Star Wars: With or Without Episodes 1-3?
- Thread starter Joe Washington
- Start date
I had fun watching the prequels in the theater, but, I don't find myself wanting to rewatch them.
I do wish, the prequels would serve as a warning to fanboys. Some things are best left to other media or just the imagination. We don't always need a sequel, a prequel, or a new series set in between Star Trek and Star Trek:TNG.
I remember all the excitement about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and it's like the Star Wars prequels hadn't happened... and of course expectations weren't met. (Though, i had fun watching it in the theater...)
Back to topic: Regardless of whether they are apart of "my Star Wars", they are Star Wars.
I do wish, the prequels would serve as a warning to fanboys. Some things are best left to other media or just the imagination. We don't always need a sequel, a prequel, or a new series set in between Star Trek and Star Trek:TNG.
I remember all the excitement about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and it's like the Star Wars prequels hadn't happened... and of course expectations weren't met. (Though, i had fun watching it in the theater...)
Back to topic: Regardless of whether they are apart of "my Star Wars", they are Star Wars.
Darth Vader is described as "a Dark Lord of the Sith" in the novel Star Wars, credited to George Lucas (ghostwritten by Alan Dean Foster), published in 1976, on page 8 of the second printing. So, the word Sith has been a part Star Wars from the very beginning, since before the first film was released.
I remember the word "Sith' appearing on the action figure packaging for Darth Vader when the original line of figures was released. Since the word was not used in the film, it really puzzled me as a kid, but it also added some bit of mystery to the character.
Episodes 1-3 are valuable mostly for providing inspiration and basic premise and character fodder for The Clone Wars, which is what the PT should have been to begin with. Take all five years, boil them down to three 2-hr movies, and you'd have something that might even beat the OT.
No, they serve as a warning that if you can't tell a story reasonably well, you should not tell it at all. And if you've got to tell it badly once, you can make it up to us by hiring a few people who aren't just a bunch of ass-kissers to help you tell it a lot better the second time around.
I went into TPM not knowing what "Sith" was/were (and frankly, I was confused about a LOT of things in it). However, Steve Perry's "Shadows of the Empire" included "Sith" in Darth Vader's title and even the NPR radio drama of the original Star Wars:A New Hope that came out shortly after the actual film used it. However, of course, none of those sources actually provided it in the context that it received in the PT.
To add to the confusion there were many different Sith versions in the Expanded Universe (Both before and after the prequels). They're even linked with the temples on Yavin, to boot.
The Darth Bane stuff explains a good deal though, and cleverly ties it in with Dark Forces II:Jedi Knight, of all things...
The Darth Bane stuff explains a good deal though, and cleverly ties it in with Dark Forces II:Jedi Knight, of all things...
I'm willing to be generous and not consider the PT an unpardonable crime against humanity.
You realize. I'm sure, that the movie was released in 1977 but production began in 1976.
Infact, production brgan on the movie in March of 1976, the novel was first released in November, so possibly written around the same time production was being worked on. The book doesn't support any claims made about the movie nor negate them. The book's earlier release and the information within doesn't matter since it was made at the same time as the movies.
Books are also alays going to contain more information and material than their movie counterparts simply by being books.
I don't consider the novel credited to George Lucas published before the release of the first film as just "an EU source from around the time".
Of course. So?
He said "the adaptation." In other words, the novel of the first movie.
Ah, my bad. I skipped right over that. Sorry, Whofan.
You keep citing the novel as if it has some meaning or power over the movie when it comes to information. It doesn't. It was written at the same time the movie was written or being made. It's also possible given the differences between books and movies the book contains things that "didn't really happen" in the movies, but I've alays been foggy on how the novels in SW work in relation with the movies.
Anyway, stop citing the novel as an ultimate source of information. It's no more meaningful than the movie itself and that it was released a few months before the movie is meaningless as movies take longer to go from production to availability than books and both were being made at the same time. The book just hit the street sooner.
I've only cited the novel twice recently, and in those two cases only to resolve the question of when an element was introduced into Star Wars. But I'll cite it any time I think appropriate.
(Once for the name krayt dragon, once for the word Sith. It turns out WhoFan had already brought it up anyway, though I erroneously skipped right over what he said. I think a few months back, the novelization came up with regards to the name of the Emperor having been established as Palpatine.)
Some people think "Darth" stands for Dark lord of the Sith
However, I think originally Darth was just Vader's 'real' first name, just as it was originally intended for Vader to be a seperate character from Anakin Skywalker.
Even in the sequels where he is revealed to be Anakin, one could say that he took the name to distinquish himself from his 'former self' (even then, his first name wasn't revealed until JEDI although the name Anakin was used in early SW drafts).
I don't think it was until TPM that Darth became a title-even Palpatine was just Emperor Palpatine before "Darth Sidious" was coined. Now it seems every Sith lord who shows up in the EU-be it in the old Sith wars or LEGACY-has to now start with Darth. I miss the days when we had unique sith lord names like say, Exar Kun.
However, I think originally Darth was just Vader's 'real' first name, just as it was originally intended for Vader to be a seperate character from Anakin Skywalker.
Even in the sequels where he is revealed to be Anakin, one could say that he took the name to distinquish himself from his 'former self' (even then, his first name wasn't revealed until JEDI although the name Anakin was used in early SW drafts).
I don't think it was until TPM that Darth became a title-even Palpatine was just Emperor Palpatine before "Darth Sidious" was coined. Now it seems every Sith lord who shows up in the EU-be it in the old Sith wars or LEGACY-has to now start with Darth. I miss the days when we had unique sith lord names like say, Exar Kun.
Yeah, talk about running something into the ground through overuse.
