logo Sign In

What's the best order to use when watching the Star Wars saga? — Page 4

Author
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

For someone who has never seen SW (or for someone who has, for that matter), I can't imagine a 6-movie marathon.  That would be exhauting to the point of torture.  I remember back in about 1985 when a local theater did the 3 movie marathon (4,5,6), and that alone is 9 hours and by partway through the 3rd movie I was mentally done and so was just about everyone else in the theater.  You're talking 18 straight hours which is borderline unhealthy.

If you mean a 2 or 3 night "marathon", I still think 456123 is the most logical sequence, because it is the order they came out in theaters.  No reveals are spoiled, and the progression of movie-making techniques and styles would be less jarring.

 Is not literally a marathon, it will be a 3 night split, 2 per night.

Beatleboy99 said:

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but watching Sith before Jedi does spoil the reveal that Luke and Leia are siblings

 Good point.

TV's Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

For someone who has never seen SW (or for someone who has, for that matter), I can't imagine a 6-movie marathon.

 That's because we're old, you and I. ;-)

 I don't know how old are you guy bout count me in, I'm definitely not a kid anymore. ;)

RicOlie_2 said:

Good point. Jabba the Hutt's reveal being spoiled has also been mentioned. I agree that for a first time viewer, the best order is the release order--no question about it.

 It's decided, I'll use the 4,5,6,1,2,3 order with her, I'll show her the DEED for 4,5,6 and the regular BR for 1,2,3

<span>The statement below is true
The statement above is false</span>

Author
Time

dclarkg said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

For someone who has never seen SW (or for someone who has, for that matter), I can't imagine a 6-movie marathon.  That would be exhauting to the point of torture.  I remember back in about 1985 when a local theater did the 3 movie marathon (4,5,6), and that alone is 9 hours and by partway through the 3rd movie I was mentally done and so was just about everyone else in the theater.  You're talking 18 straight hours which is borderline unhealthy.

If you mean a 2 or 3 night "marathon", I still think 456123 is the most logical sequence, because it is the order they came out in theaters.  No reveals are spoiled, and the progression of movie-making techniques and styles would be less jarring.

 Is not literally a marathon, it will be a 3 night split, 2 per night.

 I wouldn't nitpick your grammar if "literally" wasn't such an abused word, but a literal marathon would be a long distance run of however long it is. You could use "really" or "actually" instead (e.g. "It won't actually be a marathon") since those words aren't as strong as "literally," and can allow for a figurative meaning (now I'm going to have people nitpicking over the definitions of "really" and "actually" :P).

</grammar lesson>

Carry on....

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

For someone who has never seen SW (or for someone who has, for that matter), I can't imagine a 6-movie marathon.  That would be exhauting to the point of torture.  I remember back in about 1985 when a local theater did the 3 movie marathon (4,5,6), and that alone is 9 hours and by partway through the 3rd movie I was mentally done and so was just about everyone else in the theater.  You're talking 18 straight hours which is borderline unhealthy.

If you mean a 2 or 3 night "marathon", I still think 456123 is the most logical sequence, because it is the order they came out in theaters.  No reveals are spoiled, and the progression of movie-making techniques and styles would be less jarring.

 Is not literally a marathon, it will be a 3 night split, 2 per night.

 I wouldn't nitpick your grammar if "literally" wasn't such an abused word, but a literal marathon would be a long distance run of however long it is. You could use "really" or "actually" instead (e.g. "It won't actually be a marathon") since those words aren't as strong as "literally," and can allow for a figurative meaning (now I'm going to have people nitpicking over the definitions of "really" and "actually" :P).

Carry on....

 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marathon

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

For someone who has never seen SW (or for someone who has, for that matter), I can't imagine a 6-movie marathon.  That would be exhauting to the point of torture.  I remember back in about 1985 when a local theater did the 3 movie marathon (4,5,6), and that alone is 9 hours and by partway through the 3rd movie I was mentally done and so was just about everyone else in the theater.  You're talking 18 straight hours which is borderline unhealthy.

If you mean a 2 or 3 night "marathon", I still think 456123 is the most logical sequence, because it is the order they came out in theaters.  No reveals are spoiled, and the progression of movie-making techniques and styles would be less jarring.

 Is not literally a marathon, it will be a 3 night split, 2 per night.

 I wouldn't nitpick your grammar if "literally" wasn't such an abused word, but a literal marathon would be a long distance run of however long it is. You could use "really" or "actually" instead (e.g. "It won't actually be a marathon") since those words aren't as strong as "literally," and can allow for a figurative meaning (now I'm going to have people nitpicking over the definitions of "really" and "actually" :P).

Carry on....

 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marathon

 You just got Frink'd.

Author
Time

Nope. A literal marathon is the race. The other definitions of marathon (other than the place, obviously) are figurative derivatives of the literal meaning.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Nope. A literal marathon is the race. The other definitions of marathon (other than the place, obviously) are figurative derivatives of the literal meaning.

 This guy's first language isn't even English, so I think you can give him a break in this regard.

Author
Time

Alright, maybe he doesn't want it, but I know what it's like to be a second language speaker, and I would want people to correct me, especially on things I wouldn't be able to figure out without being told. I don't plan on picking apart his grammar at every opportunity unless he asks for it, though. And apologies to him if he didn't want it. :P

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said: Is not literally a marathon, it will be a 3 night split, 2 per night.

 I wouldn't nitpick your grammar if "literally" wasn't such an abused word, but a literal marathon would be a long distance run of however long it is. You could use "really" or "actually" instead (e.g. "It won't actually be a marathon") since those words aren't as strong as "literally," and can allow for a figurative meaning (now I'm going to have people nitpicking over the definitions of "really" and "actually" :P).

Carry on....

 As you can see, I said is NOT literally a marathon :p

TV's Frink said:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marathon

 Yeah I was going for the 2nd one, If we get technical the original source of the word is a place where the battle of Marathon took place and not an actual race :P

RicOlie_2 said:

Nope. A literal marathon is the race. The other definitions of marathon (other than the place, obviously) are figurative derivatives of the literal meaning.

I thought that we had already established that isn't literally a ''marathon'' when we included 6 movies in the same sentence. :P

Handman said:

 This guy's first language isn't even English, so I think you can give him a break in this regard.

My first language is Spanish, the funny part is that both my father and grandfather are from USA

RicOlie_2 said:

Alright, maybe he doesn't want it, but I know what it's like to be a second language speaker, and I would want people to correct me, especially on things I wouldn't be able to figure out without being told. I don't plan on picking apart his grammar at every opportunity unless he asks for it, though. And apologies to him if he didn't want it. :P

 Hey not a problem, I appreciate it. Feel free to point me out any errors in my grammar, I'm sure I make mistakes all the time without realizing it so any help is welcome. At lest in this case I knew it wasn't literally a marathon but I was trying to use the broad meaning of the word ;)

<span>The statement below is true
The statement above is false</span>

Author
Time

dclarkg said:

RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said: Is not literally a marathon, it will be a 3 night split, 2 per night.

 I wouldn't nitpick your grammar if "literally" wasn't such an abused word, but a literal marathon would be a long distance run of however long it is. You could use "really" or "actually" instead (e.g. "It won't actually be a marathon") since those words aren't as strong as "literally," and can allow for a figurative meaning (now I'm going to have people nitpicking over the definitions of "really" and "actually" :P).

Carry on....

 As you can see, I said is NOT literally a marathon :p

Alright, you got me there. :P

RicOlie_2 said:

Alright, maybe he doesn't want it, but I know what it's like to be a second language speaker, and I would want people to correct me, especially on things I wouldn't be able to figure out without being told. I don't plan on picking apart his grammar at every opportunity unless he asks for it, though. And apologies to him if he didn't want it. :P

 Hey, not a problem, I appreciate it. Feel free to point me out to me any errors in my grammar; I'm sure I make mistakes all the time without realizing it so any help is welcome. At least in this case I knew it wasn't literally a marathon but I was trying to use the broad meaning of the word. ;)

 I'm glad that I didn't come of as an annoying know-it-all. (Also, minor punctuation errors, a typo, and one other small mistake corrected for you ;P.)

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said:

RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said: Is not literally a marathon, it will be a 3 night split, 2 per night.

 I wouldn't nitpick your grammar if "literally" wasn't such an abused word, but a literal marathon would be a long distance run of however long it is. You could use "really" or "actually" instead (e.g. "It won't actually be a marathon") since those words aren't as strong as "literally," and can allow for a figurative meaning (now I'm going to have people nitpicking over the definitions of "really" and "actually" :P).

Carry on....

 As you can see, I said is NOT literally a marathon :p

Alright, you got me there. :P

RicOlie_2 said:

Alright, maybe he doesn't want it, but I know what it's like to be a second language speaker, and I would want people to correct me, especially on things I wouldn't be able to figure out without being told. I don't plan on picking apart his grammar at every opportunity unless he asks for it, though. And apologies to him if he didn't want it. :P

 Hey, not a problem, I appreciate it. Feel free to point me out to me any errors in my grammar; I'm sure I make mistakes all the time without realizing it so any help is welcome. At least in this case I knew it wasn't literally a marathon but I was trying to use the broad meaning of the word. ;)

 I'm glad that I didn't come of as an annoying know-it-all. (Also, minor punctuation errors, a typo, and one other small mistake corrected for you ;P.)

 I understand that some people may take it the wrong way but no problem here :)

I wasn't sure about the use of ''me'' on that sentence, in ''least'' it was a typo, I have a mild degree of dyslexia so I tend to omit letters. Thx again :)

<span>The statement below is true
The statement above is false</span>

Author
Time

"Point me out" isn't a biggy, since native English speakers sometimes word it like that. It isn't technically correct, however, because "point me out" means that you want me to point you out to someone (the following "any errors in my grammar" clarifies your meaning, so you could get away with using it).

Now I'd better slow down before this discussion turns into the official OT.com "Consult a Grammar Nazi" thread. ;)

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

"Point me out" isn't a biggy, since native English speakers sometimes word it like that. It isn't technically correct, however, because "point me out" means that you want me to point you out to someone (the following "any errors in my grammar" clarifies your meaning, so you could get away with using it).

Now I'd better slow down before this discussion turns into the official OT.com "Consult a Grammar Nazi" thread. ;)

 Got it haha

<span>The statement below is true
The statement above is false</span>

Author
Time

Beatleboy99 said:

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but watching Sith before Jedi does spoil the reveal that Luke and Leia are siblings

 not to mention it ruins what was a nice and intriguing moment, at least for me, in ROTJ when leia is asked about her real mother.

4-5-6 then 1-2-3 if you must see all.

but i think TPM can be skipped entirely.  and then re-edit ROTS so it goes from anakins surgery, skips any mention of padme dying or Bail adopting leia with his wife.

click here if lack of OOT got you down

Author
Time

dclarkg said:

I'm planning a new SW marathon (all 6 episodes) and I wanted to hear your opinions on the preferred order to do so. So far I like the so-called machete order (IV,V,I,II,III,VI). I've seen other order suggestions but the don't seem appealing including the regular 1 to 6 order. Also I feel that most of the people here hate (or at least dislike) the prequels but that aside I would like to know your input. Also there is the possibility to skip the episode I completely since plot-wise you won't be losing to much, I have the Phantom Edit/Attack of the phantom Cuts as well so should I skip episode I, watch the edit or watch the full original movie? I won't be skipping episode II but I should go for the full version or the edit version? I've never seen the edits of episodes I and II so I don't know if they are good enough or if I should stick with the originals.

I know how you feel, I'm planning a new Die Hard marathon, and there's so many of them I don't know which one I'm gonna see first. Any suggestion what's the best order? So far I like the so-called machine gun order (3, 1, 4, 2 ,5). I've also seen the Nakatomi-order but I'm leaning towards the Yippie-ki-yay, motherfucker! - order. Any suggestions?

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time

msycamore said:

dclarkg said:

I'm planning a new SW marathon (all 6 episodes) and I wanted to hear your opinions on the preferred order to do so. So far I like the so-called machete order (IV,V,I,II,III,VI). I've seen other order suggestions but the don't seem appealing including the regular 1 to 6 order. Also I feel that most of the people here hate (or at least dislike) the prequels but that aside I would like to know your input. Also there is the possibility to skip the episode I completely since plot-wise you won't be losing to much, I have the Phantom Edit/Attack of the phantom Cuts as well so should I skip episode I, watch the edit or watch the full original movie? I won't be skipping episode II but I should go for the full version or the edit version? I've never seen the edits of episodes I and II so I don't know if they are good enough or if I should stick with the originals.

I know how you feel, I'm planning a new Die Hard marathon, and there's so many of them I don't know which one I'm gonna see first. Any suggestion what's the best order? So far I like the so-called machine gun order (3, 1, 4, 2 ,5). I've also seen the Nakatomi-order but I'm leaning towards the Yippie-ki-yay, motherfucker! - order. Any suggestions?

 Well I recently watched them in release order with my girlfriend and it worked pretty well since it was the intended order and she was a first time SW viewer, I will try 4,5,1,2,3,6 in a few weeks and see how it works

<span>The statement below is true
The statement above is false</span>

Author
Time

Bumping for no other reason than to knock those stupid spam threads down and out of sight.

Author
Time

I would watch them in the order 4, 5, 6.

And stop right there.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

"Star Wars" is such a true classic, it's ranked by the AFI as the 13th best motion picture of all time.  Watching the prequels first is like watching Casablanca, but first watching a parody of the movie that  gives away everything that is going to happen in the original, sapping a lot of the drama from it.  It's the same reason that people who record a football game don't want to know the final score before they go home to watch it.

It's pretty irrelevent when and if you see the prequels - as long as you don't see them before Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.

Actually, watching the prequels first would be like watching a parody of Casablanca that tells you Rick and Ilsa had already met in America, then he knew she was married to Lazlo, with Jar Jar Binks inexplicably stealing 20 minutes of screen time as well. And then they tell you it's canon(!) for the real film.

Please, don't watch the prequels. RLM's reviews are all that is needed.

Author
Time

Here's what I always do.  I hold all 6 films in my hand. The prequels in the left hand and the original trilogy in the right hand.  Now, continuing to hold all of the films in this manner, I shove my left hand into a pot of boiling lead. I then proceed to watch them in this order: SW,ESB, and ROTJ.

Luke threw twice…maybe.