Saga Viewing Order Post-TFA

To be fair, I actually agree with Lucas’s decision to kill off Natalie Portman at the end of EPISODE III. Yes, it contradicts Leia’s memories of her in RETURN OF THE JEDI, but it’s more dramatically satisfying to have her die at the end of REVENGE OF THE SITH than to just have her die offscreen in between films. With that said, I’m still not on board with the whole “lost the will to live” BS.

As for Obi-Wan and Anakin being good friends, I do think Lucas should’ve emphasized that more. Not because it’d be more consistent with the originals, but because it’d have a greater dramatic impact when he does finally become Darth Vader, and he and Obi-Wan are forced into a duel to the death. Even Lucas himself tried to backtrack on that one by showing the two of them being all buddy buddy at the beginning of REVENGE OF THE SITH, but by then, it was arguably too little too late.

When it comes to dramatic impact vs. consistency, I’ll take dramatic impact every time. The problem with the prequels isn’t that they have some continuity hiccups with the originals. It’s that, largely, they’re dramatically inert and the characters, aside from the Emperor and occasionally Obi-Wan in EPISODE III, are just dull, lifeless, and uninteresting. They don’t have much in the way of personality or energy. Luke, Han, and Leia were all likable, dynamic characters. Watching their adventures was fun. Rey and Finn are also likable, appealing characters. The prequel characters are simply boring.

 

Release order is the way to go, as it flows much better in my opinion. Watching them chronologically just doesn't work.

 

Moodwise, TFA does pick up where ROTS left off, so in that regard, release order works really well.

 

My wieving order post TFA is simple: I´ll watch the Star Wars Hexalogy in the story order from Episode I to Episode VI and then I´ll totally ignore the fact that TFA and Episodes VIII and IX even exist.

And if Lucas´s story treatment for his Episodes VII, VIII and IX ever gets published I will watch the Star Wars Hexalogy in the story order from Episode I to Episode VI, then read the treatment and still ignore the existence of TFA and the next two movies.

 

I'll watch IV-VI (OOT), VII.

If I'm in the mood I will watch parts of I-III, simply for some of the great designs.

 

I always watch I, II and III, and sometimes I watch I-VI, but I never watch the OT alone, or TFA at all.

 

There will never be a story treatment for 7-9 from Lucas because he has always made it up as it goes. He probably had a rough story treatment for Episode 7, and then some random rough notes for Episode 8 & 9. He has always worked like that, going back to ESB and then ROTJ when they pretty much contradict everything Obiwan said in the Original SW.

 

I appreciate your thoughts here. But maybe that wasn't my best example, although criticisms over that point certainly made ideas about Padmé subconsciously "passing on" her last thoughts over to Luke, which I think is a very enrichting way to see the six-part story, left unheart.

Regardless of whether their friendship was shown in the right capacity or not, it seems obvious to me that those expectation based on the OT for the PT to give background to certain things that were hinted overshadowed the many things that were quite interesting about the PT and it's portrayal of, in this case, Anakin. Anakin, even in TPM, is a very layered character. His childhood as a slave and what kind of young person it made of him, the relationship with his mother and the bond that they made, the childhood experiences that set him apart from most of the Jedi....all those things were hardly noticed and I feel the fact that none of these factors were mentioned in the OT was part of a reason. For many, many people it felt more important to lament on the "missing friendship" than to appreciate and consider the things that were actually done with Anakin's character.

I enjoyed our conversation so far. But the fact that you didn't connect with Anakin, Padmé or Qui-Gon doesn't make them "boring" or "uninteresting".

 

"There will never be a story treatment for 7-9 from Lucas"

There already is a story treatment for 7-9 from Lucas, but never mind.

"because he has always made it up as it goes"

As any storyteller does.

"He has always worked like that, going back to ESB and then ROTJ when they pretty much contradict everything Obiwan said in the Original SW."

Seems you´re not a fan of ESB and ROTJ either.

 

Perhaps, although I always just saw that as a callback (and I kinda have a hard time buying that anyone would see any good in Anakin at this point, considering that he’s spent the last two films acting like an evil crazy person).

Well, the slavery angle might’be worked had it actually been portrayed as a traumatic experience. Instead, it was portrayed more like this:



Also not a good idea to base your main comic relief character on Butterfly McQueen’s performance in GONE WITH THE WIND if you’re gonna make slavery a main theme of your film. Just sayin’.

What did they do in the movies? I mean, I guess Anakin went crazy and murdered a bunch of people, but that’s hardly an interesting character. With Luke, we saw how he craved to be a part of something bigger than himself, and we saw and understood his frustrations with being stuck on his uncle’s farm. We saw him achieve those goals and eventually grow into a man of wisdom and compassion. With Han, we saw him start as a cynical, self-serving smuggler and we saw how he eventually became a more heroic character who learned to put others above himself. We saw him grow and develop as a result of his friendship with Luke and his love for Leia. We saw Leia as a strong, stubborn, no-nonsense, single-minded and dedicated leader who eventually lowers her defenses and comes to accept her feelings for Han. What did Natalie Portman do in the prequel films? I mean, I guess she “lost the will to live” because Anakin “broke her heart”. Over the course of three movies, that’s all she did. Lame. And I guess Liam Neeson was a wise, sorta rebellious hippie who believed in a prophecy. Again, not that interesting.

 

So you're going to reduce all of the characters of the PT in one line buzzwords?

Padme did far more than just die. Sipmly watch TPM and AOTC to see Padme fighthing for her people and democracy, before everything she fights fro crumbles around her as the empire is formed.

Oh no, I forgot, she just shows up and dies

That's just one example, but if you really don't know 'what they did in the movies' then you didn't watch them.

It's like saying that Leia is a rubbish character, because all she does is have a love triangle with Han and Luke set up in one scene in ROTJ, and resolved in another with a single sentence she could have said at any point.

But that would of course ignore the actual story, which you seem content to do with the PT.

 

OK, she picks up a gun and occasionally spouts pithy one-liners (like that “aggressive negotiations” line that appeared all over the marketing). She shoots people then she dies. That’s her character.

 

I'm a huge fan of ESB & ROTJ, but I'm not a kool-aid drinker and going to sit here and say that the movies don't contradict the Original from 1977. That is why alot of new fans who watch the series 1-6 find Episode 4 so jarring, and usually rank it at the bottom because they are watching the movie totally out of context. The movie was made in the context that nobody was related, the galaxy wasn't that small, and the ending is the ending. I can still watch it that way (cause I saw it in 1977) and watch ESB & ROTJ while enjoying them all in their own context.

Yes, but Lucas constantly pretends that he had it made up from the start. Every movie franchise is made up on the fly, but Lucas won't even admit that Darth Vader and Luke's father were different people when he made the 1977 film.

 

So Han solo shoots people, makes some lame ass banters and thats it. That's his character

 

But as I said, Han actually grows and develops as a character. He has a story. We actually see how his relationships with the other characters change him as a person. What’s Portman’s story? That she wears alot of makeup as the Queen?

 

Dude is this your only talking point? Her makeup?

Padme's place in the story is told, in fact, a great deal through the way she looks. There's far more to a film than easy-to-read arcs and poppy dialogue, thank God (and Lucas, really).


Sent from my brain using thumbs.

 

So what's Leia's story? She wears hair buns as a princess?

 

When someone’s entire character consists of their physical appearance, then they’re not a very well-rounded character. Real people exhibit things like behavior, emotion, and desires. We see these things from Luke, Han and Leia. They all have their own goals. They have things that drive them. They have personalities. I often joke that the Emperor is by far the most likable character in these prequel films, but a large part of that is because the Emperor really is the only character throughout who seems to have goals and a distinct personality. He wants power and he’ll do whatever is necessary to get it. We see him as an ambitious, cunning, and intelligent man. He exudes confidence and charisma. He enjoys exercising power over others, and he enjoys manipulating people. Over the course of the prequel trilogy, we see him in action as a great diplomat and a top-notch manipulator. He has a real passion for what he does. Even some of the more over-the-top moments don’t bother me, because I see a person who finally has the opportunity to just let loose and reveal his true self after years of hiding beneath a kindly façade, and who’s clearly enjoying every minute of it. The Emperor is really the only well-rounded character in the entire prequel trilogy, and, as a result, he’s the only one I really care about.

 

As I said, “We saw Leia as a strong, stubborn, no-nonsense, single-minded and dedicated leader who eventually lowers her defenses and comes to accept her feelings for Han.”

 

Still going with Episodic order, though I've toyed with the idea of doing the flashback order. I think the neat thing is that there really is no wrong way to view the saga. Each option presents the story in an interesting way.

 

Yes, the interesting thing is...
Leia and Padme have similar arcs, with Padme's one being more developed.

Leia does seam strong and stubborn, but only in ANH, and only at the begining of the movie. Is she a leader? Not really, on Yavin 4 there are others. Why does she present Luke and Han the medals? She has to, she's the main character. In TESB her role is reduced. She is one of the leaders on Hoth, but later she's just there for Han, as he leads her to Bespin where she saves her brother. In ROTJ... She's there to fill that bikini.

Padme is a leader in TPM. A teenage ruler of the planet and she defies both the Jedi and politicians. In AOTC her responsibility is the galaxy (as being a senator). Her role in creating the army of the Republic is swept by turn of events and her role in ROTS did not change (senator), except she's a catalyst of everything that happens to Anakin - he has dreams of her dying, she comes to his rescue, but he kills her and so on.

Yes, Leia is a strong, stubborn, no-nonsense, single minded and dedicated leader who eventually lowers her defenses and comes to accept her feelings for Han. But so is Padme - strong, stubborn, no-nonsense, single minded and dedicated leader who eventually lowers her defenses and comes to accept her feelings for Anakin. Except, Padme isn't degraded (as a character) to present herself in a bikini.

 

When she is slave Leia in ROTJ, the last thing you're thinking of is her story arc.

Only her shirt gets ripped perfectly just so they can show off her full belly in AOTC.

 

I guess I can kinda see that, but I just really don’t think the films did a very good job of conveying it. I personally think Luke and Rey do the whole idealism thing so much better, since we get a far better look at their personalities and what drives them. Portman’s character just struck me as being very bland and uninteresting. The Binary Sunset scene in the first film and that opening montage in THE FORCE AWAKENS that introduces us to Rey both do an excellent job of showing us so much about their characters, what their goals and desires are, and what drives them. We never really get any scenes in the prequel films that let us know who Portman is. She just never connected with me on a basic emotional level. Luke and Rey did.

Agreed. Good idea in principle, but the whole “lost the will to live” thing is just beyond idiotic.

Definitely. As I’be said before, the lava duel just would’ve been more impactful and moving had we gotten the idea that these were former friends.

 

Well, except for the whole idea behind that is that Jabba enslaved her and she eventually uses her chains to liberate herself. It’s actually quite a good metaphor. And the reason she’a with Han is made clear- she wasn’t able to make it to another evacuation ship on time (notice how because of her determination, she sticks around until she literally has no other choice but to get outta there) and the Falcon was her only way out. And again, we’re actually shown her conflicted feelings for Han, and at no point does she become a doormat. She’s still just as snarky as ever. “This bucket of bolts will never get us past the blockade!” “Would it help if I got out and pushed?” “One of these days, you’re gonna be wrong and I just hope I’m there to see it!” Even when complimenting Han, she still retains her edge. “You have your moments. Not many, but you do have them.” She’s also rightly suspicious of Lando when they’re in Cloud City (“I don’t trust Lando!”), and even when Lando tries to help them out, she makes it clear that she still doesn’t completely trust him until he proves himself (“Oh, we understand, don’t we, Chewie? He had no choice.”).

Again, she’s used as a plot device, rather than an independent human being. REVENGE OF THE SITH is actually the worst one in this regard, since her entire role in that film is literally just to motivate Anakin to ally himself with the Emperor, give birth to Luke and Leia, then die.

No, Portman is degraded by being turned into a complete and utter doormat who becomes so emotionally dependent upon her murderous psycho husband that she “loses the will to live” when he “breaks her heart”. Compare that to Leia in THE FORCE AWAKENS. Leia had her son stolen from her and turned to the dark side. That son becomes a galactic menace and ends up killing the love of her life. The film does a fantastic job of showing just how much anguish and torment that this causes Leia, but at no point does she become a doormat. She still retains her stubbornness and no-nonsense attitude, despite the personal tragedies she’s endured.

Even before that, she seems to put up with alot of Anakin’s crap. She puts up his incessant whining about Obi-Wan, puts up with his psychotic rant where he admits he murdered women and children, and puts up with him acting like a creepy pathetic stalker. Do you really think Leia would’ve tolerated this loser or that she would’ve just told him to shut up and leave her alone? So no, I don’t buy Portman as a tough, no-nonsense character. I can kinda see the idealism that anakinfan points out, but “strong”, “stubborn”, and “no-nonsense”? No.