STAR WARS question!

[iam1bearcat]

For whatever reason, I've been thinking about this question for a few weeks now, and finally decided I would see what my fellow blu-ray.commers think.

what if George Lucas made episodes I, II, & III first in the 1970's / 80's?

- would the series be just as popular as it is today?
- would it be less substantial for how it changed film history?
- would episodes IV, V, & VI have been made later on? or, if the films failed at the box office would he have never made them?
- would they have made as much money?

the reason i ask is because i remember reading (somewhere) a long time ago that Lucas said he made IV, V, & VI first because they were more "action oriented" and he thought that's what people wanted.

now, i know a lot of people hate the first 3 episodes (I, II, & III), but if they were made first, would they have succeeded? would they have been better films than the ones that came out in the early 2000's? of course, different actors, different generation, different special effects, but would the legacy of Star Wars be tarnished / not the same if Lucas made them in "numbered order" instead of what he did?

[Blu-Benny]

good question. it depends if lucas directed them or if he had others direct themlike the original trilogy.

i still think the story is better in the original trilogy than the prequels though.

if i were to venture a guess, i'd say episodes 4-6 still would've been the more well recv'd trilogy.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

good question. it depends if lucas directed them or if he had others direct themlike the original trilogy.

i still think the story is better in the original trilogy than the prequels though.

if i were to venture a guess, i'd say episodes 4-6 still would've been the more well recv'd trilogy.

good point about the directing!
i guess i would sort of think that he would do everything the same as he did in the 70's / 80's, just with the first 3 episodes. that way nothing really gets "changed" from a certain perspective.

[P@t_Mtl]

Impossible to know how it would have worked out now IMO

[KentDog]

If made in the 70's, the prequels would have been entirely different movies with different scripts and still would have made it big and been known for revolutionary FXs. But the "originals" would be the hated Star Wars trilogy that the prequels are today...

[Gabriel360]

No, I think George Lucas made the right decision in starting with IV. Not just because the original trilogy is more action-oriented, but because they strike a different chord than the prequels. The prequels are about doom and gloom, a republic falling, the bad guys taking over, and a hero turning to evil. The original trilogy is about hope, the little guy standing up to the bully, redemption, and a young boy who shows what being a hero is all about.

The original trilogy is more in line with stories that people want to see. Had George started from the beginning, I don't think a lot of people would've attached themselves to the story the way they attached themselves to Ep.IV. He had to start from a place of hope and victory for the good guys if he wanted to get the rest of the movies made. I don't think people would've had the patience to stick through the downers (Ep.I-III) to get to the more uplifting tales (Ep.IV-VI).

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Gabriel360

The original trilogy is more in line with stories that people want to see. Had George started from the beginning, I don't think a lot of people would've attached themselves to the story the way they attached themselves to Ep.IV. He had to start from a place of hope and victory for the good guys if he wanted to get the rest of the movies made. I don't think people would've had the patience to stick through the downers (Ep.I-III) to get to the more uplifting tales (Ep.IV-VI).

I'm inclined to agree with that. The first half of the saga is necessarily downbeat, because it sets up everything that Anakin's children will do to help him redeem himself and "bring balance to the Force".

Besides, the first half was always meant to portray the Republic in its prime, at least initially, and all that would have been very difficult to do with old-fashioned effects, because they did not lend themselves to creating fantastic settings like the Galactic Senate, Coruscant, Kamino, Geonosis, Mustafar, etc. It would have been nearly impossible, with old-fashioned special effects, to bring those to life effectively - not to mention any scenario with dozens of Jedi in action.

[mjbethancourt]

It was all a matter of timing. So, I think in that case, you would probably see a reversal. You would see people praising I - III as revolutionary films, and moaning that the next trilogy was "un-necessary", didn't feel right because the effects look different, tarnished the cherished memories of a generation, etc. etc.

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by KentDog

If made in the 70's, the prequels would have been entirely different movies with different scripts and still would have made it big and been known for revolutionary FXs. But the "originals" would be the hated Star Wars trilogy that the prequels are today...

This sounds right.

[serpheus]

I think there should be a poll to see which is the best Star Wars poll.

[Torgon]

It's hard to say. He changed the original story lots of times, even as it was being filmed if I'm not mistaken. So who knows how Ep I-III would have turned out. There is so much CGI in them it's hard to imagine how it could have been done back then and that may have limited the stories. It's really hard to say.