about this before and to not drag this out I give two examples of why I think the PT does this.
    1) It totally spoils the narrative suprise that Vader is Lukes father.
    2) Palpatine being Sidious, no it is not explicitly stated but it is rather hard to miss as Mace and Yoda talk about the other Sith and the camera pans over to Palpatine.

    Bye for now.
    Blackboard Monitor
    darth.ender likes this.
  8. Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn The Another Saga & CT Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 23, 1999
    star 6
    This is the one I wonder about too. The other inconsistencies - "your father wanted you to have this," Qui-Gon as Ben's master, etc - don't cause plot holes. This one can (potentially). Now, one can say "maybe once Luke left, the masters on Dagobah expected him to free Leia and the rest, but be turned by Vader in the process" ("If you leave now, save them you could, but you would destroy all for which they have fought and suffered.")... but the real explanation, of course, is that the Other wasn't Leia when Yoda said that line.
    Last edited by Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn, Jan 9, 2013
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  9. kainee Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 1
    I can understand your defense of the OT. Frankly, some of the nitpicks people have and then the overly convoluted theories people come up with just to solve some detail can get tiring for me. I'd rather opt for Occam's razor and try to treat everything a certain matter of logic although I am also prone to flights of fancy just for the fun in speculating. One thing I don't understand is if fans can be accepting of other fans' difference in perspective, why can't people also ascribe that to the OT and PT?

    Personally, I explain away the inconsistencies of the OT and PT by viewing it from the perspective of the character presenting the information. I believe there is some absolute truth but when we're really getting the information secondhand since they are all filtered by the perspective of the character we're gaining this information from, there's bound to be some inconsistencies. I think this is fitting with George Lucas' documentary-style filmmaking because this happens in real life situations where what eyewitnesses see or hear can sometimes not mesh with what comes out as fact afterward. It's just not something we're used to in a movie since we're used to being presented with an absolute truth. I think this is why sometimes I do find Lucas' quotes frustrating for me since he can be contradictory and what he thinks is about closest to the unfiltered truth of the situation as possible.
    Valairy Scot and darth.ender like this.
  10. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    Even if we are to assume GL had the PT generally laid out in his imagination (so the broader strokes and not the finer points...with even some of the major points either not there yet or at least not finalized, including the Big ONE (Anakin and Vader - same character or not?), it is hard enough to make a sequel to an actual film that exists let alone trying to make something continue a hypothetical film. The OT had to by the very nature of its existence (coming first historically, introducing us to that universe), be much more of a first step.

    ANH was made without any clear picture of the exact content, dialogue, tone, editing etc of the (at the time) hypothetical prequel films. Therefore the structure and content of the original 1977 film was done in the context of so much that was unknown both to the audience and to its own creator that it had to be a more "establishing" sort of film (while simultaneously not being too heavy handed or plodding...which most agree it managed to do brilliantly!). It should never be forgotten that it was itself most likely completed without the knowledge (or at least a firm decision) on whether or not Anakin was even going to be Vader! Lucas did his best, once the decision was made, to create two sequel films that did their best to suture any discrepancies because of new choices post ANH. Then much later he begins to solidify and flesh out the PT in light of the very real and existing OT films and their details. He is now, at this point, much more free to assume the audience will get much more than they did in 1977, the TPM itself did not need to establish very much new (we already knew that in the past there were many more Jedi and that they existed in a wondrous age of the Republic and many already even knew this would all come crashing down because of a guy who makes himself Emperor). Therefore the PT most likely does not have built into it by choice or necessity that sense of establishing and trying to hook us just as ANH does have this and just as it does not have built into it that sense of ONLY continuing, as it very well could have had if it had truly been made after Episode III.

    Even if one wishes to argue that the PT did in fact do a lot of "establishing" both in order to bring in new ideas but also perhaps to bring in a new audience they may not be as familiar with SW, that's fine. But this does not in anyway override the OT's (especially ANH's) "establishing moments" such as Ben's hovel scene, in which so much time and effort is made to give us an impression of an age and era and story that we don't know. I doubt that if ANH had been constructed with the intention of having it just continue a hypothetical PT trilogy that such scenes would have been included and especially scored the way they were as the audience, once the earlier films were made and then watched in order, would not need so much "help" getting that impression. They'd have the memory of 3 other films to do that for them. To me it is obvious that the OT contains within it structures and choices that prevent it from being a truly seamless and flawless continuation of films that were made after it. One reason why, beyond my like or dislike of the PT, I experience them as related but separate cinematic experiences
  11. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I disagree. I think the change is significant precisely because it's a deviation from the book version. In the book, it basically starts up with Gandalf meeting Bilbo, but we are never told explicitly told that Bilbo will survive. I would argue that Peter Jackson, in large part, made this change because he wanted the film to be viewed after Lord of the Rings. Now, you might very well argue that old Bilbo appears because since he technically "wrote" The Hobbit he should be narrating it, but Frodo also wrote LOTR and yet, we never hear Frodo recounting his adventure at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring. Why? I would argue it's largely because Jackson didn't want to give away the fact that Frodo would survive but with The Hobbit he had no such concern since he intended for it to be watched after LOTR. But, more specifically, I think The Hobbit is especially relevant because it is an example of a prequel trilogy to an already established (and beloved) trilogy. Much as Star Wars was. And I think it's clear that there are definite differences in how Jackson and Lucas approached it. Especially since, in order to show old Bilbo, Jackson had to go out of his way to deviate from Tolkien.

    The difference I would argue, though, is that they are unnecessary characters thrown in there because Jackson intends The Hobbit to be a prequel to LOTR watched after. Otherwise they have no relevance. You can say that we might see more of Galadriel, but is that really relevant given that she wasn't meant to be in the film in the first place? That's essentially what I'm talking about -- Jackson brings in prominent LOTR film characters (such as Saruman, Galadriel, and Frodo) and introduces Gandalf finding a Morgul blade not because it is relevant to the story (it isn't given that such aspects weren't in the books), but because such things appeal to those who have already seen LOTR.

    You can hardly say the same thing about the PT. For one, Mace might not be named in TPM, but he's not a reference for those who have seen the OT to enjoy. Nor is Yoda as he has a very important part to play in the proceedings and isn't a mere ancillary character.

    Well Jabba is the leader of the Hutts and given that the Boonta Eve is a prominent event on Tatooine and the Hutts control the planet, it wouldn't be all that surprising that he might participate. With Tarkin, I'd honestly say that he's more of a cameo appearance than anything, which isn't necessarily a bad thing since he plays an important role in the next film. Point is that these characters don't appear only to appeal to those who have seen the OT because they will come to serve an important part of the story. Same with Beru and Owen. Since they take in baby Luke at the end of ROTS, I hardly think Lucas can ignore them. I will say that some of the cameos are a bit indulgent (such as Chewbacca), but they don't only exist in order to appeal to those who have seen the OT. Nor do they get a significant focus.

    When you contrast this with The Hobbit, it's clear that the only reason Frodo, Saruman, Galadriel, and the Morgul sword appear is to appeal to those who have seen the LOTR films already. But it's more than that really -- Tarkin, Jabba, and Chewie might appear on screen for a few seconds, but we never spend a great deal of time focusing on them. When you contrast that with The Hobbit, there's an entire new Council scene that lasts for several minutes with the characters that didn't appear in the book and in regards to a plot point whose only purpose is for the fans of the LOTR films to enjoy. It's the same with Frodo -- there's a rather extend conversation as well there, but what relevance does it hold? That's what I would say the difference is.

    Note that I'm not saying that one method is necessarily better than the other, but I don't think that the two approaches are equatable. I would say that Peter Jackson much more clearly made The Hobbit with the intention that it be watched after LOTR. I don't think you can say this for the Star Wars PT. I won't deny that Lucas included nods to the OT and OT characters that could have been removed. But their role and prominence in the story is much different, I would argue.

    As for #1, well, yes that's spoiled but there's also lots of other surprises to enjoy along the way. And if you see the PT first, you get to enjoy anticipating Luke's reaction when he finds out. Yes, it's a loss, but I don't think ESB suffers for it. The plot twist is only a very small point as to why ESB is a great film.

    For #2, I can say with 100% certainty that not everyone is going to pick up on this, especially not kids. I didn't realize the Palpatine = Sidious connection until ROTS. I think it's much easier to miss than you estimate. In fact, I know it's much easier to miss than you estimate. :p If you don't believe me, well, that's your prerogative.
    Last edited by PiettsHat, Jan 9, 2013
    kainee likes this.
  12. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    I so agree, but then ANH is light, escapist in tone while ESB is far more "adult;" one is space opera while the second is more drama in a space opera setting. That - and the directing - set such emotional scenes apart in how they're handled. IMHO I'd have liked a bit more real emotion in ANH but it wasn't really designed to be a character piece to the degree that ESB was.

    Excellent point. Just where and from what does Luke's faith in his father arise from?

    As an "OT originalist" I concur that the wait between ESB and ROTJ was endless and filled with endless debates on whether Vader was telling the truth. (I favored a "lie.") Three years of build up followed this explosive "reveal" (I put that in quotes because we didn't know for sure if it was a reveal or not). Nothing can match that because as noted no one has to wait three years and argue on the internet during the intervening years.

    So that reveal is no longer a big surprise, Yoda's reveal as well, for viewers in the 1-6 viewing order, I don't think it's as huge a deal as some think.

    As also said, those of us who saw the movie in release order will never quite see things the same as those who see it in 1-6 order. When I have a huge block of time I will watch 1-6 in that order, but I can say I couldn't finish ANH after ROTS the one time I popped it in - watching Vader battle and kill Obi-Wan after seeing them in their prime and as friends was absolutely devastating to watch. I had to go have a good cry and stop watching at that point.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber and kainee like this.
  13. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    Oddly, I never once doubted Vader was Luke's father so I was never waiting for a reveal in ROTJ. It was Luke's reaction that convinced me he "felt it to be true"....his Nooooooo! It was like he was trying to deny what the Force was telling him was true. So if anything, his asking Yoda in ROTJ seemed to stick out to me as almost pointless, he'd already given us the answer in ESB...that's how I read it anyway. Heck, the guy even calls him "Father" when he's safely rescued on the Falcon and Vader calls out to him. Yeah, the more I think about it the more weak ROTJ is for that very reason...you've got the entire "acceptance" happen in ESB and then its like GL missed that and felt he had to confirm it through dialogue in ROTJ...Yoda/Luke then Vader/Luke. I think from everything given by Luke's reaction in ESB we could even get that he feels something in his "father" at that same moment that gives him hope, especially when Vader reaches out to him at the end of ESB from a distance. I read a certain "fatherly connection" being communicated and a son's desire to connect in Luke's reaction.
    TOSCHESTATION and kainee like this.
  14. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    I may have been in a state of denial. :)

    I did NOT want Vader to be Luke's father, after all.

    Luke's asking Yoda is akin to Padme running to Anakin to Mustaphar, perhaps, both seeking someone and hoping that person will validate their denial and instead, both found confirmation of their fears.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber and kainee like this.
  15. Samuel Vimes Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 4
    You CAN miss it, which I never denied but I don't think it is very hard to spot.
    The Vader suprise is something you CAN'T spot.
    So the difference is, something that you CAN spot and something you CAN'T spot.

    Bye for now.
    Old Stoneface
  16. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    This is my final post at this site for one month. I know I just got here, and I know I had planned to address several things, but I've allowed Star Wars to eat up too much of my time, and not just at this site. I wanted to say a quick thanks to those who were respectful of a differing point of view, especially those who didn't just jump to defensive conclusions about my intent (I understand that many OT fans harp on the films that you love, but really I feel I've been very respectful of others' opinions, even if I don't feel the same way). I especially enjoyed my interaction with PiettsHat in this thread. Thanks for the stimulating discussion and intersting alternate perspective. There are inconsistencies. I just mentioned one of my bigger problems within the PT at the OT Problems thread (whatever it's called). Later I can mention more between the two, but it will have to be at least 30 days from today. Still, I hope this thread has served a purpose in at least sparing the OT criticism that cannot be ascribed to it. Thanks for the chats, and I'll talk to you all later :)
    Joe Antonetti and kainee like this.
  17. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4

    That surprise was spoiled over 32 years ago. I really don't see how it matters any more.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  18. Ambervikings91 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2012
    star 2
    Interesting point, though most of what i see around here is not viewing the OT with PT glasses, its the other way around
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.