A modest argument in favor of the 4,5,1,2,3,6 viewing order (and what should we call it?)

I miss the early days of this thread. When it was just a modest argument.

 

Quite simply, because when Lucas started making these statements about "proper" Star Wars viewing order, Lucas was actively creating and (more importantly) promoting the The Prequels.

I love him, but George Lucas says a lot of things. Many conflicting statements about the creation/intention of Star Wars. Early on, Star Wars was The Adventures of Luke Skywalker modeled on old serials like Flash Gordon, etc.

Then, during the creation and promotion of The Prequels, Lucas started selling the revised narrative that these movies were always supposed to be "The Tragedy of Darth Vader." Which simply wasn't true.

Go read any of the Makings of Star Wars books, or view the documentaries. The films were not created/designed to be viewed 1-6. Regardless of Lucas's claims/preferences.

Which is a fun experience. A first time viewer can do and enjoy. Yet, they are still missing out on essential/foundational aspects of the overall Star Wars narrative for 3 films. Why? Because these aspects are presented in Episode 4, not Episode 1.

Right. Yet, these are both references to something that was established/explained in the OT.

You are accusing the OT of "shoddy storytelling." Is that a hill you want to die on? You are going to attempt to argue that the OT is not a complete story? Or poorly constructed?

So now your argument is that Star Wars movies are bad films, by a bad filmmaker? I am not sure what you are getting at.

One Star Wars film has won more "real" awards than any other, one SW film has garnered more critical acclaim, made more box office, and changed our culture more than any other in the series. This is the same films that serves as the foundation for the entire franchise and narrative.

Question: Is this "shoddy" film (your words not mine) Episode 1: The Phantom Menace?

Hint: It's not.

While he may suggest/prefer/demand that viewers watch the movies in chronological order, watch this clip.

As you will see, George Lucas is explaining that the OT story was created first and that the Prequels (aka the backstory) evolved after the fact. The PT simply does not serve (narratively or otherwise) as the foundation of the series. They are an expansion of the series...backstory. They are NOT the core of the universe/narrative.

First of all, I am not arguing preferences. Everyone is free to consider and watch Star Wars movies in any way they want to. Everyone is different. I support choice. I suspect, ultimately Lucas does too....as suggested in some of his talks about an "interactive experience."

Secondly, Lucas has NEVER suggested Episodes 1-3 are anything but a trilogy....as you suggest. Now, if that's how you frame the films, that's fine.

Yet it's odd that, after insisting that we are suppose to follow Lucas's ideas of starting with Episode 1, you are now disregarding/altering how you frame/regard the films in a manner that's contradictory of what Lucas said/says about it.

Lastly, even if Episode 1 is prologue, it does not have the foundational components that support the rest of the saga. That is still Episode 4.

 

Look, the moment Lucas decided that the backstory could be a series of films and committed to it by adding Episode IV and Episode V to the title crawls of those films, he committed himself to the idea of it being viewed I-VI. If he didn't want it that way then he wouldn't have put them in the films. And he wouldn't stick this 44 years later.

Which again comes from a POV that you have. The few YouTube reactors who opted to go I-IX have been able to enjoy it just fine. That's why Lucas said that the reactions would be different for future generations who watch I-VI.

If people need to be handheld through a movie that is a them issue. They are capable of figuring out that the Force is a power that the Jedi and the Sith use by the end of TPM.

Yes. The films are nothing more than popcorn fare with one dimensional characters, cheesy dialogue and excessive film effects. They were never high art. They are children's films.

I have seen that clip and it doesn't say anything about how you should watch it. He says nothing about it other than the origin of the story which I have known since 1999. You are looking for things that are not there, while I have found multiple quotes saying how it goes.

Nowhere in this clip does he say that it's not meant to be watched in any other way.

"It's a downer, the saving grace is that if you watch the other three movies, then you know everything ends happily ever after. Nevertheless, I now have to make a movie that works by itself but which also works with this six-hour movie and this overall twelve-hour movie. I'll have two six-hour trilogies, and the two will beat against each other: One's the fall, one's the redemption. They have different tonalities but it's meant to be one experience of twelve hours."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith, page 62.

 

Absolutely true.

That may have been the intention (Was it though? Source?). But in the final product it didn't work. It relies heavily on knowledge and experiences with the OT.

 

What makes you think it didn't work?

And jamie, feel free to ignore my posts. You don't seem to understand anything you don't already know.

 

No need to be insulting. I have replied to each of your points, and followed up with questions for you to better understand you. If you are tapping out....I'm fine with that. I promise, I am trying to see your pov. For example...

You still haven't answered: Do you think Episode 1 a better introduction to Star Wars and the SW universe than Episode 4?

If so, why? What about Episode 1 makes you think it's a better entrypoint into this Saga/franchise? What about it suggests that it (rather than Episode 4) is, in fact, the foundation/core to the entire series?

I am trying to see your pov. So far, it seems that you think it is because it's labeled "Episode 1" and because George Lucas said so.
Yet, you haven't provided any reasons that to refute the fact that Episode 4 has the foundational components that support the rest of the saga...not Episode 1.

It works as a movie. It doesn't work as the foundation for the entire saga. It simply wasn't made to be. Again, did you watch the clip of George Lucas explaining that the OT is essentially the core of the story and the that the prequels were developed in the wake of the originals? As backstory? You have any thoughts this?

 

Lucas said that yes, but that doesn't mean that the new audience would not be able to have trouble following the films I-IX. It is just a good introduction to the Saga. What he said in the clip was about how he wrote so much backstory material that he could tell it. But as he's telling the PT, he follows the story as he writes and then he has to be sure that the story fits with the OT.

Nowhere does he say that you have watch ANH first.

 

I am not arguing Lucas's preferred viewing order. I am arguing the fact that he made Episode 4 as the film that is responsible for the foundation of all things Star Wars. It is the core, the set up, the framework for the entire franchise. Everything subsequent film is an (albeit wonderful) expansion from this first Star Wars film. I'm not sure how you can objectively argue against this. It simply is. Episode 1 isn't the foundation, the launching point, the beginning. Episode 4 is. Episode 1 wasn't designed to be. Episode 4 was it had to be.

Again, I am not arguing POV or preferred viewing order. People can start with Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the SIth, or Empire Strikes bacl and still "enjoy it just fine." I am arguing that none of the subsequent films were created/designed to be the foundational starting place that Episode 4 is. Of course it's not impossible to start somewhere else....it can even be fun.

Yet, the narrative was indeed structured as the films were made. Each subsequent SW film was created with the previous entries in mind...even Episode 1. Again, the evidence is everywhere for this. This is the reason, for example, that Episode 1 doesn't rehash the foundational explanations Star Wars conventions like The Force, Hyperspace, The Dark Side, Jedi, Lightsabers, etc....it doesn't need to. It's been done in the previous films.

This is incredibly dismissive. No? Especially considering your next statement:

While these movies are everything you say. They are also our de facto modern and cultural mythology. High art is simply a pretentious and elitist term. Are you either of these things? You don't strike me as such.

This clip and this clip both speak to the fact that the core of the movie is in the first trilogy. Episode 4 is the foundation for the entire Star Wars franchise....not Episode 1. Episode 1 simply doesn't engage in the narrative structure nor set up that Episode 4 does. TPM functions differently...it is an expansion of the series....not the foundation. Again, it was not designed to be.

Once again, Lucas can tell you to watch the movies starting with Episode 1...yet, he did not design the movies with this in mind. Let me say it again: Lucas DID NOT make Episode 1 the foundational movie from which all other subsequent movies spring forth from. As he states in this clip....that's what Episode 4 is.

Yep. He called it two trilogies. Not a prologue. The fact that @StampidHD280pro considers TPM a prologue more than anything is actually an indictment of the fact that Episode 1 is not the foundation, or core, of the series.

Also, consider this: Why has the fictional timeline of Star Wars always placed A New Hope (Battle of Yavin) as "Year 0" on the timeline? C'mon....you know why...you just don't want to say it.

Again, I am not arguing that people shouldn't watch the series in whatever order they see fit. I am not arguing that it doesn't work to start with Episode 1. It does. I know that he wrote the PT (in retrospect) to hook up to the OT.

Yet, this does not change the fact that Episode 1 is narratively not written as the foundation, core, set up for the rest of the entire franchise.

This does not change the fact that (narratively speaking) A New Hope is the core, the foundation, the set up to the rest of the entire franchise.

 

Well that's certainly a point of view. Thanks for sharing.
If you really want to understand why TPM is so obviously the proper introduction to the series, just watch it more. Watch them in chronological order. I used to try to explain these movies to fervent skeptics, but it's a huge waste of time. Better time is spent enjoying movies, than teaching people how to watch them, who don't want to learn.

 

You are welcome.Thanks for the back and forth.

I often do watch them in chronological order. This doesn't change the fact that they were not, in fact, actually designed to be viewed this way. Otherwise, Episode 1 would contain foundational narrative and (as you said) much of Episode 4 would be "redundant."

I am not a skeptic. More importantly, I am opening to learning. Yet, you haven't backed up your claim/pov with anything. I've addressed each and everyone of your points, and all you seem to be is more dismissive and increasingly condescending. I'm not sure why.

So, I'll tell you what. Refute my claim. Tell me why Episode 4 is NOT the foundation, the core, the set up for the entire Star Wars series/saga/franchise. I am eager to learn.

Teach me. School me on how Episode 1 actually does (somehow) contain the narrative foundation, the core, the set up for all that Star Wars movies that followed and (somehow) preceded it.

So far? You haven't really said anything other than "Because George Lucas said..." and "Because TPM also has a the number 1 in the title." Again, I am still foggy on what your claim is* and I am beginning to wonder if you actually care to understand mine.

*Are you arguing that Episode 1 is THE best entry point into the saga, or simply your preferred one? Do you think Episode 1 is more the foundational, core, Star Wars film that sets up the entire saga? If so, how's is that the case? TPM doesn't have the necessary over arching core narrative/set up that Episode 4 does.

All in all....as I said, if you are ejecting out of this conversation. That's up to you.
As a wise man once said:

 

I don't think there's any viewing order that is totally flawless, but I felt like this order has the advantage of retaining ANH has a starting point, while also ENDING with Anakin's redemption, Palpatne's defeat, and people having an emotional reaction to seeing the young Anakin at the end of ROTJ.

You and me both, friend.

 

I get what you are saying, but you essentially are saying that it has to be ANH, because people can't figure it out on there own.

-Hyperspace is addressed in TPM as the means of space travel and that it requires a navigation system. It also requires a functioning hyperdrive.

-The title crawl in TPM call the Jedi the guardians of peace and justice. That Chancellor sends them in to negotiate peace between planets and corporations.

-Lightsabers are a shown as the weapon of the Jedi and are also sometimes called laser swords.

-The dark side is talked about by Yoda in the Council chambers. Qui-Gon talks about the Force guiding them, Obi-Wan talks about sensing disturbances in the Force and we see Qui-Gon manipulating minds with it. We the Force controls their actions and obeys their commands.

-The Sith are mentioned outright in the film and that they are enemies who have fought each before. The dark side is linked to them. Maul, Mace and Yoda tell us plenty. More than ANH does.

I am merely pointing out that they were not universally acclaimed. A number of critics **** on ANH when it came out, because of what it was. It has since been blamed for the rise of the blockbuster and the decline of Hollywood films. And too many people dismiss his writing and directing.

Right, but that doesn't mean that TPM doesn't set a lot of that up, as I have pointed out.

It is a prologue because the ten year gap leads into the main part of the story which is Anakin's downfall and the war. It is also a trilogy. It can be both.

The timeline first debuted in 1995, before Lucas revealed the titles and was even done writing TPM. The entries for the PT were added in 97 or 98. The marketing department has only left it as the "beginning" point they were not told by Lucas to change it to twenty years before or after TPM.

 

I've always thought The Battle of Yavin as being Year 0 was a little odd. Shouldn't it be when the Empire started (and the twins were born), or when Palpatine died, or something? Sometimes it's hard to do the math the way it is.

 

There's something transitional about the event of the Death Star blowing up. The music really sells it.

 

It depends on the viewer. You said yourself, Star Wars is for kids. Kids are smart. They can watch Episode 1 first and get along just fine. However, is the the BEST entry point? For the first time viewer? I don't think, objectively speaking, it is. For all the reasons I have mentioned.

I don't dispute any of what you are saying, or how it's described. However, here's my question:

Are any of these examples utilized in a more comprehensive, more efficient, or more effective, or more powerful than way than what we are given/shown in A New Hope?

There's a reason that Lucas started the Star Wars saga with Episode 4....and it has more to do with the narrative than with technical limitations at the time.

Simply put: Episode 4 was THE film that could exist as a standalone/self contained film. Think about that. It was THE starting point because it was the most efficient way to introduce what would be a sprawling, generation spanning, saga.

Right, yet, until the PT was a thing....the Sith didn't really matter. Narratively, the OT is not concerned with the Sith at all. Essentially, it was the PT that introduced the Sith. The Sith are (actually) of no consequence to the OT. story....and it shows.

Oh come on now I mean, I love the prequels and defend them ardently. However....

A New Hope was MUCH more well received (on almost every front) than The Phantom Menace was. In general, A New Hope is still much more well regarded than The Phantom Menace.

Yep, the OT has it's share of detractors...yet, let's be honesty. The hate (from all sides) spewed towards the PT was brutal on levels previously unseen. We don't really think there is a comparison between the two trilogies in this regard. Do we?

Does it though? I think you are underestimating & underselling how much groundwork was laid narratively (and culturally) by the Original Trilogy.

Again, imagine that Episode 1 is, in fact, the very first SW film. With no context for anything we are seeing on screen. The movie kicks of and we see the Jedi having inexplicable powers, and using laser swords with little to no explanation for any of it. Yep, people talk of The Force...but without the prior context....it's kinda vague. It's not explained what it is. One has to infer. That's not great storytelling. Is it?

Part of the reason people "get it" is because these things (Jedi, The Force, Lightsabers) have long in the cultural zeitgeist. Why? Because of the original trilogy....bcause of the amazing foundational groundwork and storytelling of the original films.

Hell, immediately after the first film in 1977 these things immediately became part of our cultural lexicon. Why? Because the storytelling was soooooo damn tight and well done. Without that, TPM doesn't play the same.

Hey, everyone can view these films how they want. That doesn't mean I should start a newbie fan with Revenge of the Sith. But whatever floats the boat.

So, it's laziness in your eyes?

Why wouldn't Lucas change this? Especially with his apparent "insistence" on Episode 1 beings "the beginning"? Why wouldn't he set TPM to year zero?

@Subtext Mining

It's a not so subtle acknowledgement that ANH is the core, the seed, the origin, the start of the entire universe.

 

Because you have a belief based on your experience. A belief that is very subjective. If a kid can get the point of the films going I-IX, then that is all that matters. Same thing with teens and adults.

So then people are stupid and need a stupid helmet?

He started there because the film was always meant to be told in medias res. He had no intention of it being what it became. It was supposed to be done-in-one, not a nine film series. And when he saw that the backstory exposition was too long and dragging the story down, he set it aside. Then he decided to make the backstory into a series of films.

The Sith were a thing from the beginning because they were the villains from the beginning. The first draft has multiple Sith and by the time he got to the next film, there were two. The second film stresses the conflict will end when they are gone.

YODA: "Stopped, they must be. On this, all depends. Only a fully trained Jedi Knight with the Force as his ally, will conquer Vader and his Emperor."

The Sith were the real threat.

Again according to you, people cannot figure out that the Force is the power source of the Jedi and the Sith. Thus they are incapable of figuring it out and need to be spoonfed.

It was Indifference on his part. He left those details to Jim Ward and the others to sort out. As far as he was concerned, the story would start with Episode I. Note that the 2011 Blu-Ray boxset has them I-VI and Disney + lists them I-IX.

 

Even though I was introduced to the movies in chronological order, I actually agree with @jaimestarr when he says that A New Hope is a better introduction to the universe than The Phantom Menace. However, I also agree with those who say that the release order is not perfect, because it has the flaw of making you end the Saga with Revenge of the Sith, which is certainly not a good place where to end the Saga (and don't tell me that people should watch the Original Trilogy again after Revenge of the Sith, because nobody is ever going to do that). The funniest thing, though, is that the solution was already proposed at the beginning of the thread, and you are all ignoring it. Todd Smitts' order solves all these problems, but you are all too blind and focused on arguing against each other to realize it.

 

A New Hope is the narrative foundation for the entire saga. This is not a subjective thing. It is an objective fact. The story started with Episode 4, and each subsequent film (sequel and prequel) were built off of that film. The saga wasn't redesigned to have Episode 1 be the anchor point. Narratively, it's not structured that way. Again, Episode 1 does not engage in the foundational aspects that Episode 4 does.

No. I am not arguing against people's intelligence. I am arguing about story structure. Narratively, Episode 1 was not backwards designed to be the foundation of the entire saga. People can start with any SW film they want and "get it." That doesn't mean it's the most effective way to view the films.

And they are, but this doesn't negate that fact that Episode 4 is the foundation for the series.

Telling, no?
Of course. This is literally what Lucas said in one of the videos I posted it's well known amongst fans. However, this only underscores my point.

Episode 1-3 are backstory/exposition. They weren't reversed engineered to be the core/foundation of the story. The function as the first half of a story. The PT is necessarily dependent on the OT. The reverse isn't true.

Again, you don't need to explain this history and development of Star Wars to me. I am familiar. You are dodging the point. In the context of the OT, are the Sith a plot point? Are they mentioned? As it related to the OT at best (and this is being generous) the Sith are like the Clone Wars...a hint of backstory to come.

You keep saying this. This is false. Again, I am not arguing against people's intelligence. People are smart, people are stupid. The Phantom Menace simply doesn't describe The Force in a way that a foundational first movie would/should. I am arguing narrative/storytelling structure.

For sure, new viewers could start with Episode 1. Should they though? I am not talking about an experience that is "serviceable" or "good enough" I am talking about "best practice" or "most bang for the buck" as far as storytelling goes.

Again, do you think Episode 1 is the more foundational, core, film of the entire saga? This is what I am wondering/talking about...

What I am not arguing: People are too stupid to watch Star Wars in different orders.

Yet, Lucas literally started telling the story with Episode 4. Could it be because (narratively) it was the best, most practical, sensical, starting point? The core of the story? The film that would best serve as the the foundation were he able to make more movies?

Yep. That's how numbers work. Stories, however, can be told in a multitude of ways. What I am arguing is what serves as the best narrative structure.

 

Here's another not so hot take. In general, A New Hope is regarded a better film than The Phantom Menace. For a myriad of reasons it's not held in as high regard as A New Hope culturally. Maybe those reasons alone are enough to start someone with the original film.

 

No, because it's meant to engage the audience in a different way, per his own words.

Which is the subjective part. The film was designed in such a that people could still watch it first and not be lost because exposition was missing about what the Force was. The Emotional Jedi was able to follow it starting with TPM. This is what matters.

There's no need for it to stand on its own completely. Once he decided to make the PT in 1992, he was intent on having all six films be relevant to each other because it was going to be the twelve hour experience, told I-VI.

The indifference was about the EU.

You're splitting hairs here. Just because the word Sith wasn't mentioned doesn't mean that they weren't a plot point. From the outset, the Sith were the threat as far as the Jedi were concerned.

My answer should be blantly obvious. TPM is a strong enough film to engage a new viewer and is capable of being a core setup for the other films.

No, it became that way because of the lack of action and reliance of setup, that he felt the story that became the OT was better. He had to explain things because of this. He was more interested in the war instead of the political intrigue. That's why TPM and AOTC are 20% of what he had in mind before 1993.

Not really because plenty of people were not wowed with ANH or TPM. SW just may not be for them. Then those who have come to the party late don't understand the hatred of TPM, regardless of which film is viewed first. And the ones who start with TPM first have enjoyed it equally to ANH.

That's why it is subjective.

 

No disagreement from me. I concur with Smitt's order and it is actually the order that I watch the films....leading into the sequels.

I am unclear on what you are getting at here. Can you say it a different way?

@The Emotional Jedi also said that, while they started watching Star Wars with Episode 1, they still think Episode 4 is the better starting point. This is in direct opposition to everything you have been saying. That's what matters.

I am not making a subjective argument for my personal preference. I am pointing out that, in terms of narrative structure, Episode 4 was designed to be the foundational film...not Episode 1. Do you think Episode 1 was created to be the foundational piece for the entire saga? Do you feel like the entire saga was reconfigured for Episode 1 to function this way? It wasn't. That's not my subjective truth, it's an objective fact.

Of course the PT has no need to stand on it's own. Episodes 1-3 are dependent/rely on the actual foundation/core/narrative entry point of the franchise...Episodes 4-6. The PT films are an extension of, and built upon, the OT films. That's the point. They don't need to serve as a self standing trilogy because they are the backstory.

Yet that ANH as year zero (the default starting point) stood (and continues to stand) for years under Lucas's watchful eye. If you think it's no big deal...fine. We can move on.

I get what you are saying, but the Sith are a PT convention....not something the OT narrative was concerned with. The Emperor wasn't even a Sith until the PT retconned that. Am I wrong? I could be.

Not so obvious: Is it better (in your eyes) at doing this than Episode 4? Again, "capable" is not the same as "designed that way"... is it?

Hmmm. Interesting. Say more...

Are we talking about these people? At all? I don't think so. I'm also not saying people don't enjoy Star War subjectively. There are tons of people that like Episode 1 better than 4...I am sure. That's not in dispute.

However..... in general, amongst the wide world: A New Hope is more highly regarded than The Phantom Menace. That's not subjective claim. That's a fact. It's just a more culturally significant movie....that fact alone...might be a good reason to start a new view with the source of it all.

Maybe I am mistaking you? Are you claiming that Episode 1 is (on a macro level) regarded as being higher quality, more culturally important/relevant? I mean, I love Episode 1, but c'mon.....

 

I mean, you don't lessons on the Force are in TESB. It's even more satisfying

We used to call this order Machete Order, Godfather Order, Flashback method... It's based in the idea that there's a problem to be solved. There isn't.

 

As Lucas said, the way people saw the films originally created one set of emotions. The next generation would have different reactions because they would see the films in a different order and in a different perspective.

Yes. TPM was created to be the foundational starting point. Just because Lucas didn't have Qui-Gon explain the Force is an energy field doesn't change that.

And that doesn't change that the backstory can be viewed first and that the OT needs it and vice versa.

The Sith are an OT convention. Vader is identified as one in the script drafts, save for the first draft of ANH. The novels and comics. The action figures. There's even the scene that was filmed where he is called a Sith. Palpatine became a Sith before the Brackett draft was written. He is just not called Darth Sidious until the outline for the PT was done. It's the same way Leia was Leia Organa, but isn't called that until TFA. Same with Palpatine's name isn't uttered until TP,M, Tatooine isn't named checked until TESB and Boba Fett is name checked in ROTJ . Hell, Ewok is never said in ROTJ.

Page 3 of issue 1 of the Marvel series.

Four releases in 25 years. It has crossed $1 billion with this last release. It has a strong impact with ANH. It has its own cultural impact. I saw parents bringing their kids to see it in 2012 and at least one or two were being introduced to the Saga that way.

 

Well sure. I'll go one further, people can watch the same movies, in the same order, and still have different reactions and in a different perspective. Each of us watches Star Wars (and films) couched in our own worldview and experiences. I am all for choice. Yet....

The Phantom Menace is not the foundation of the saga. How can it be? It's literally the 4th film. It's an expansion. As you said....backstory.
Again, just look at the narrative choices/structure and what Lucas was able to admit. Lucas was able to forgo a lot of world building in Episode 1. Qui-Gon doesn't have to explain The Force because we (the audience) already get it. The Force was burned into the public lexicon 3 films prior. To restate this kind of info would be (as has been said) redundant.

Yep, backstory can be viewed first. It's still backstory.

Also, the OT doesn't need the PT. You can claim the OT is enhanced by the PT, that it is recontextualized by the PT, altered by the PT, even improved by...if you wish. I agree with all of that.

Yet, when the original Trilogy was finished....it was complete. Finished. No one said, "Wow! Where's the rest of the story?" It's missing a beginnin. It is a complete story on it's own and can exist on it's own as such.

Again, I love the PT but it IS an expansion...not the foundation. It's the actual and literal fourth movie in the series...not the first. So, being that A New Hope is actually the first movie....it necessarily contains all of the world building, foundational, informational, set up that THE absolute starting point of a franchise must have. Episode 4 had to exist on it's own as the start. Despite it's place in the timeline, and it's label, Episode 1...doesn't actually have as much of this as ANH... and (as you said) it doesn't have to. Not my rules....that's how time works.

Yes, I am familiar with all the info you just gave me. I'm literally talking to you for pages on a specific SW fan forum that I've been frequenting since 199(7)? So, while I appreciate the history of Star Wars....I am right there with you. I think you misunderstand me.

I am not arguing that the term "Sith" wasn't around during the OT. Vader was forever The Dark Lord of the Sith. However, the fact that Darth Vader is a Sith Lord is entirely irrelevant to the narrative/plot of the OT. Do see what I mean? The OT narrative isn't concerned about it. It became more of a thing because of the PT.