I what sequence to watch the Star Wars films - revisited

[fgdj2000]

So, I've changed my mind on my original answer (first time: iv, v, vi, I, ii, iii, vii, viii, ix).

I'd say there is a lot of merit in the I-IX (specifically I-VI) order to watch the films in. I already talked about how I like the way the story arc unfolds in this order, but I'd like to address a few criticisms of the chronological order that I've heard over and over. 

1. It spoils the big twist in ESB:

Yes, it does, but it gains. I'd argue, that it is a far more interesting and consequential twist to follow Anakin (and Obi-Wan) throughout the prequels first, thinking they are the heroes, only to have Episode III drop the bomb and turn our hero into the main villain. It also impacts the Original Trilogy in a more significant way, because Luke is no longer our innocent hero, but he is also the son of the guy who f***ed everything up and he has many similar character traits (great pilot, whiny, impatient, prone to anger, very impatient, great attachment for those he cares about, and, in case I haven't mentioned it, very impatient). So, as a result, Luke turning to the dark side (a big story point in both ESB and ROTJ) becomes far more of a real possibility than if you just watch the OT, since it isn't something that could hypothetically happen, or has happened to someone else in the backstory, but that actually already has happened to the protagonist you've been watching. It might very well happen again. Whether intentional or not, it adds an interesting layer to the OT and in particular to the ESB scene, since the film doesn't leave on "is this actually true?", but on "what will this information do to Luke? How will he deal with this moving forward?" and it makes his darker appearance in ROTJ less cheesy and out of left field and more earned in the process. 

2. It spoils other surprises:

Mainly, this applies to Yoda and Leia as Luke's sister twist. Well, I honestly never quite bought into this romance, and I think it adds a really funny (in a good way) layer to Episode IV in particular, seeing Vader, Luke and Leia all being there at the same place, without anyone having a clue what's actually going on. Also, Luke and Leia in ANH and ESB tend to wear a very similar color scheme, which works even better in their sibling connection. It does add a creepy layer to Vader torturing Leia and to Leia kissing Luke, but honestly, I don't think much is lost here. As for Yoda, I think not much is lost. Uuuh, the funny little toad is actually a wise powerful Jedi. Sure, if your own perception is rigged for appearances only, it's powerful, but otherwise its main purpose is to uncover more of Luke's failings and it still works in chronological order. On top of that, there is a funny (unintentional?) layer of "Has Yoda actually gone senile or is he testing Luke?"-mystery for the audience. Which adds its own suspense, since, you know, what if the only hope for Luke to become a Jedi and save the galaxy is a person who has lost his marbles?

3. It doesn't properly explain the Force and the Jedi.

Now, that is an issue, but I would argue, that rather than telling, it shows us the Jedi and the Force. A chunk of Episode I's opening sequence shows us visually, what the Jedi are, what powers they have, what weapons they use, etc. We also learn throughout the film the state of the galaxy, the galactic republic, etc. all through action, not through two talking heads and a Nazi conference meeting. Granted, it would have been nice to add two sentences to the script where Qui-Non explains the Force to Anakin, but frankly, I think "intelligent" people can deduce that it is some sort of cosmic energy field that the only the Jedi can tap into and manipulate and because of the huge power this gives you, they are forced to lead a monastic life.  

Last but not least I'd like to address the two big instances of shoehorning in C-3PO and Chewbacca into these prequel movies, which is utterly remedied in the chronological order. 
First:"Chewbacca, of all Wookiees is the one to help Yoda? What a coincidence!" Actually, in chronolical order it absolutely works. We're introduced to Chewbacca as just a seemingly one-off Wookiee in ROTS, who helps Yoda, then when he reappears again in ANH, it makes a lot of sense, because why else would Obi-Wan hit it off so well with the first co-pilot he talks to in Mos Eisley? Because Chewbacca helped the Jedi 20 years earlier and clearly they knew each other. Fridge Logic. 
Second: "Darth Vader made C-3PO as a boy? What a coincidence!" Only when you view it in release order. In chronological order, you see two characters, who start connected and eventually diverge considerably. It becomes a great secondary function of 3PO to punctuate just how drastically Vader has changed, especially when pairing 3PO up with Vader's ignorant children. It's quite natural and interesting.


I honestly think the prequels are severely underrated. And people don't ask the "why did Lucas not make them the way I would have?"-question. There are many cool moments that you just miss (compare the shots of Qui-Non dying in Episode I, starting a pivotal chain of events that is ended by the moment Vader lies in Luke's arms in Episode VI, which is almost an exact mirror image of the earlier shot), that aren't just references, but also have meaning (Mace Windu threatening Palpatine in Episode III is almost the same shot as Vader threatening Luke in Episode V, and they give nuance and context particularly to the Ep III shot, because Windu is also acting in a wrong way, letting himself be corrupted by the dark side and his fear of Palpatine's power). There is also a crazy theory out there called the Star Wars ring theory, and while I do think they are bending the "evidence", I do think there is a lot going on in how the films are structured and made that actually works and remains unseen, because people focus too much on the dialogue or ask for minutiae that no one in their right mind would ask about a fairy tale story like Star Wars (like "How does the senate work, exactly?" or "What does the Trade Federation gain by helping Sidious" - there are a number of obvious answers and none of them matter for the story Lucas is telling, hence he left it out; I mean nobody but nitpickers asked in 1977 how they could generate that amount of energy for the Death Star or how they got hold of all the materials).

So, is everybody wrong for disliking them? Are people dumb? I wouldn't say that, rather, the prequels are maybe too high-concept for their own good. I guess Lucas payed too much attention to these minutiae of filmmaking, narrative construction etc. to forget to tell the story in an engaging way. The OT was much simpler and more relatable. After all, people can easily identify with standing up, fighting for freedom and finding your way, coming of age, than being corrupted by evil into a morally bankrupt individual and society. And somehow he didn't always clarify what he wanted to portray (Until TCW people didn't know whether the Jedi were meant to be the paragon of justice or lost in their ways; was Anakin and Padmé meant to be or just an unhealthy relationship?). I think those are the failings of the prequels, not necessarily the stuff everyone else is complaining about.

[A.G.]

I think the biggest reason to watch 4-6 first is simply because it’s better. I like elements of Ep 1. But Ep 2 is simply unwatchable. Ep 3 is ok, but definitely trivialized the importance of Jedi and The Force. Those elements felt special in the originals. But in the prequels they are overplayed. Hell, kids with lightsabers?! Hard pass.

Prequels are a dangerous thing. Look at Metal Gear and the controversy those “missing links” caused. There is also a matter of style that must be considered. It’s not just plot. How do these movies and games feel. There is no question that MPO, MPW and MGS5 had their own style, and with that a different feel. MG1-MGS4 had a very distinct style of presentation that felt specific to those 6 games. Much like like there is a big difference between the original SW trilogy and the prequel trilogy. And that’s where the rift tends to happen. If you strongly associate yourself with one style, you won’t be as receptive to a change when it starts to impact the canon. Not to say that writing isn’t a factor though. Medichlorians and Vocal Parasites anyone? 😁 None for me, thanks!

[Cerberus_0408]

Sequels are also a dangerous thing, tho. Look at Episode 7. it's essentially a rehash of ANH. JJ Abrams directed it and ROS, but then Colin Trevorrow took over for TLJ. That's the thing that I hate about these movies. The same director doesn't stick to his job, it gets passed to somebody else. I can't accept any of the new stuff. Especially given how Episode 9 essentially rips off the climax in Avengers 4.
To anybody who supports the new trilogy, I only have one thing to say: "May the Fools be with you!"

[A.G.]

The new trilogy didn’t really know what it wanted to be. What’s funny is that the folks in charge simply didn’t understand what made the original work. Simplicity. It was a simple adventure story with strong characters. Nothing fancy, storytelling 101. No subverting expectations or pushing hidden agendas... just a fun adventure story.

[fgdj2000]

I think the biggest reason to watch 4-6 first is simply because it’s better. I like elements of Ep 1. But Ep 2 is simply unwatchable. Ep 3 is ok, but definitely trivialized the importance of Jedi and The Force. Those elements felt special in the originals. But in the prequels they are overplayed. Hell, kids with lightsabers?! Hard pass.

Depends. I still think the issue is that people generally had high expectations for those and were no longer impressionable children and that conflated to them disliking these films. Not that disliking is an issue b itself, but the hate that people throw at it and "informed" arguments in why they're objectively bad, without ever asking the question "why did Lucas made it that way?". Again, if you didn't like it, fine, walk away. But if you are RLM and make about 4-5 hours of video analyses about these films, maybe it's a good idea drop the hooker jokes and try to understand what Lucas wanted to do. You can still disagree with his choices then. But as it is it's just child whining in an adult body using sometimes sophisticated articulation.

Prequels are a dangerous thing. Look at Metal Gear and the controversy those “missing links” caused.

What controversy? Only MGSV caused a controversy in my memory. And that didn't have to do with it being a prequel, but with people feeling the game was incomplete and lacking in the storytelling department. And, of course, the whole issue with the way Kojima leaving Konami happened. MPO and MPW met a positive reception and even acclaim, although due to how few units the PSP had sold, they were generally not played but that many people in the West. And also regarded as meaningless spin-offs, as PSP titles of established franchises usually were.

There is also a matter of style that must be considered. It’s not just plot. How do these movies and games feel. There is no question that MPO, MPW and MGS5 had their own style, and with that a different feel. MG1-MGS4 had a very distinct style of presentation that felt specific to those 6 games. Much like like there is a big difference between the original SW trilogy and the prequel trilogy. And that’s where the rift tends to happen. If you strongly associate yourself with one style, you won’t be as receptive to a change when it starts to impact the canon. Not to say that writing isn’t a factor though. Medichlorians and Vocal Parasites anyone? 😁 None for me, thanks!

How are the prequels stylistically different from the OT? They do use different technologies, one using physical models, painted backgrounds and film, while the other relied on CGI, digital extensions and digital cameras. But I wouldn't consider this stylistic difference. In fact, Lucas was careful to use the same documentary-style in all six films, i.e. camera movies that you would find in a documentary, that seem improvised (static shots, pans, tilts, an occasional zoom) to feign realism. There are no flashbacks, no complicated camera shots (outside of one in Empire), nothing that "breaks" that style. Although digital technology allowed him to open up WHAT he can show. The most adventurous he gets is Anakin's visions in ROTS. The sequels actually break the style more than the prequels.

And for the style, I think you can argue MGS4 already broke the style of MG, through the use of a 360 degree camera, multiple locations and a heavily altered control scheme and a very different system for obtaining supplies. But that was rooted in the story. similarly any stylistic differences between classic MGS and Peace Walker came out of the technical limitations of the system. But apart from that, I don't see that many differences between MGS4 and PW in particular. Both have a stronger emphasis on shooting, though. MGSV is the one that was really quite different. Darker, more nuanced, more quiet (no pun intended), more open ended. So, I guess I can see your point here.

The new trilogy didn’t really know what it wanted to be. What’s funny is that the folks in charge simply didn’t understand what made the original work. Simplicity. It was a simple adventure story with strong characters. Nothing fancy, storytelling 101. No subverting expectations or pushing hidden agendas... just a fun adventure story.

True. Although I don't think this came from a lack of understanding the OT, but rather being to afraid to do their own thing too much and not having a plan. Look what happened to the one film that did actually try to do its own thing? People still sh*tstorm a comment section if the name "The Last Jedi" is only mentioned. So, playing it really safe with TROS was partly to blame on those fans (although LFL didn't have to give in to thus, if they even consciously did).

EDIT: The main problem is that the new trilogy doesn't really have a main theme, although it does tackle quite a few, especially TLJ. Legacy seems to play a big role, but I think Rey doesn't really struggle with her legacy (rather ancestry) until TROS. Ben Solo on the other clearly does, being descended from three great heroes and one great villain. The power of myths vs. the reality of the people behind them is also a big theme, particularly in TLJ, but I think doesn't really play a role in TFA and TROS. 
The original six films have a clear theme going through them: Ep. I-III is about corruption (the mistakes one generation makes throwing everything out of balance), Ep. IV-VI is about redemption (the efforts of the next generation to restore balance and order and redeem the mistakes of the past). Ep. VII-IX is partly about legacy (particularly repeating the mistakes of the past) but also reiterates the redemption aspect, and doesn't really add that much new to the thematic discussion. In Episode IX there isn't anything at the end that prevents history from repeating itself again, which could work if it were acknowledged by the film; but it isn't. And Episode VIII makes some quite powerful if not exactly original statements about reality vs myth and the power the latter can have, although it isn't really picked up on in Episode IX.

I still like the new trilogy for Rey, Kylo Ren and Luke and their stories, but they do feel tagged on and sometimes thematically incoherent.