Does the Saga deserve the title The Tragedy of Darth Vader?

The story told in the OT was very much complete. The focus of that story was Luke and at the start he was a humble farmboy that lived in a galaxy under the opression of the evil Empire. At the end, he has become a jedi Knight, like his father, he has also redeemed his father and brought about the destruction of the Empire. There was no NEED for further films but we got some and espite the problems I have with them I still would not want them undone. You could certainly make more films and Lucas has but that in of itself does not make the story told in the OT incomplete in my view. You could watch only the OT and have no need to see further films but the reverse is not true in my book. The PT does not stand by itself, it ends with evil winning and promises things to come. If you've seen the PT then you pretty much has to watch the OT as well. But you do HAVE to have seen the PT in order to watch the OT.

Let's assume that Lucas does make further films, with an older Luke and a new jedi order. I know Lucas has said he won't but Lucas has changed his mind before. Would the existence of these ep VII-IX suddenly make the SW saga, as it is now, suddenly incomplete?
Is 1-6 a complete story only as long as there are no more films made?

Ex. take the LotR films, they tell a complete story. There are references to earlier events and there might be new evil still to come but the story is still complete.

Regards
Nordom

 

I'm afraid I disagree. But that goes on to another debate which I have already made my feelings known on. For the record though, I'll add something else into the melting pot before declaring I'm happy to agree to disagree:

Lucas made a quite definitive statement in his renaming of the original Star Wars "Episode IV: A New Hope." In short he was saying this is not the beginning. He was not saying that the three episodes which precede this in chronology are a different story that only set the one up that you're about to see. He knew that, with Empire Strikes Back fleshed out, he was writing a much bigger, bolder story, which when resolved, was missing its inception. It all changed after ESB. I'm not really debating whether or not any movie pre-the-original-Star-Wars without Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi would be a backstory. I think it would. But the story in the original movie very much shifts with its continuation, and its evolution changes the very core.

In ROTJ Luke's individual story ends with the redemption of his father and the restoration of the Jedi. Stories are structured to show normality-disruption-resolution. Even the two key closures of the main charater's narrative in the original trilogy only show this resolution. To sum up; in the Star Wars story, the normality is the Jedi Order and The Republic - the disruption is the rise to power of Palpatine, his Empire and the war he manipulates, along with the discovery and betrayal of the Jedi's prophecised "Chosen One" and their near extinction, resolved by his children and their role in a rebel alliance against the Empire, his own redemption and the re-establishment of a future Jedi Order through his son. What you have in the OT is a resolution. The PT is the normality and the disruption. To say you can have one without the other seems odd to me. You can cut halfway into any movie as long as you're sitting with somebody who can tell you whats happened up until that point - you can enjoy the second half of that movie and turn of the tv without any need to see the first half - but it doesn't mean the first half wouldn't make it a more complete experience.

In short, I am more than happy to agree the original Star Wars in isolation to be its own story, not neccessarily requiring setup or closure. However, when you put ESB and ROTJ into the mix, there are pieces of the puzzle that are clearly missing. Extending the story the way it went led to too many vacant holes - holes that we were left so desperate to see that TPM became the most anticipated film of all time.

 

I assume you felt that Qui-Gon's explanation was insufficient?

 

I don't agree. While the 1st 3 terminators do repeat somethings, eachone adds and continues the story. It is a continuous story.

I wouldn't use repetitions as a reason in this discussion if I were you, because SW has far more repetitions.

Lucas wrote the story and divided into 3 parts due to length. He then went back and wrote the backstory - his words. He made SW:ANH as a stand alone film because didn't think any sequels were going to get made. That is why SW:ANH ended up the way it is, i.e. attack on the DS and Ben dieing. This is in the Annotated screenplays and DVD commentary. The fact that the story he wrote, then divided into 3 parts, wrote a backstory for, and filmed is the OT indicates that the story told in that trilogy is the main story.

If the Jedi said he was extremely strong in the Force and the mother said there was no father, that wouldn't be enough to say he is special? Midis serve a very important role, they explain how the sith created Anakin. I don't think that explaining the force, a power that some characters have, would be pointless.

Wrong. It would continue Luke's story, being part of Luke's story, it would not be a new beginning - because it would be an ending story (a post script if you will). E4 is not a continuation of the same story told in E3. E3 ends the story of how Anakin becomes Vader and how the Empire is formed. If E4 continued that story, we would focus on Vader and the Empire. The story shifts focus from galactic events (1-3) to the training and journey of Luke Skywalker (4-6). At this point the tone becomes pe

 

That was only true deep inside the insular world of major Star Wars fans. LFL's entire ad campaign was based on the notion that the public had to be educated that the next movie was a prequel/beginning, with no Luke and Han and with EPISODE I being the most prominent part of the ads. It's just not true that people spent 16 years feeling that the trilogy was some maddeningly incomplete swiss cheese.

 

are we talking events that rhyme or entire plots that repeat? maybe you're confusing the two. terminator 1 is about a machine that comes back to kill the unborn john connor. terminator 2 is about a machine that comes back to kill john connor. terminator 3 is about a machine that comes back to kill john connor. same plots, no? each of the film's has its own conclusions. i accepted there were twists to each plot, but at their core, the plot of each is the same. you can call them a continuous story if you want but its rather a repetitive continuous story if you ask me. those damn machines never learn do they?

lucas - "by hook or by crook i said i am going to get these other parts finished". you dont give up $100,000+ of your paycheck for sequel rights when you've no intention of making those sequels you skillfully acquired. he put them on the shelf because they were far too long to be one movie.

woah woah - touching a nerve here. you can interpret that the sith created anakin if that works for you but it is never said that that is what happened. the force created anakin. whether the sith manipulated the force to do so or not is open to debate. dont be stating it as concrete fact within the story because it is never confirmed as such - not even by the director. whether he toyed with the idea or not is not worth mentioning because writers/directors will often draft ideas and throw them out. what is shot and released in the movie is final.

 

granted, i shouldnt have implied it was riddled with holes im simply saying it was an incomplete story. i certainly felt that way and i think many others did. for example, i dont think for a second that a new star wars film set 200 years after ROTJ would have had anywhere near as much anticipation as TPM. the campaign of a little boy standing next to a shelter with a vader silhouette shadowing behind him is what caught people's imagination. vader was the most popular star wars character but he was still an unfinished character. his involvement in the OT was so central to the story in the end that the parts that were left ambiguous - why he turned, how he turned etc. - left missing pieces that people wanted to see. he is and was iconic well outside the insular world of star wars fans, as you phrase it.

 

The events repeat themselves more than just as rhyme. I mean each film is even structured the same 1-4, 2-5, 3-6.

It's confirmed by the producer on the DVD commentary.

The PT focuses more on galactic events while the OT focuses on Luke's training and journey. There is no way to say Anakin get's the same focus as Luke does in either the PT or OT. I've read your idea of how stories are structured, but that in no way makes your assertion that E4 is a continuation of the same story of E3 true. The focus and tone shift from empire centric to Luke centric. 2 different but releated stories are being told.

Actually, the PT began a new story, the ST would complete the story told since it would involve Luke.

Seriously? When I was a kid in 1983, we could care less about the PT. My friends and I wanted to see what happened next. We did not view it as a concluding thing but just the begining of things. Luke was now a Jedi, what happened next? Lucas always did say he would film the PT then the ST, but the media kept asking Mark and the others about new movies - moreso than they did Lucas about the PT. Don't believe me? Go to the library and check out interviews from the 80'sand 90's with Lucas. I would say 75% involve questions about the ST and not the PT. I mean even during the release of the PT most interviews involved questions on the ST. Another reason I believe Lucas said no ST is because he didn't want people "bypassing" the prequels.

Popular characters is an opinion because I would say Luke was the most popular - he sold the most merchandise - but Vader and Yoda were easy to mass market because they are costumes/puppets owned entirely by Lucasfilm and show up in a lot of material.

 

How exactly is ANH by itself a more self contained story than the whole OT?
I do agree that ANH does stand pretty well on it's own and it is pretty much the only SW film that can stand on it's own. But there are some unresolved matters. 1) The Empire. The crawl gives the impression that the loss of the DS would give a deathblow to the empire. 2) Vader. He does survive and there are unresolved matters between him and Luke, chief among them is the killing of Luke's father. So ANH does leave a few things hanging.

At the end of the OT, Luke finally becomes a jedi, he redeems his father, the emperor is killed, the DS2 is destroyed along with a significant chunk of the imperial fleet. It very much seems like the empire is finished. There are questions as to what would happen next. How would Luke rebuild the Jedi order? How would the new republic look like? What would happen to Han and Leia? But those things are not dealt with by the PT for obvious reasons.
About what happened before, we already know all that we need to follow the story.
The PT explains in more detail the events referenced in the OT but it is not an essential part of the story. We know that there used to be a republic but now it has been replaced by an empire. We know that Vader used to be Obi-Wans pupil but then he was educed by evil. The fact that you can tell a story about these things does not, by itself, prove that the OT was incomplete.

In most stories we get some background on the characters and the world they live in. Then we follow the main story until it is resolved. You could poroabably make a separate story dealing with just the back story but that does not make the main story incomplete.

I would think that the other parts Lucas talks about is ESB and RotJ and further sequels after them.

About Luke and Anakin, Luke is the Focus of the OT much more than Anakin is the Focus of the PT.
In TPM Anakin is not the main character, that would be Qui-Gon. In AotC Anakin shares the spotlight with Obi-Wan. Only in RotS is he the main character. Wheras Luke is clearly the main character in all three OT films.

Regards
Nordom

 

Wait - is 'Palpatine created Anakin with the Force' REALLY the official LFL party line? Seriously?

 

AFAIK the following is still the official party line:

 

its deliberately ambiguous. its whichever the audience want to believe. its left in the movie as nothing more than a hint and you can do with that what you will. i like these little things that you have to answer for yourself. one can easily interpret that to "create life" is simply another way of saying "to save someone from death." the way i view it is that palpatine is a schemer and liar, and to be honest, even if he came out and said it directly to anakin, i would have no doubt he were lying in the context of the story. im not even sure he's telling the truth about keeping people from death. for me, to say either the jedi or the sith created him is to devalue the mystery of anakin's creation. but its perfectly possible they did. in the same way, its perfectly possible Han Solo were once a male escort on Corellia, if thats what you want to believe the movie producer's statement on a DVD commentary is not proof either way because his interpretation is no more valid than that of the audience. as far as im aware, rick mccallum has no creative input. if george were to say it that would be a different thing. but you'll notice george doesn't state which is the truth because he wants it to be a mystery. he wants to cause arguments on message boards

 

"The events repeat themselves more than just as rhyme. I mean each film is even structured the same 1-4, 2-5, 3-6."

Episode 1?s plot is the same as Episode 4?s? Same for 2 and 5 as well as 3 and 6? Don?t see that myself. I can see that certain events rhyme ? such as Anakin seeing his loved ones in danger, the subsequent downfall and then Luke in Episode 5 having the same dilemma. But that?s not the plot of each movie.

"It's confirmed by the producer on the DVD commentary."

That?s his interpretation. McCallum has no creative input into Star Wars. His interpretation is no more valid than yours or mine. Show me a confirmation from George and I?ll back down.

"The PT focuses more on galactic events while the OT focuses on Luke's training and journey. There is no way to say Anakin get's the same focus as Luke does in either the PT or OT. I've read your idea of how stories are structured, but that in no way makes your assertion that E4 is a continuation of the same story of E3 true. The focus and tone shift from empire centric to Luke centric. 2 different but releated stories are being told."

But we?re not talking tone shifts. I mean, there's a big tone shift in ESB. We?re talking plot and continuity shifts. Vader?s story is very much a part of the OT. It?s the very much the drive behind ESB and isn?t left alone in ANH either. And I don?t think there?s any conclusive argument to say that Luke?s story in the OT is any more central than Anakin?s in the PT. The difference is, Anakin is central to all the key events and plots that carry the viewer through the 6 movies. Its not like he dies in Episode 3 and the focus entirely shifts to his son. If that happened, we would not be debating as much.

"Actually, the PT began a new story, the ST would complete the story told since it would involve Luke."

Began a new story? It began the one we had just seen concluded. Its not disconnected. Lucas has stated in the past he believes it is effective to start telling stories from the midway point ? which is a trick he used in ANH. Just because it?s where we begin the story and where all the characters are introduced to us, doesn?t mean its no longer the midway point in the story. Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Backstories are previous to a beginning. When you choose to write the middle onwards its just a writing technique that throws a viewer in at the deep end to better sell the world we are seeing. It doesn?t mean what is and was the start of the story is some disconnected backstory. Superman: The Movie is not backstory to Superman II, though you could quite easily have released Superman II as the first movie and have the audience follow it fine. The conclusion of Episode VI sees Darth Vader being redeemed. But what is he being redeemed for? Yes, we hear about it in anecdotal form from Obi-Wan in Episode 4, but not seeing it visually represented in equal terms to the conclusion we later see leaves a missing piece. I believe, and have believed since I first really analysed it, that the OT is as much about Vader as it is Luke, even without the PT.

"When I was a kid in 1983, we could care less about the PT. My friends and I wanted to see what happened next. We did not view it as a concluding thing but just the begining of things."

Then your expectations and social circles differed to mine.

"Luke was now a Jedi, what happened next? Lucas always did say he would film the PT then the ST, but the media kept asking Mark and the others about new movies - moreso than they did Lucas about the PT."

I?m sorry, I don?t believe that?s true. Lucas never stated after the announcement he would be making the PT that he would also make a ST. I don?t believe you can show me a quote that says that. I would also doubt there would be any quote post-1985 that said there would definitely be a sequel trilogy. At the end of ROTJ most of the audience have concluded that Luke is now a Jedi, the Empire is now at and end, and Darth Vader is redeemed a

 

Nordom, i think I've addressed your points along with T-R's so no need to repeat. To follow up on a couple of more specific things though.

Because to an audience in 1977 there were so many narrative conclusions - more than any of the other films that later came, save for ROTJ. To pick up on one point, you say Vader is still out there and Luke will have desire to avenge his father's murder, but thats never mentioned as one of Luke's ambitions in the film. Luke has a few key threads in the film - to be a hero, to get away from Tatooine, to become a Jedi. On reflection, he saves the Princess, he joins the rebel alliance, he destroys the Death Star, gets his medal. As we later learn he is not yet a Jedi but this is open to interpretation. Remember, in 1977 we did not know what qualified a Jedi. As far as I can tell, looking at the film in isolation, Luke is told "the force is what gives a jedi his power." We can see Luke has that power in the destruction of the Death Star. From an audience point-of-view, in the context of that film alone, it is a perfectly natural conclusion to feel that Luke has become a Jedi simply through "the force flowing through him". He has the lasersword, he has the force-ability. His key mentor is gone but still with him spiritually to guide him. The Jedi ambition, it could be argued, is quite clearly concluded without any surrounding films. Of course this changed with ESB and this also changes with the PT if you watch them in order. Nobody watching 1-6 would feel Luke was yet a Jedi at the end of 4, but its quite probable that an audience watching E4 in isolation is happy to feel that narrative thread is at a close. In regards to the war, its also a safe conclusion to feel that with the destruction of the Death Star, the Empire is at an end. Of course, Lucas took this and put it at the end of E4, even though it was his initial conclusion to E6, because he needed a last act for this film alone. Its the only reason its in there. But an audience in 1977 would be safe to assume that the war was now done with. The alliance are victorious. Again, its only with ESB that this initial assumption is altered. Vader is still out there yes but in ANH in isolation you could justify Tarkin to be the chief villain and Vader simply to be his hatchet man. to me it always looked like Vader's destiny was open to ambiguity. we know the TIE fighters are short range ships - i remember being young and thinking Vader would die a prolonged death out in space. perhaps some other viewers did too. again though, if you use the "empire at an end" assumption that i reference above, and analyse ANH in isolation, Vader's narrative journey is at an end there too, because the empire he is part of is gone and he has destroyed his former master.

what ESB and ROTJ did in making this film part of what is now called the OT is open up more questions and extend the story pre-ANH, raising its importance in regard to the conclusions we got in E6. I think I have more than justified this in the other posts.

Can't agree with you there. To say Qui-Gon is more of a main character than Anakin in TPM must be based on two criteria - chronology and/or screen-time. Where I don't deny we see Qui-Gon first and that he may have a fraction more screen-time, Anakin is the most important, central character. We see that in Qui-Gon's last words and his role in both getting the Queen etc. off Naboo and then winning the battle of Naboo, however accidentally. I would argue that Padme and Anakin are both more the central to the plot than Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan as individuals. But this is another debate really, not suitable for this thread.

Anyway, glad to debate things with you as always.

 

Well let's compare Ep I and IV.
Both start with a fight onboard a space ship and at the end of that fight two characters escape down to a planet. Also in the opening a Royal Damsel is captured and must later be rescued. Then a good portion of the film takes place on Tatooine where we meet a young Skywalker. This young Skywalker then leaves his home to become a Jedi. The film ends with a big space battle against the Bad Guys and the Heroes have small fighters against the Bad guys big ship.
Also young Skywalker is instrumental in winning the big space battle.
The wise-mentor to young Skywalker is killed in a lightsaber battle with a sith. And a person close to this mentor yells "Nooo". The film ends with a big victory celebration.

Ep II to V.
Skywalker is in training, he has anger and controll issues. He leaves to rescue loved ones in danger. He fights a sith but is defeated and looses his hand.
There is a romance going on that is at first denied but later embraced.
There is a big land battle involving walkers. A person close to Skywalker is captured. The good guys loose a lot of people and the film has a more downbeat ending.

Ep III to VI.
There is a big space battle with Palpatine in a big chair. There is a crucial fight between Skywalker and the same enemy that cut of his hand and Palpatine watches from his chair. The galaxy changes goverment. Skywalker faces his trial.
A person captured before the film begins is rescued in the first part of the film.

Very simplified I know and there are differences but the bottomline is that there are quite a lot of things repeated in the SW films.

Disagree here. Vader is a bit player in ANH. He is mostly a henchman with not that much screentime. He gets a bit of backstory but ANH is not remotely about him. In ESB he is featured more but still as the antagonist to the main character, which is Luke. Vaders focus is Luke and pretty much all that he does revolves around Luke. But not all that Luke does is related to Vader.
In RotJ Vader still has much less creentime than Luke and his focus is still Luke. The character does begin to change from the all evil person he used to be.
Luke's story is still the focus and he rescues Han and later returns to Yoda to finish his training. His main goal is still to become a jedi but he is told that to do that he must face Vader again. Then there is talk about Luke trying to save Vader. Then Luke tries to save his father but fails and almost kills him. In the end he does become a jedi and also he saves his father.
Most of the events in the OT center around Luke, both what he does but also what the bad guys do to get him. Lucas himself has said that SW is the story of Luke Skywalker.

Regards
Nordom

 

Really? Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father and then he kills Luke's mentor and new father figure Obi-Wan. You hardly need to specifically mention that Lukes would want to settle things with Vader. As to the impression of Vader dying in space, since we see his ship fly away unharmed that gives a very clear impression that he will be back. Also he has a very different TIE than the others so I never once thought that he would just die in space.
Vaders story is also not finished as there is plenty of unfinished buisness between him and Luke. If there had not been any other SW films then ANH mostly works but there are unresolved matters.

I question this reasoning. We are told that Vader was a pupil of Obi-Wan UNTIL he turned to evil. If all it takes to be a Jedi Knight is to have the Force flow through you then it would be a very short period indeed where one would be a pupil. No, I never once thought that Luke was a fully trained Jedi Knight at the end of ANH and I never heard anyone else say that.

We also know that there is an Emperor and he outranks both Tarkin and Vader.
But yes in ANH Tarkin is the main, up-front villain and Vader mostly works for him. I say mostly because I always got a sense that Vader and Tarkin regarded each other as pretty much equals and one did not totally command the other.

Qui-Gon has much more than a fraction of screentime greater than Anakin.
Qui-Gon is the main character and most of other characters relate to him.
For ex there is not much of interaction between Padme and Obi-Wan or between Obi-Wan and Anakin. As for Anakin being the most important, not in TPM he is not. He is in focus in the Pod race and somewhat in the space battle.
But his role in the overall battle in TPM is much smaller than Luke's.
Really the heroes win as soon as Padme captures Nute, the destruction of the droid ship is mostly incidental after that.
Qui-Gon drives much of the plot, he gets Padme to leave, he directs the ship to Tatooine, he manages to win Anakin from Watto. It is by his request that Anakin finally can become a jedi and so on. Anakin can only be seen as a central character in light of the OT and what we know of him from there.

No not really, of what happens before ANH we are already told the bits that matter to the story in the OT. The rest is mostly filling in minor details.
We know that Anakin used to be Obi-Wans apprentice, that he was a good man and that he was unusually gifted. We also know that he was seduced by evil and turned to the dark side. We hear about him taking the quick and easy path, that the Emperor had a direct part in him turning. We also k

 

"Lucas himself has said that SW is the story of Luke Skywalker."

True, but as far as I know he always said that when the OT were the only Star Wars films that were out yet. For example, in the material for the Smithsonian Star Wars exhibit, and also in interviews given before the PT was released. Once the PT came out and the Saga was complete, his focus shifted some to indicate that SW is the story of Anakin Skywalker. I think he knew that would be the case for a long time, or at least once he started writing the prequels, but he didn't really start pushing that angle in interviews and such until people had at least the first prequel movie available to them to see. The OT is the story of Luke, but the overall Saga is the story of Anakin. Really, though, I think the Saga is the story of both of them, father and son.

 

For me, what you are listing there are rhyming plot occurences, not repetitive plots. There's a difference. Heres the plot of each movie (my own descriptions of course):

EPISODE I: In a galaxy far away, a devious plot unwinds when a small planet is mysteriously invaded. Two guardian Jedi Knights, seeking to resolve the conflict, discover the amazing potential of a young slave boy and vow to train him in their arts, amidst the return of their greatest enemy, The Sith.

EPISODE II: Jedi Knights Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker are assigned to protect a threatened Senator. The seemingly routine mission uncovers a dangerous Separatist movement against the Republic and sees the beginning of a secret, forbidden love.

EPISODE III: Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker must choose between his Jedi loyalties and the love of his pregnant wife, as an evermore powerful Chancellor Palpatine oversees the Clone War?s crippling conclusion.

EPISODE IV: With the Republic and democracy within the galaxy now at an end, Imperial grip on the galaxy tightens with the completion of space-station The Death Star. Two droids must deliver crucial stolen information on which the survival of a freedom-fighting Rebel Alliance now depends.

EPISODE V: As the Rebellion are driven from their secret base across the galaxy, Anakin Skywalker?s son Luke continues his Jedi training, seeing him down a path that will journey him to his hidden, true identity.

EPISODE VI: The Rebel Alliance challenge the Empire in one last, climatic assault, as Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader both confront their destinies, with the galaxy?s freedom at stake.

What the plots are at their very core do not repeat in the same fashion that the first three Terminator's do. But thats well off-point now and not even relevant.

 

Luke doesn?t seem like that type of character, no. He never states any ambition to avenge Obi-Wan?s death or his Father?s death. You?re implementing that yourself. We?re talking narrative closure. There?s nothing to close in this case because its never a theme that drives the movie. It doesn?t make ANH feel any less like a closed book in its own isolated conclusion.

Only with the prequels and sequels taken into consideration. We?re imagining the film in isolation. Vader has no interest in Luke at this point ? that?s only opened up in the next movie.

Regarding Vader?s death or survival after the Death Star, it can still be classed as a narrative closure because we both agree he?s a bit of a henchman. Look at Bond movies ? there have often been times the chief villain?s henchman survives. If he?s simply an agent of the Empire at this point, and we can assume the Empire are no more, he?s of no further relevance, even if he does survive.

But we know Luke has been Obi-Wan?s pupil too, and we know Obi-Wan is now able to guide Luke even after his death. It can be construed as narrative closure quite easily. There?s nothing to say that what Luke did in destroying the Death Star was not qualification enough to claim to now be a proper Jedi. There?s a difference, clearly stated in the movie, between having the force flow through you and feeling the force flowing through you and being able to manipulate that feeling. Luke ends up doing it fairly quickly but there?s no comparison to state that is happens so easily and quickly for others.

He really still is. He?s the chosen one. Qui-Gon is merely our introduction to the world, like the droids in E4 (they drive everything in that movie, remember). And it?s nothing to do with taking the OT into consideration or I?d state Obi-Wan was the second most important (which he isn?t at this point). I?m talking importance in the context of the story. Anakin is prophesised. His destiny is key to the fate of the galaxy. Qui-Gon is expendable in the end, as seen by his death. Even Obi-Wan

 

I'd say that's a bit of an exaggeration.

 

I think a point that needs to be reinforced is that individual parts of a story do not need to be about what the larger point of the story is about. This applies WHETHER OR NOT you feel the saga deserves this mantle.


The OT is not particularly about "The Tragedy of Darth Vader", nor are the individual films within it (maaaaaybe ROTJ).

The first part of "The Brothers Karamazov" is pretty much just about the brothers' foolhardy father, and not the titular brothers or their philosophical story at all.

The "Lord of the Rings" series, each novel divided into two 'books' for a total of six, contains two books (a third of the series) that have nothing to do with our main character's journey; we're checking in with Aragon, Gimli, Legolas, Merry, Pippin et al and leaving Frodo out of it for literally hundreds of pages at a time.


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

A better example: The first ten-fifteen minutes of Last Crusade. It's Indy's origin story, as we see how he got the whip, the hat, and the fear of snakes. But it also contains an important setup of Indy's relationship with his father, which will come into play later in the film.

The rest of LC NEEDS that sequence, because it's designed to follow it. But Raiders and ToD aren't, so they don't need it, no matter how much more interesting one might find it to see Indy's fear of snakes in Raiders with the added understanding of where it comes from.

Further, the opening of LC is not designed as our introduction to the character. The moments where Indy gets his fedora, whip, and phobia are powerful/funny because they're designed to work on the audience's foreknowledge of these things as iconic traits of the character. The same is true of PT moments such as "You'll be the death of me" or the build-up to the first time we see Yoda in action. These moments are designed for an audience that knows these characters from having already seen the OT.

Even ToD, unimportant though you may deem it, follows this pattern of behavior. It contains a gag about Indy's fear of snakes that plays off the audience's foreknowledge from Raiders. Without Raiders, Indy has an out-of-character overreaction that is never justified by anything else in the film. Watched after Raiders, it's a humorous play on an understood character trait.

Both ToD and the PT are prequels in the original sense of the word: the next film(s) in the series for viewing, but one(s) that happen(s) to take place chronologically before the previous film(s).

There are few (if any) examples of 'prequels' that truly usurp the original film as the start of the narrative.

 

and this is actually a very good example of what i am talking about. why is it neccessary to see indy's past before the conclusion to the last crusade? because the issues presented at the start involve issues that are later being resolved in the end of the film. it is beneficial we see these things before the conclusion to add emphasis. in episode 6 we are seeing the redemption of anakin skywalker. not seeing what anakin is being redeemed for and to what end is an important missing piece in the conclusion. no its not neccessary to see these things before ANH, but it probably is before seeing ESB and certainly is before ROTJ, in exactly the same way as it is to see Indy's past before the finale of Last Crusade.

to put a different spin on this example, i have said in other threads it would be interesting to see continuity in watching the films 4,5,1,2,3,6. and have the first three then play as some sort of flashback BEFORE the conclusions in episode 6. i think there's a valid case for this - debatably as much as there is to watching it 1-6, but both more, i feel, than 4,5,6,1,2,3.

it would be a perfectly fine introduction to the character. the last crusade is not a movie that rests on an audience having seen the previous films. its not a continuation story. the movies are ALL designed to work standalone. every opening scene must be an introductory.

just because these moments are put in for us fans who watched them back-to-front is not reason to say they should ONLY be watched that way. there are moments in the original movies that have more emphasis on repeat viewing and little hints of what may come have more weight in retrospect. it works both ways. you surely cant be reasoning that gags are the reason to watch the film in production order? i would also state that the scene with yoda fighting is more jarring the other way round. watching 1-6 it would be far more feasible for yoda to be seen fighting in such a way. the reason people have problems with it is because e5 and 6 set a different character in people's minds. yes its the character he became, but its not the character he was.[quote=Jedi_Keiran_Halcyo

 

I rather doubt this, Nute was not very brave and he had a gun to his head and he would have surrendered even with the droid army still working. Also he had no means to contact the ship as he was held prisoner. So no, once Padme got Nute under her control the battle was won.

Simply giving someone a title like "the chosen one" does not automatically make that character the MAIN character. What matters is his or hers importance in the specific story being told. And in the specific story being told in TPM Anakin is not the main character. He is introduced 30 min into the film and even after that Qui-Gon still has more screentime. Also the Focus is not on Anakin. Him maybe being the chosen one only makes him somone that might be important later on. He does not balance the Force in TPM nor is the prophecy given much importance in the overall story of TPM. It just thrown out there.

Compare for ex TPM with the first Matrix film, in both films we have a chosen one but Neo is given much more to do IN the film and has much more screentime than Anakin does. And overall Neo is much more important to the story IN that film than Anakin is in TPM.

No I've read older interviews with Lucas where he said that SW was the story of Luke Skywalker. This was done around the time when the OT was made.
So the issue very much is that the OT was made with Luke the focus, he was the main character, it was his story and so on. Then to later say that "no, the OT is really about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker" when the films do not really match that.

No because again the OT is Luke's story. It is about him and what he does and the world he lives in and how that changes. So getting the specific details of how exactly Anakin fell or how the jedi got killed by the empire or exactly how the emperor came to power is not important to the story being told.
Luke does not need to know exactly what it was his father did to fall to the dark side. All he cares about, once he knows for sure that Vader is his father, is to save him. Knowing how exactly Luke and Leias mother died is also not important to the story in the OT because she is not a relevant character.
We are told that she is dead and has been for some time and Leia remembers her but Luke does not. Other than giving birth to Luke and Leia she is not important in the OT.

Take LOTR, the book. There are plenty of things that happened BEFORE the story begins. Some of it is in the book The Hobbit, other is in the Silmarillion (sp).
But to tell us EVERYTHING that happened before the story begins would only make a lo

 

The point is you don?t know what would have happened. You can speculate Nute would have called off the army?s occupation of the territory but it is still the army that have it occupied. The only certainty to ending the occupation is to eliminate the army. That is something that is triggered by anakin?s action alone. How can you state for fact that the Queen, even with Nute prisoner, surrounded by a hundred+ battle droids would not have surrendered herself. She may have a gun to Nute?s head but she would have 100 to her own.

Not in isolation it doesn?t no. Not automatically. But it is clear he is fundamental to the story?s key factors (jedi vs sith and the queen?s ability to reach coruscant) and he is a key player in the final battle. He is not a bit-part player in the movie in any way. And we are debating the context of the whole saga here. You cant ignore his later role in that and say simply because you believe he is not central in TPM (something which I cant agree with) that he is only important or significant in ROTS. The film is about the reemergence of an ancient sect who will threaten the Jedi ? our heroes in the story. Anakin is the clearly set up as the key figure who will save their cause. And as for the movie in isolation, Anakin accomplishes as much in TPM than pretty much any other character, if not more - save for perhaps Palpatine who is seen very little, but significantly still does enough to justify the titling of the film to be in reference to him.

I?m not denying and have never denied the story was originally the focus and the journey of Luke Skywalker. I have made it clear though I also believe the story was an evolutionary process and changed in perspective and focus with ESB and moreso ROTJ. Lucas could have chosen to begin Episode 1 with Anakin?s turn and Luke?s birth if he still believed the story was Luke?s but he didn?t. I would find it unlikely you can find me a quote post-1994 where Lucas said the Star Wars saga 1-6 is the story of Luke Skywalker. I can find you many where he states clearly after all the movies were in the can (which by the way is the only time one can truly assess them as a whole) that it i