Star Wars - which order?

CanonDjango

CanonDjango

Edward Snowden
Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,927
Name
CJ
Edit My Images
No
My kids are coming up to the age to watch Star Wars. But I have the dilema as many of you do I'm sure with your kids approaching star wars age.

Do I show them in order 1-6 or do I show them the originals first then go back to 1-3 like the way we saw them.

Since the first 3 aren't as good as 4-6 I don't want to take the risk that they find them rubbish and so aren't interested in watching 4-6.

At the same time watching them chronologically for children is obviously easier to understand etc

What did you do?
 
My eldest watched the originals first and then the prequals. Episode 3 didn't exist at the time though.

My youngest 3 (aged 1,3 and 5) are a bit young although the 5 year old is almost ready.

I'll probably go in chronological order.

That said episode 4 stands on it's own as a single film so is a good one to watch in isolation to see if they like it.
 
Show them the original trilogy, then wait 20 years and show them the newer films ;)

Seriously though, I think you should show them the older films first. If you show them chronologically, you will deny them the plot twists. 'Luke, I am your father', finding out that Luke and Leia are brother and sister etc
 
The 'Han shot first' debacle has consigned all 6 to the dustbin of history, Lucas should hang his head in shame.
 
SickAsAParrot said:
The 'Han shot first' debacle has consigned all 6 to the dustbin of history, Lucas should hang his head in shame.
Click to expand...

Granted, not his finest hour, but it doesnt stop the originals being classic films for me. Part of my childhood.
 
SickAsAParrot said:
The 'Han shot first' debacle has consigned all 6 to the dustbin of history, Lucas should hang his head in shame.
Click to expand...

Pmsl @ this.
We await your finest efforts with bated breath :lol:
 
SickAsAParrot said:
The 'Han shot first' debacle has consigned all 6 to the dustbin of history, Lucas should hang his head in shame.
Click to expand...

You mean "Han was the only one who shot"

Saying he shot first implies Greedo actually took a shot, when he didnt
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Show them the original trilogy, then wait 20 years and show them the newer films ;)

Seriously though, I think you should show them the older films first. If you show them chronologically, you will deny them the plot twists. 'Luke, I am your father', finding out that Luke and Leia are brother and sister etc
Click to expand...

true, although it's replced with the tension of whether anakin will go to the dark side or not. Something that changes your viewing of that series. When you know he does you are watching it to find out how he does. Whereas if you don't know at all then you watch it wondering if he'll be able to resist the dark side
 
To be honest, it probably wont make much of a difference if they watch them chronologically. I think I suggested that way because that is the way I HAD to do it. I didnt have a choice. BUT, isnt the 'Old then New' way of watching it also the way that GL intended the series to be viewed?
 
CanonDjango said:
You mean "Han was the only one who shot"
Saying he shot first implies Greedo actually took a shot, when he didnt
Click to expand...
Lucus says...................


And around 1:20 you definitley see a blaster shot from Greedo

 
As for which order, definitely the "old school" way. :thumbs:
 
Cobra said:
And around 1:20 you definitley see a blaster shot from Greedo
Click to expand...

no you don't. there is no blaster shot from greedo in the original. It was added in the new version
 
CanonDjango said:
no you don't. there is no blaster shot from greedo in the original. It was added in the new version
Click to expand...
I didn't say which version ;)
There is just more clarity in the "cleaned up" version.
So the blaster can be seen through the smoke :D
 
Actually I don't care who fired / didn't fire / first.
All I'm grateful for is the fact that the hero lived to save the day.
And saved that wannabe Jedi from getting blown to smithereens,
attacking the Death star. :D
 
Cobra said:
I didn't say which version ;)
There is just more clarity in the "cleaned up" version.
So the blaster can be seen through the smoke :D
Click to expand...

So can you clarify - are you saying that in the original version there is a blaster shot from greedo or not?
 
Cobra said:
Actually I don't care who fired / didn't fire / first.
All I'm grateful for is the fact that the hero lived to save the day.
And saved that wannabe Jedi from getting blown to smithereens,
attacking the Death star. :D
Click to expand...
CanonDjango said:
So can you clarify - are you saying that in the original version there is a blaster shot from greedo or not?
Click to expand...
As above :D
 
Cobra said:
As above :D
Click to expand...

The reason other people do care is because it actually affects the audience perception of Han Solo. Its a very subtle thing but it's better if Han Solo starts off as this character who would waste greedo without it being a retaliation so that over the course of the films his transition to becoming more f a hero is stronger.

The new version where he is acting in self defence dilutes this somewhat
 
...but how the hell did Greedo miss from that range :confused:
 
This was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away - Greedo had it coming.
 
CanonDjango said:
The reason other people do care is because it actually affects the audience perception of Han Solo. Its a very subtle thing but it's better if Han Solo starts off as this character who would waste greedo without it being a retaliation so that over the course of the films his transition to becoming more f a hero is stronger.
The new version where he is acting in self defence dilutes this somewhat
Click to expand...
I think that is covered in the first you tube link ;)
But if he did fire first (Han) that makes him a cold blooded killer.
If it was self defence that makes him a loveable rogue.
And the girlies love him for it :D

Nikon_Nick said:
...but how the hell did Greedo miss from that range :confused:
Click to expand...
You just couldn't get the assassins / bounty hunters in those days :(
 
Cobra said:
But if he did fire first (Han) that makes him a cold blooded killer.
Click to expand...

exactly, which he was. So thats what makes his transition to hero a stronger plot point and character development
 
Steve Smith said:
You do all realise it's not a true story, don't you?!!!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Of course.

But if you are a fan of a story and the characters in it then it's sad to see stories and characters you love as part of your childhood being messed with.
 
CanonDjango said:
exactly, which he was. So thats what makes his transition to hero a stronger plot point and character development
Click to expand...
But lets be honest about this, he really doesn't "look" like a cold blooded killer, does he?
As I said before he is a loveable rogue .
And it was technically self defence anyway, Greebo was going to / would have kill(ed) him.
 
Buy the Rifftrax for the prequels, at least they make them bearable. Planning meeting/fight/planning meeting/fight... ad nauseum... Jarjar Binks..

The one for IV/New Hope is pretty funny too .."Do people routinely throw tank parts down the garbage chute?"
 
Cobra said:
And it was technically self defence anyway, Greebo was going to / would have kill(ed) him.
Click to expand...
CanonDjango said:
neither did Mary Bell. It takes all sorts
Click to expand...
I stand by my other part of the quote and still say that he is a lovable rouge.
Not once ( as far as I can remember) did he show any other aggression during the film, other than self defence or self preservation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top