which should've came first? PT or OT?

Seriously?!

This option of yours is one that must ignore the fact of history. The PT could not have been made in 1979.

The PT would have to have been made in the last ten years, and, in that case, people would have probably been impressed by a use of special effects they had never seen before (assuming nobody had made something like Star Wars by that point), but they still would have thought the movies were stupid, dumbed-down flicks with bad acting, bad dialogue, and very little emotional attachment.

Hmmm I'm trying to figure out ways to write this but my brain is failing me at the moment.

The prequel trilogy is the back story so it doesn't really exist with out the main story that is the OT.

When Lucas wrote the story for his science fiction fantasy movie The Star Wars he came up with an outline for the universe of sorts. A back story for General Kenobi and Luke's Father and the grand republic before the tyrannical Empire.

It was used to help flesh out the characters and universe a little bit. That's it.

When that one movie became successful he used what little story he hadn't used and made two sequels. Creating an empire himself he thought he could do one or two sequel trilogies and using his outline a trilogy set before SW based on the adventures of young Ben Kenobi.

That outline became pretty useless after SW '77 anyway. Before that Vader and Luke's Father were two different people and the Empire was corrupt bureaucracy not a successful Sith plot to take over the universe.

So based on all this I don't think your hypothetical can be answered.

edit: when I was talking about my brain failing me I was trying to think of a literary or even a film comparison.

So far I can't think of anything maybe some one can help me out.

Hehe, imagine if episode one had been made in 1979 with the effects budget of the original Star Wars (all the dialogue, plotline, and acting the same). It would have been an expensive kid's movie at best and a laughable waste of time at worst. :)

Umm that's twice you've said 1979. Are you getting the confused with the fact Star Wars was released in 1977 and Episode 1 was released in 1999?

Come on Tiptup you know better than that ;)

Yeah, I know I'm inspired to say, "Aww," every time I see the prequel trilogy.  ^_~

Hypothesis: The PT came first, thus being known as the OT. The Sequel Trilogy was made later.

Outcome:

Lucas really lost the plot with the ST. After all, the sequel trilogy spends almost four hours beating around the bush about Vader's identity. I mean, c'mon, we know he's the father of these two twenty-something "heroes," why doesn't Lucas just come out and say it at the beginning? Why do a "big reveal" to reveal something we already know? Vader's revelation in ESB clearly shocks the Luke character, but the audience feels nothing--except perhaps a little mocking derision towards Luke--because we've known this for years. Yawn.

The sequel trilogy's lame attempts at pacing also touch Yoda. Yoda is introduced as a mysterious figure in Empire, and successfully tricks Luke into believing he's a crazy old hermit. (Aside: What an idiot this Luke kid is! Nothing at all like Anakin.) And then there's a "big reveal" when we discover that Yoda is Yoda. Big deal! We in the audience have known who Yoda is for decades, Luke just looks stupid for not knowing that. How much ground from the OT do we have to cover before these new characters are up to speed?

Lucas tries the same boring "slow reveal" thing with Jabba and Palpatine. They get talked about in the first movie, then you briefly see Palpatine (or what is supposed to be Palpatine) in the second, and finally they are revealed in the third ... but why? We all saw Jabba in Episode 1, and we saw Palpatine in all three of the original movies. Treating the ultimate villain as something to be slowly revealed is just melodramatic and lacks the cinema verite quality that made the original Star Wars trilogy so great, doing away with all those pretentions of dramatic structure.

Finally, the last scene in Return of the Jedi was just insulting. After two GREAT performances by Hayden Christiansen, he's replaced by a geriatric no-name with a dopey grin.

So, yeah, the ST sucks. But what really sucks is that Lucas refuses to release the OT in it's original, unaltered format. If he puts Sebastian Shaw in Attack of the Clones, I may scream.

^^ That's comedy gold right there.

rcb said:

The special effects would've been seen as aww inspiring! it would've been redone a hundred freaking times. we'd be bashing the OT instead of the PT to put it simply.

If you are so firm in your belief that this would be the case why did you ask the question in the first place?

What many new SW fans don't understand about the success of Star Wars '77 is the story and characters was just as much the reason why it was beloved as the ground breaking effects.

Sure everyone was wowed in 1977 by special effects that were never seen on the big screen before, but the movie appealed to the non-sci fi movie fan, and that is why it is so beloved.  The characters were relatable, Han, Luke, and Leia could be anyone of us.  The story was simple, but still holds up today, as it was essentially a good vs evil story.

I think Lucas in his latter years failed to understand as he kept updating the films, is the reason Star Wars '77 is still beloved today by a mainstream audience, rather then just a SciFi Star Trek audience, is the effects were secondary to the great story and great characters, along with a great score.

see you auntie said:

Umm that's twice you've said 1979. Are you getting the confused with the fact Star Wars was released in 1977 and Episode 1 was released in 1999?

Come on Tiptup you know better than that ;)

Oh, terribly sorry, I wasn't looking closely enough. 1979 was when i was born and I must not have been thinking. :)

Interesting description and valid reasons why the prequels shouldn't be seen before the originals... there's just no sense in viewing them that way.  The only thing I have to take issue with is your mentioning of Sebastian Shaw.  Even though it was only a joke, in a world where the PT came first, Shaw wouldn't be a nobody but still a venerated British actor.

EDIT:  Whoops.  I forgot the logistical problems of that too!  Had the original trilogy been made in the last ten years, Sebastian Shaw wouldn't have even been alive to be in it!  Same goes for Alec Guiness... well, he could have been in the first one but not the sequels.  Hell, the entire cast would have been different since a 50 year old Mark Hamill wouldn't exactly be a fit a naive young farm boy.  Oh, and Hayden, who wasn't born yet, couldn't have been Anakin in this fantasy "OT."  ^_^

Kind of a silly debate, because it didn't happen that way, it is impossible to really know.

I am of the opinion that if The Phantom Menace was released in 1999 exactly as it was released, but without there ever having been an original trilogy, it would have met poor box office success. It would have been considered on par with most other kids action flicks. Without Star Wars having been a known and popular series, I really don't think it would have generated a whole lot of attention. Very likely sequels would not have even been made, but then again a lot of crappy movies get sequels. Of course, the prequels were so closely based off of the OT, it would be hard to imagine them existing without the OT having come first.

It is harder to imagine this scenario taking place back in 1977. Like someone else mentioned, it would be just another sci-fi movie. But it would have been a different movie entirely than the one we got.

Anyway, even if this was the case, I am not sure we would be complaining about the OT, which I guess we would call the ST, sequel trilogy. If it was as badly done as the PT was, then yeah, we might have a few gripes, but it really wouldn't be a big deal to me. Sequels continue a story, there are countless crappy sequels, but they are not near as annoying as prequels, because prequels go around and change the story you already new (to use a non SW example, we can look at ST: Enterprise. There was an episode where they ran into the Borg and nearly get assimilated all these years before Picard  made first contact with the Borg, which was suppose to be the very first anybody knew anything of them. Another episode had them run into some Ferangi, when once again, Picard and his crew go on a diplomatic mission to make first contact with the Ferangi all so many years later. These things screwed with continuity, and it pissed off fans. The PT did this same thing.

If there are any movies I dislike as much as AOTC, it is Terminator 3, and Alien Resurrection. Those are two other series I like alot, and both those movies are among the worse sequels the history of sequels has to offer. I simply do not watch those films, and my enjoyment of those series goes undeterred. For some reason, the prequels don't work the same. After seeing the two Hayden Christenson prequels, it was really hard to see Darth Vader the same way again.

Also, rcb, your theory seems to think that we hate the prequels simply because they are not the OT and for no other reason. This is why your logic tells you that if the PT=OT and OT=PT, then we would hate the OT and love the PT. But this is forgetting the important fact that the PT films were simply terrible awful films, from writing, to acting, to the very way they were filmed, they simply sucked. If the hypothetical OT that came out when the PT did because the PT came out when OT did, sucked as much as the real PT did, then I am sure many of us would have hated it, but I am sure we would not still be talking about it.

Hmm, hypothetically speaking, is the hypothetical 1977-83 PT on DVD in its original unaltered form and in anamorphic widescreen?

A backstory is just that a backstory.  It is notes that the novelist or screenwriter writes down to give the stories a kind of historical depth.

Like Tolkien had ages of middle Earth before you get to the story of Frodo in Lord of the Rings.  A fictional backstory is a framing device of sorts.  It tells you about the world its people, who they are what they are etc.  These are usually only for the authors benefit and never shown.

The original 400 page Rough Draft script is the actual Blue Print for the entire star wars saga. 

It stars Annikin Starkiller as the Hero.  Whose Father is Kane Starkiller.  Who's Love Interest is a Princess Leia but not the sister Leia.  Who's father Kane Starkiller entrusts the training of Annikin to his friend Old General Luke Skywalker the protype of Obi wan Kenobi.  Han Solo exists in the script as a spice runner and is a slimy alien with gills and no nose and in another draft called Jabba the Hut.  The lightsaber Is called a lazersword (lucas spelling).  There is an evil dictator with a wicked moustache called cos dashit.  His right hand men are general Vader and Prince Valorum a Black Knight of the Sith, who in the end switches sides to join the good guys because the bad guys lack an honor code.

Lucas never actually wrote the young days of ben Kenobi or Lukes Father and just thought it might make a neat idea for a film somewhere down the line.  When he mentioned this idea back in the seventies to the person Interviewing him for Rolling Stone magazine Luke's Father and Darth Vader were still 2 seperate people.

Just to be a pedant, let me point out that Tolkien's "backstory" was written before he had ever thought of hobbits, and was always intended for publication. It evolved a great deal over the decades, but he always planned on people reading it some day.

I still stick by my statement though Despite the very personal Connection Tolkien had to the Silmarillion the real meat of the story come into play in Lord of the Rings.  Similar to the Meat of the Story in Star wars Being the films now known as IV-V-VI.

People like me who are huge tolkien fans and go for source hunting and enjoy the backdrop of feigned history in fiction may get into the Silmarillion, though the Majority of Readers love The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and cannot abide the Silmarllion.  Christopher Tolkien said they call it the Old Testament.

Someone like Stephen King gives no apology over his literary Critcism that Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece and reading the Silmarillion was a bore like reading a dictionary.  I don't agree with his statement but it seems to fall in line with the general opinion of readers. 

Tolkien Believed the same people who hated and could not understand Beowulf would also hate The Silmarllion. I like beowulf and the Silmarillion myself so i come down on Tolkiens side and not the side of the Literati as they call themselves who choose what is literature and what is not.  They banished LOTR as being not real literature so they can go fuck themselves as far as i am concerned.

If they prefer Joyce Ulysees to Tolkien then thats their problem.

skyjedi2005 said:

I still stick by my statement though Despite the very personal Connection Tolkien had to the Silmarillion the real meat of the story come into play in Lord of the Rings.  Similar to the Meat of the Story in Star wars Being the films now known as IV-V-VI.

Hmm, well, the "meat" of a story can be a very subjective thing. While most fans of Tolkien's work would consider the Lord of the Rings his best stuff, I personally think the Hobbit was a better work (and the best that I've read). In Tolkien's mind, however, I'm convinced he thought his most meaty portion was the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings was more of a return to the world he created in it.

Does anyone think the fans are too hard on Lucas though?

Look at the people who he worked with and what they did since.  Kershner Directed Never Say Never Again.  A non Ion Canon Bond Film.  Which sucked Hardcore other than It being cool to see connery again and the women in it.  Bad Knockoff of a pretty good film called thunderball.

Kasden went on to make a cheapie horror movie based on a Stephen King novel.  Never wrote another good script after Raiders and Empire Strikes Back.  The Critics Liked Body Heat's script and Direction but i never saw it so i cannot comment on it.

The Huycks went on to write Radioland Murders, Howard the Duck, and Temple of doom.

Kurtz did practically nothing after leaving Lucasfilm except Dark Crystal and Return to OZ.  That is more than the others have done sucessfully.

Hamill became a voice actor and never got the chance to be the leading star again of a movie.  Carrie Fisher gained weight and lost her mind to drugs and depression for several years.

The only Person i know of Who survived the Lucas/star wars curse was Harrison Ford. 

He made a lot of action movies and movies where he did actually act in them.

Once his career was in the toilet after Hollywood Homicide and Firewall he came back to Lucas to do Indiana Jones IV cause he needs the money from years of non money makers.

Star Wars almost cost Lucas his friendship with Francis Ford Coppola according to Dale Pollock, and Star Wars did cost him his marriage.

So you cannot stay young and at the top of your game forever.  Eventually your Later works become pale shadows of the successes of younger days.

Lucas is not the exception to the rule.  It happens with Movie Stars and Rock Stars too.

Lucas could try and go back to his Maverick Filmaker days and make those Experimental Films he's been talking up for years and Reclaim his street cred.  American Graffiti and Star Wars came out of being in touch with his youth.  THX 1138 and his student films came out of a sense of montage and cine verite of the french new wave experimental films.  He and Coppola at Zoetrope in San Francisco had a dream to make small personal films to effect a generation until Zoetrope died.  Coppola regrouped and made the Godfather a movie he did not want to make to get him out of debt.   Eventually Francis would reestablish Zoetrope but it was not the same old Bohemian Filmakers society of old.  The new Zoetrope was Hollywood and Lucas had his own company Lucasfilm LTd and wanted nothing of hollywood.  All his friends have to make their films on Hollywoods Terms.  To this day he remains independant from the system.  He has tried to get his friends to abandon the system and join him in his rebellion against hollywood.

He was confused as to why Spielberg Decided to work for Universal, and set up Amblin in hollywood.  and later dreamworks another studio following the set rules of hollywood.  Martin Scorcese makes his films also in the studio system he needs the studio backing and funding to get his films made. 

Lucas desire to abandon film and adopt digital High definition video is another point of being independant from the system as well as a cost cutting issue.  He wants Scorcese and Spielberg to do the same.

With HD Video he can develop the Rushes or the dailies on his own personal network of computers instead of having to go to a Film Processing lab.  The Turn around time is non existant he can watch what he films on monitors and watch the days takes later as he wants.  In the past Dailies were really weeklies.  With digital you can watch them within realtime.