Reactions of a newb seeing the movies in order from 1 to 6.

They do prove intent.

The 'consequence' is that they show the development of the series, and that certain audience expectations were not merely in their heads.

No one in this discussion here or over at the "Secret History" thread disagrees with that. Yes, it's been changing since the beginning. The point is that the PT didn't 'prove' expectations 'wrong', rather, the details themselves had changed.

That last part is a soundbite, and it won't work anyways, because the movies weren't made that way.

 

However, it shows that the 'expectations' that you mentioned were not just in peoples 'heads', whether you 'care' or not. And things left out of the movie, which contain exposition (like what I listed), do not automatically become 'non-canon' - they were at least canon when the film was first released. The Biggs/Red Leader and Ben/Dagobah/ROTJ exposition stuff was cut for pacing reasons anyhow. It had nothing to do with the detail in question suddenly becoming 'non-canon' when the films were first made.

Occam's Razor comes to mind.

But they are not in 'disagreement' with the films - or at least the OT films that they were to appear in originally. They cannot 'disagree' in that sense anyhow, being that they are 'background' CONTEXT to the filmed material.

Where the movies 'win', is when details were changed - starting with TESB all the way to the PT, but they do not change or 'erase from time' the original contexts (and as a side point, they do not prove the audience expectations as 'wrong').

 

the changing of details in the story line doesn't change the original contexts? you've got it backwards. the original contexts no longer affect the story as it stands.

And isn't it possible that the old guy in ANH knew Anakin Skywalker? It's not like he said "Too bad Vader got him."

 

Maybe he'll show up in Clone Wars. That would be pretty sweet.

 

I think TOCHISTATION shows clearly that there are indeed retcons Star Wars, not only between the OT and the PT but also within the OT itelf and within the PT itself. The presented arguments against retcons clearly stand out as post-hoc rationalizations, i.e. they are elaborations based on knowing the plotline before making the explanation for how the portions fit together.

But the pertinent question is not whether there are retcons. The pertinent question is whether those retcons make sense (which has been debated exhaustively in other threads, no need to start all over here) and/or whether those retcons made the story better than the original or preceding storyline(s) would have been. For instance, when Lucas decided that Anakin should be a young boy rather than a young man in Episode 1, did the story improve?

Lucas most likely thinks so himself, otherwise he probably wouldn't have made the change. I'm not quite as convinced. It is clear from this thread that those who view the Saga in episode order are content and can follow the action. The question for me is: would they have liked a storyline that was closer to original design even more? This is obviously a counterfactual question and can never be conclusively answered as it entirely engages in the hypothetical. Nonetheless, it is an interesting thought experiment.

 

How original are we talking? Is Jabba really a big furry humanoid? What if Luke tracked down Vader and took revenge for his father's death? Would we have liked that better?

 

What I meant was: no, changing details changes the context, but not the original context. Iow, the original context still 'exits'; it is not 'erased from time'.

I agree in a sense they don't, but in another sense they do still affect the story. For example, the fact that Anakin and Vader were originally two separate characters still affects the story. How? It affected the OT to the end (ROTJ), because Obi-Wan had to come up with an explanation for what he told Luke in the first movie. In the PT, I believe it had an affect on how Anakin's character was portrayed.

Yeah, the 'old guy' knew the Anakin of the OT backstory*, but he didn't know the Anakin of TPM (32 years before ANH supposedly, Red Leader is 'a boy' and so is Anakin? Really?) Nor did he know the Anakin of the 'Clone War' AOTC/ROTS only 20 years before ANH - Red Leader was definitely not a 'little boy' only 20yrs before the Battle of Yavin4.

*especially that of Star Wars the first film, where the end of the Clone Wars didn't coincide with the end of the Republic/beginning of the Empire...

He may not have know the details of Anakin's death. I don't think a whole lot of people in the GFFA circa SW '77 canon knew what happened exactly.

 

Well, it's a thought experiment, so it would be difficult to establish that one point is more "accurate" than another, but just as a suggestion, I'd just "the end point of a story arc" as a point of reference. If one wants to do away with retcons altogether, one would have to go to the end of ANH - and then, indeed Vader and Anakin would be two different people. Otherwise it would be the story as it stood at the release of ROTJ. But maybe that's a topic for some other thread. I just pointed this out to challenge the notion that retcons are all in some people's heads and that the PT as it stands is the only or best way the story could have been told. But of course, that point has been made in numerous threads already, so maybe I should just stop there

 

Wait, you're referring to those magical three years when the Star Wars opening crawl could be taken at face value? That the destruction of the Death Star--oh, excuse me...Death Star Numero Uno--would restore freedom to the galaxy?

Nah, I liked Empire, which told us that that BOOM! didn't amount to jack-squat.

 

For the next special edition, I entrust Lucas to write a more accurate opener:


Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and nab Vader a promotion....

 

I do not know any stories in real life or in fiction where normal people have been able to remember their own births, much less in such detail that they can describe how their mother looked like or how she was like as a person. In some myths Gods are born totally aware and essentially adult but this hardly aplies here.
Being born would be a shock to the infant, your whole world changes, suddenly there is bright light, suddenly you are grabbed, you are forced to breathe and so on. If you can remember that then those memories would pain, shock, confusion. You would hardly be very observant or very calm.
Leia says she does remember her mother, just not a lot. She remebers what her mother looked like and how she was like as a person. She would not really be able to get all that just from seeing Padme ten seconds before she died.
And Padme was in pain and dying when Leia saw her, not just sad. I really doubt that anyone that saw RotJ when it was first shown thought that Luke and Leias mother died in childbirth. And when RotJ was made the backstory was not that either. Lucas later changed his mind.

Also did Leia knew her mothers name? If she did it would not be very hard to find out the date when she died.
Even if she did not know her mothers name, given that she worked in the same place as her mother, odds are good that she would come across a picture of her mother and learn her name that way.

Lastly about only people that saw SW 4-3 complain about this.
1) Of all people that have seen SW, a majority have seen it 4-3.
2) How do you know that NOONE that saw it 1-6 did not find this scene odd?
My cousin's kid, who is about 9, saw the films 1-6 and when I talked to him about them he did mention that he found it slightly strange that Leia remembered Padme. It was not a big thing to him and it is not me either.

Regards
Nordom

 

Holy crap, I never noticed that before... it's the same melody, isn't it?!

Thank you for pointing that out!

Incidentally, I know of two people who have done something similar to the subject of this thread (they were Star Wars newcomers, seeing all the movies some time after RotS left theaters). Their consensus? ANH is a turkey and the low point of the series.

I don't really agree with this opinion (and hearing it of course destroyed the innocent heart of my magical childhood), but that's what the dudes told me they thought about the films.

 

Am I surprised that the 1-6 viewing order does not 'work' for some people (probably more than just 'some')??? Absolutely not, being that the movies weren't made in that order. One could even argue that they're not meant to be seen in 1-6 order, either - things like: OT 'foreshadowing' in the PT, lack of ANH-style 'introductions' in the PT, 'NEW' "World War IV" look to the OT's "World War II" look*, etc.


*a comment made by ROTJ producer Howard Kazanjian about the PT's visual look compared to the OT, where he said as a proper back-story, it should have looked like "World War I"....

 

I don't know what order those guys saw the movies in, but my personal preference is 4,5,1,2,3,6. Not sure why exactly, but it's great that way.

By the way, those guys also agreed that 3 and 5 are the best. And they don't know each other.

So you've got 2 different guys who had the same experience end up with the same favorites and the same least-favorite.

One of them is really, unfairly hard on 4, saying that it's a "cheap B movie" that doesn't fit in with the other "epic" entries in the series. I've tried to convince him otherwise, to no avail. He's a pretty big fan now (and likes the 3D Clone Wars show a lot).

 

Remind me, what did she call Qui-Gon Jinn a few times? "Tae Kwon Joe"?

I really hope that's what I heard. Because that is a kick-ass name.

 

Cheap B movie? Are you sure you showed him the right version?

[image=http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5613/warofthestars.jpg]

It does make me a sad panda when I learn that people's least favorite is Episode IV, because that one is my second favorite due to its simple yet meaningful storytelling and timeless themes. Pretty much every screenwriting and film making class I've ever had has referenced it multiple times, because it's just such a darned good example of how to write and make a movie. In the grand scheme of the saga though, I can see why it may fall by the wayside for first time viewers. In the saga it's a transitional chapter, and those can be a bit rocky even when there isn't a 30 year production gap between it and the "last" chapter. The fact that most people seem to feel like Episode IV does still hold up well enough to feel like it's a a continuation to Episode III is good to hear, but it's too bad that people don't appreciate it quite the way they used to. I'm glad to hear that those two guys thought ESB was in the top two, though.

 

Yes, a few times! Cait was a great sport about the whole thing! I just listened to the whole thing again as I went to pick up my dog from the vet. I laughed out loud when she called him that!

 

Except when it comes to the dark side. Oh, the pain, the pain...

 

Thanks a lot for posting this, OP. That was a most interesting podcast.

Most interesting how about every single thing the PT and the SE are bashed for she said she really liked. Little Anakin. Jar-Jar. The podrace. Hayden Christensen in the end of ROTJ. Han not shooting first.

It definitely looks like the Saga works in that order. And Lucas' choices in the SE weren't that bad after all.

Thanks again.

 

Furthermore, the constant Prequel (and SE) bashing from fans who saw the OT first suggests that watching 4-6,1-3 DOESN'T work.

 

It kind of reminds me of the kids growing up who liked all the Rocky sequels better than the original because Rocky didn't win yet. I'm someone who appreciates both the pathos of the original and the kitch of Rocky IV, but I can see why some people who fell in love with one might be disappointed with the other.

 

Awesome podcast - thanks for that!

I just had a few q's...sorry if they've been answered already.

1. Did she have a preference between CG Yoda vs puppet Yoda or mention anything about the TPM Yoda puppet?
2. Did she react at all to Luke Leia kissing in ESB?

Like I said - cool podcast. It's nice to get some insight from someone who hasn't been a long time fan. And if you have taken your passion for the films to the web you tend to encounter a lot of bitterness and people who are jaded about so many aspects of the films.

Look at the very first reply to this thread...

"This means nothing to me. You had to be there in 1977 to experience Star Wars from its birth in order to get it. I feel sorry for your friend, to be honest."

C'mon, that's not a very open minded attitude and it completely blows off the effort taken to make the podcast. I have issues with what GL has done here and there too as well but to coldly dismiss a new fans perspective so quickly baffles me.

As it has been mentioned - it was refreshing to hear someone who just dug the experience at face value. I think she got it.

 

Well, if the appeal of the Saga were confined to those who were present in 1977 (a rather small share of today's fanbase), then the Saga wouldn't be more than your ordinary yearly blockbuster movie.

The reason it's a significant part of cinema history is precisely because it appeals to generations of fans.

 

^^ Exactly...the saga is there for everyone to enjoy and experience regardless of what year it happens to be or whether or not you were there from the beginning.