Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Okay, okay you're right of course. A Sequel OR a Prequel needs something that it is a Sequel or Prequel to. I'm still looking for the right terms that don't put one trilogy in the shadow of the other... "Original trilogy" suggests it is the only relevant trilogy or that it should be watched first or something... And "Prequels" suggests that it is just an attachement - at least in the way it is used by the "haters" (another controversial term). I think they should be watched on equal grounds and should be freshly viewed in sequence 1-6.
As you have seen The "Prequel Trilogy" and "Original Trilogy" terminology has been dropped for the Bluray-release. It's more of a Vol. 1 (E 1-3) and Vol. 2 (E 4-6) kind of thing.

Here is a fun-interview of Lucas on the different generations of "fans" and the backlash. He seems pretty nice and laid back about the issue to me. Enjoy!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...xrs=share_copy

Jeez, we need to drop this, but for some reason I don't think you understand that the word "prequel" is not derogatory. It does not imply that I-III are inferior to IV-VI. It's just a word that describes works that chronologically precede works that were already released.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

"Original trilogy" suggests it is the only relevant trilogy or that it should be watched first or something... And "Prequels" suggests that it is just an attachement - at least in the way it is used by the "haters" (another controversial term). I think they should be watched on equal grounds and should be freshly viewed in sequence 1-6.
As you have seen The "Prequel Trilogy" and "Original Trilogy" terminology has been dropped for the Bluray-release. It's more of a Vol. 1 (E 1-3) and Vol. 2 (E 4-6) kind of thing.

The term "Original Trilogy" suggests that it is exactly what it is... the original set of films that originally came out.

And the "haters," as you call them, technically are not using the term "Prequels" differently than anyone else. That is all in YOUR head. While some people don't like the Prequels, they are not using the term, itself, in a negative manner. They are simply stating that they don't like these movies as much (or in some cases at all) as the OT, and they are refering to them as the Prequels simply because that it what they are called/what they are in relation to the other films.

However, having said that, technically from a certain point of view (one that isn't dictated by liking or disliking the PT), the Prequels ARE 'just an attachment' in the sense that if the original Star Wars film (A New Hope) and it's sequels never existed, there never would have been anything to make prequels to. And in that sense, TESB and ROTJ are just as much "attachments" to Star Wars (ANH) as the Prequels are an attachment to the OT.

Regardless of what order you want to argue that these should be watched, the reality of the situation is still the same. The rest of your arguement is you focusing on semantics that as far as I can tell only exist in your head and noplace else.


As for the order these should be viewed in, that's up for debate. I know Lucas states that he feels they should be viewed in order of 1-6. However, I will say that (as critical as I am of the PT) that some moments in the PT wouldn't have had as much of an impact if I hadn't seen the OT first, and that watching the PT first spoils certain surprises in the OT.

While Vader being Luke's father is pretty much common knowledge these days, it was a big surprise at the time, and if somehow someone out there is oblivious to this info and is shown these movies for the first time, it would be nice for that surprise to remain intact.

Similarly, while I am critical of the PT, one moment that was very, very awesome was seeing Yoda whip out a lightsaber and go into battle for the first time in Episode II. That scene wouldn't have had nearly the impact that it had if we didn't know for years before hand that he was supposed to be one of the greatest Jedis ever.

Granted, someone seeing the movies for the first time will likely watch them all within a short period of time and not have the years of knowledge to build up to it, but none the less, I think by watching them in order of OT and then PT, (thereby seeing a non-battling Yoda in 3 movies... Eps 5, 6, and 1), it will give that moment much more impact than if it is the 2nd movie that they see.

I almost think it's beneficial to watch the OT, the PT, and then the OT again.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

Jeez, we need to drop this, but for some reason I don't think you understand that the word "prequel" is not derogatory. It does not imply that I-III are inferior to IV-VI. It's just a word that describes works that chronologically precede works that were already released.

Exactly, no idea why anyone is complaining about the new films being call prequels. That is what they are... They are sequels to an original work that chronoglocially takes place before the original pieces. Sorta like Temple of Doom was a prequel. Doesn't mean its lesser in quaility, just means it takes place before the previously released film's events.

Anyway, even the preorder pages call one set the Prequel Trilogy and the other the Original Trilogy. There really isn't a debate here. Its pretty dumb to argue over it to be honest.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

While Vader being Luke's father is pretty much common knowledge these days, it was a big surprise at the time, and if somehow someone out there is oblivious to this info and is shown these movies for the first time, it would be nice for that surprise to remain intact.

On that note, I feel that the PT doesn't have any big "whoa!" reveal-type moments that the OT has. Like you said, at the time, Vader's revelation to be Luke's father, and the revelation that Luke and Leia were siblings, were huge "whoa" moments.

Does the PT have one? I guess people who hadn't seen the OT would think that Palpatine being Darth Sidious was a "whoa" moment. Maybe it's just lost on me since I already knew who he was.

[HylianBowcaster]

I think the OT's big reveal has been largely spoiled for nearly everyone in the world. Even if you've never seen the OT, I think everyone knows Vader is Luke's father.

[Shaft Windu]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

He can never erase twenty years of what was, the fans or how these films are and have been judged by history.

Thats exactly the point! Upon its release the first Star Wars was not immediately considered a timeless classic of movie-history. As you rightly said it has been judged by history... All I'm concerned about is that Episode 1 got bashed - not only by critics (that's okay. It's the same as with New Hope) but by the "fans" as well. They deserve the time to breathe and to actually be judged by history.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Thats exactly the point! Upon its release the first Star Wars was not immediately considered a timeless classic of movie-history. As you rightly said it has been judged by history... All I'm concerned about is that Episode 1 got bashed - not only by critics (that's okay. It's the same as with New Hope) but by the "fans" as well. They deserve the time to breathe and to actually be judged by history.

While Star Wars was not immediately considered a timeless classic, it became one soon thereafter. It didn't take years.

It has been 12+ years since TPM came out.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Thats exactly the point! Upon its release the first Star Wars was not immediately considered a timeless classic of movie-history. As you rightly said it has been judged by history... All I'm concerned about is that Episode 1 got bashed - not only by critics (that's okay. It's the same as with New Hope) but by the "fans" as well. They deserve the time to breathe and to actually be judged by history.

But so far they have been judged. It's been 12 years Shaft, in 1989 (12 years later) Star Wars was already considered on of the greatest films of all time. Will episode I be judge better in 10 years? I dunno, but I personally think it was the best of the prequels even with the things I didn't like about it.

If the fans didn't like it then what can one do? As long as you like it that's all that matters.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Thats exactly the point! Upon its release the first Star Wars was not immediately considered a timeless classic of movie-history. As you rightly said it has been judged by history... All I'm concerned about is that Episode 1 got bashed - not only by critics (that's okay. It's the same as with New Hope) but by the "fans" as well. They deserve the time to breathe and to actually be judged by history.

That's not really accurate on either count.

For the most part critics didn't bash The Phantom Menace. The reception was restrained but generally positive.

As for Star Wars, critics all over the world went absolutely apeshit...they loved it.

[JasonWard]

That comparison doesn't really work anyways. Still, by 1989, Star Wars was as dead as a doornail. Whereas today it is living and breathing. So that classic status you're talking about might not really be that great after all.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Thats exactly the point! Upon its release the first Star Wars was not immediately considered a timeless classic of movie-history. As you rightly said it has been judged by history... All I'm concerned about is that Episode 1 got bashed - not only by critics (that's okay. It's the same as with New Hope) but by the "fans" as well. They deserve the time to breathe and to actually be judged by history.

Market oversaturation has killed any chance of the Phantom Menace becoming a classic. After ROTJ there was very little Star Wars in any form for close to 15 years. Unfortunatly, that is not the case with the PT. They have very little chance of becoming classics if Lucas keeps churning out product. There needs to be a gap there.

Also, the PT has a middle chapter that was really poorly recieved which also hurts the overall chances of the PT being considered classic films. I love the PT and ROTS but AOTC is just not very good. A middle chapter is EVERYTHING in a trilogy. If it is great (i.e. EBS, Two Towers, Back to the Future 2) your film series can and will become a classic. IF it sucks (ATOC, Matrix Reloaded, Transformers 2) then your films will be forgotten or considered unimportant. The Matrix was a great movie before its sequel... Now, its just the Matrix....

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by JasonWard

That comparison doesn't really work anyways. Still, by 1989, Star Wars was as dead as a doornail. Whereas today it is living and breathing. So that classic status you're talking about might not really be that great after all.

How was it dead? Just because you revive a film series it does not make it great or even better for that matter.....in 1989 Star Wars was already held on that Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, King Kong plateau. Is Casablanca dead? Is Citizen Kane dead? Is The Godfather dead? Come on...why is Star Wars any different? Are these films supposed to be front page news forever? New films come along, new fads. Star Wars to my generatation was replaced by LOTR in the next generation and I am sure someday soon their will be another thing that comes along; maybe it was Avatar and its sequel? Maybe something else.....

Originally Posted by jay444

Also, the PT has a middle chapter that was really poorly recieved which also hurts the overall chances of the PT being considered classic films. I love the PT and ROTS but AOTC is just not very good. A middle chapter is EVERYTHING in a trilogy. If it is great (i.e. EBS, Two Towers, Back to the Future 2) your film series can and will become a classic. IF it sucks (ATOC, Matrix Reloaded, Transformers 2) then your films will be forgotten or considered unimportant. The Matrix was a great movie before its sequel... Now, its just the Matrix....

(IMHO)
When I walked out of AToC I felt it was so bad that ROTS had to hit a home run to save this series. Sadly in my eyes it just missed for me. It was dark, it was better than Clones but It was just not good enough to save it all and because it still suffered from some of the same flaws that Clones did.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by shelldweller

If The Phantom Menace came out in 1977 it would be considered one of the greatest films of all time today. A New Hope holds the special status because it was the first of the series and opened up the Saga which Star Wars is today. A New Hope and The Empire strikes back are great movies in no matter what incarnation... that goes for all six of them. Time will tell but it is more likely that the OOT will be considered just a footnote once the complete Saga is out for this and future generations to enjoy.

Let´s get to the facts. A New Hope is the 4th Episode in a larger six part Saga that is Star Wars. It´s really not that important when they came out. They are out now and if people could put their nostalgia aside they could enjoy and understand what Star Wars was all about in the first place.

Besides, it is 2011 and you (or anyone) could never possibly experience Star Wars the way it was experienced in 1977. You can not ignore over 30 years of movie history. Times change!

Times change, but (in most cases) the movies, themselves don't. The experience of the viewer may change with time, depending on how "dated" the movie becomes, how the viewer changes over time. But the one thing that remains constant in most cases is the movie, itself. That's what the point of preserving art as is.

Changing the movies, themselves, isn't going to recreate the experience of 1977 either. It's going to make the experience more different than it already is due to the passage of time and people aging. Altering the films is just make the matter worse.

Your last sentence here is very ironic. You seem to be ignoring over 30 years of movie history by arguing that only the most updated versions should be watched, recognized, and made available.



As for how future generations will view these films, I think the complete Saga may be the way that the next couple/few generations see these movies, but despite the much higher level of recognition and popularity that Star Wars has had, sooner or later it will fade into the background like all films more or less inevitably do over time.

Look at some classics like Citizen Kane and Gone With the Wind. Granted, there are a lot of people on this site who are film enthusiasts who care about these movies. And many such enthusiasts care about them beyond simply watching them. They look at them from the historical context of their time (i.e. Citizen Kane is based around an actual newspaper tycoon from that time era, and many people who currently appreciate the film are more than aware of this).
But do you think that most random, average people in their teens, 20s, or even 30s really cares that much about those movies? My guess is no. It's just part of the natural course of time.


Star Wars, due to a number of factors (what a break through the originals were, the fact that the PT was made more recently, amongst many other reasons), has simply experienced a much longer life in the public conciousness than most movies and movie series often do.

These films will still be popular for some time to come, don't get me wrong. However, unless more is done (such as further, new Star Wars movies being made) to keep things fresh and new, and the movies and franchise just remain stagnent, having nothing new happening with them short of the occasional home video re-release, it will fade from the "lime light" that it still has today. Once this starts to happen, gradually each new generation will likely have less and less of an interest in the movies as the generation before it as they will be far more interested in whatever forms of entertainment are dominating the lime-light of pop culture in their life time (and will be more nostalgic for those things later in life).

Eventually the people who will "care" about Star Wars will be film enthusiasts. And they won't just simply sit back and watch the films in and of themselves. They will be interested in the history behind them. And thanks to the internet, there's more than enough info out there documenting which films were made first, the various changes and versions that have come and gone, and the contraversy surrounding the OT changes and the PT in general. There WILL come a point where this is how Star Wars is remembered. It's only a matter of time.

The only way that Star Wars will be more than this in the future is if it is remade or some kind of new entertainment is done with it decades from now (long after Lucas has "passed on"). And if the new entertainment is a complete remake of the films, or something that completely stands on it's own, odds are the average people of the time will only care about that current incarnation and won't care about the older films.... with those only being appreciated by a select few.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Jay444

Exactly, no idea why anyone is complaining about the new films being call prequels. That is what they are... They are sequels to an original work that chronoglocially takes place before the original pieces. Sorta like Temple of Doom was a prequel. Doesn't mean its lesser in quaility, just means it takes place before the previously released film's events.

Anyway, even the preorder pages call one set the Prequel Trilogy and the other the Original Trilogy. There really isn't a debate here. Its pretty dumb to argue over it to be honest.

prequel is more of a marketing thing anyways, and horrible misused. some article said Smallville was a prequel to the superman movies which it isn't. look at the first 2 indiana jones movies - do you really care which one takes place first? does one impact the other? it has been a while since i watched them but as far as i remember,you can watch them in either order and they still make sense so who cares if one is a prequel or a sequel? it is all marketing. truthfully, 2-6 are all sequels since the events in episode 1 set everything in motion - if you didn't know when they came out and just sat down to watch them, that is how you would feel. it all depends on your perspective. my perspective - "look, they made 6 star wars movies!"

in the meantime, anyone hear of exclusives or anything for the release? there always seems to be something with a star wars release, i would be surprised if they didn't have one for the bluray(maybe a new jar-jar action figure)

[Shaft Windu]

Originally Posted by Jay444

Market oversaturation has killed any chance of the Phantom Menace becoming a classic. After ROTJ there was very little Star Wars in any form for close to 15 years. Unfortunatly, that is not the case with the PT. They have very little chance of becoming classics if Lucas keeps churning out product. There needs to be a gap there.

Also, the PT has a middle chapter that was really poorly recieved which also hurts the overall chances of the PT being considered classic films. I love the PT and ROTS but AOTC is just not very good. A middle chapter is EVERYTHING in a trilogy. If it is great (i.e. EBS, Two Towers, Back to the Future 2) your film series can and will become a classic. IF it sucks (ATOC, Matrix Reloaded, Transformers 2) then your films will be forgotten or considered unimportant. The Matrix was a great movie before its sequel... Now, its just the Matrix....

Oh my! That's all so terribly subjective. I was not that impressed by the first "Matrix". I thought it was okay... As the "Matrix Reloaded" came along it blew me away and became my favorite. LotR on the other hand has a very weak middle chapter. Especially in the movie-adaption because they dropped that great Cliffhanger-ending. AotC is my favourite Star Wars Episode... So this construct only works for you.

Originally Posted by Cowboy

How was it dead? Just because you revive a film series it does not make it great or even better for that matter.....in 1989 Star Wars was already held on that Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, King Kong plateau. Is Casablanca dead? Is Citizen Kane dead? Is The Godfather dead? Come on...why is Star Wars any different? Are these films supposed to be front page news forever? New films come along, new fads. Star Wars to my generatation was replaced by LOTR in the next generation and I am sure someday soon their will be another thing that comes along; maybe it was Avatar and its sequel? Maybe something else.....

Casablanca, King Kong, Citizen Kane and so on stem from the golden age of cinema and A New Hope, Jaws, The Godfather from the silver age. There were not that many movies back then... More or less one or two "Big Hits" or "Blockbusters". Movies from the last 20 years have a really hard time to be considered classics like the before mentioned. "Silence Of The Lambs", "The Dark Knight" or "The Sixth Sense" were brilliant movies - but are they considered "classic movies" like Casablanca? I doubt it...

LotR will always stand in the shadow of the books and could have been much better. Avatar is just a dumb movie. The closest to Star Wars in my mind came The Matrix-Trilogy because it also combined great effects with an equally great story and multilayered philosophical subtext.

[Ernest Rister]

The word "prequels" has become a derogatory insult? When did that happen?

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

That's the difference between us. Language is a powerful tool and if you constantly degrade Episodes 1-3 as "Prequels" or "Footnotes" they won't get the space to breathe and blossom that the older movies had in their time.

Prequel is just a description for what it is, it's not supposed to be derogatory or degrading. It's just a word that means it came before something else. It's an indicator of where something falls in the timeline of the IP. It was created after the old trilogy and takes place chronologically before it. What would you call it if not prequel trilogy?

There shouldn't be any negative connotations attached to the word prequel.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The word "prequels" has become a derogatory insult? When did that happen?

May 19th, 1999

[Show spoiler]come on, somebody had to

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Oh my! That's all so terribly subjective. I was not that impressed by the first "Matrix". I thought it was okay... As the "Matrix Reloaded" came along it blew me away and became my favorite. LotR on the other hand has a very weak middle chapter. Especially in the movie-adaption because they dropped that great Cliffhanger-ending. AotC is my favourite Star Wars Episode... So this construct only works for you.

Ohhh now I get it. We're just diametrically opposed on our opinions of movies.

I thought the original Matrix was great and Reloaded and Re... whatever-o-lations made me disavow even the first movie for quite some time. I could not stand either of them.

Aaaaaand I think The Two Towers is the best LOTR movie.

So yeah, we're just diametrically opposed, no sense having an argument or debating it, just different strokes.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Prequel is just a description for what it is, it's not supposed to be derogatory or degrading. It's just a word that means it came before something else. It's an indicator of where something falls in the timeline of the IP. It was created after the old trilogy and takes place chronologically before it. What would you call it if not prequel trilogy?

There shouldn't be any negative connotations attached to the word prequel.

There are 4 or 5 of us that have posted and reposted that concept but it appears to still be ungraspable.