I dunno, I still say it takes away from the impact. That's why the Machete order works; first you get to know the world of the Jedi, then you get to see them at full power as a backstory only for them to fall with RotJ promising a return and triumph.

Apart from any emotional attachment to the characters and events and just looking at the storytelling.

Then again, I don't know of any prequels that do not suffer from the same. You wouldn't want to watch Prometheus before Alien, nor would you want to read The Magician's Nephew before starting with The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

And even trying to get through the Silmarillion without even a passing knowledge of the world as presented in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings would be almost impossible and certainly not as rewarding.

To me, publication order almost always beats chronological order (unless it's a tv-series where the network screws up the order).

I wouldn't want to watch Prometheus anyway . If we are talking dire Prequels that one takes the biscuit.

The Silmarrillion too is a tiresome read, but that is more about the writing style rather than the order in which they are read.

Lets use a different series here to prove that chronological order does not always mean poorer quality. The Black Libraries Horus Heresy series is constantly jumping back and forth in the time lines. It doesn't detract from the story and if read in chronolical order helps explain certain things that happen or are alluded to in future books.

The key to it working is that we do not know in detail these events before reading about them. They are only mentioned in fleeting paragraphs.

This is where the huge gap between Prequels and OT and EU has had the most detremental impact on the Star Wars movies.

Everyone after watching the OT has their own vision of how the characters (well lets face it Vader) got to that point and for the vast majority the Prequels cannot compete with their vision of what should have been.

Watching the films in order does show you how the Jedi fell from grace, what happend to make Vader who he is and also explain really why Vader reveals himself to Luke and why Luke tries to change him.

The reason ESB is so jaw dropping is that no one ever saw that reveal coming, and why should they?

And this is the reason that the OT is treated with such reverence and ESB in particular is seen as the best of the three.

There were no clues.

Obi Wan blatently LIED (yes he did) by saying "a young Jedi named Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father" in ANH.

Only in RoTJ did he say well actually he didn't. I was being a bit misleading but in effect he ceased to be your dad and became Vader. From a certain point of view. Anyway you know that now, but did you know you have a sister?

But everything Anakin/Vader did in RoS was to protect his kids and wife. He was tricked into believeing his kids were dead by Palpatine otherwise he would never truely have given himself over to the darkside. Once he realises Luke is his son he reveals himself. This is why Luke senses good in him and knows he can turn him. Vader is overjoyed that his son is alive.

None of that is really explained in the OT. It all appears to be a trick to turn Luke to the Darkside and that is why viewing them in chronological order will make them totally different films .

I'm embarrassed to say this but I hadn't followed Prometheus at all and didn't realize it was an Alien prequel till about halfway through the movie. I thought he was just realllllly out of original ideas.

That surprise actually made the movie more enjoyable than it would have otherwise been.

What exactly is the point of this post now? You can't argue the blatant contradictions that were portrayed between OT and Prequels.

Sadly enough, they are the only continuity of SW now, which is pretty jacked.

Example from above:

(Obi Wan blatently LIED (yes he did) by saying "a young Jedi named Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father" in ANH.)

This only becomes a lie, when you don't tell the backstory to match what you had shown first. The statement that a young JEDI name DARTH VADER isn't a lie, it's a contradiction. Because Vader is a Sith apprentice whilst we know before hand he was Anakin Skywalker.

Now there has been stuff on "Dark Jedi"s which only early reference if from 96 rest is 00's. Then SWTOR and a 12' book, they pop in, drum roll, LIGHT SITH! WTF

So, really the only thing to argue is the fact, once again, that from the same man, GL, we have 2 completely different stories(Trilogies)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at...that Anakin/Vader should have been called a sith by obi-wan?

He can't say a young jedi named Anakin Skywalker obviously. If he says a young sith, who was a pupil of mine, Luke would probably be confused.

The term "Sith" has been around since the beginning. Darth Vader is called a dark lord of the sith in the ANH novelization.

That makes the existing fight seem to be Maul constantly trying to separate the pair and the once separated defeat each individually. (Only issue then is there would need to be some reason for Qui Gon to NOT wait for Obi Wan)

I dearly wish that, during the hard-pressed 2 v 1 fight, Qui-Gon would have been 'talking' to Obi-Wan telepathically. They could be trying to work together, but realizing that Maul is too good for them to handle. Qui-Gon could have said something like: "When you see your opening, take it."

Then Qui-Gon could have done something apparently foolish to draw in Maul, perhaps even a nod to the OT and literally shut down his lightsaber and close his eyes.

In one flurry of action, Darth Maul smiles an evil grin (he can't believe the stupid Jedi just erred so badly) and goes to kill Qui-Gon with a flourish. Maul is, after all, consumed by hatred and can't wait to kill a Jedi master. Obi-Wan, seeing Maul's full attention finally switch to Qui-Gon, gains the opening they've been searching for, and runs Darth Maul through (or beheads him, or bisects him, or whatever).

In one fell swoop, two of the three combatants drop to the floor and all lightsabers turn off. A shocking and brutally quick end to an elaborate, ongoing battle scene.

Obi-Wan races to the dying Qui-Gon's side for a bit of dialogue, and we all (including Obi-Wan) learn something about self sacrifice.

Obi-Wan's lesson would later come in handy during the escape from the Death Star.

BTW, this could set up a situation where Obi-Wan, from this moment forward, obsessively drills with his lightsaber, becoming truly the master in the combat form (driven by a guilty feeling of not being good enough when his master needed him).

I'm not really sure what you're getting at...that Anakin/Vader should have been called a sith by obi-wan?

He can't say a young jedi named Anakin Skywalker obviously. If he says a young sith, who was a pupil of mine, Luke would probably be confused.

The term "Sith" has been around since the beginning. Darth Vader is called a dark lord of the sith in the ANH novelization.

My english not so good .. me say "Jedi no Darth Vader" So, Ben say Jedi Darth Vader, is no correct. He could say "young jedi who became Darth Vader .. kill his fadder. Yes, me likes dat!

To me, publication order almost always beats chronological order (unless it's a tv-series where the network screws up the order).

I know where you are going with this, browncoat.

Poor Ewan McGregor tried. You can tell he was directed horribly and likely scoffed as he read the script.

That's why I don't judge Hayden Christensen too harshly. I mean Ewan McGreggor and Natalie Portman are very good actors. And look at them in this. I mean you can still tell they're good - Ewan Macgreggor has clearly put some effort into trying to portray Obi Wan in the same way that his predecessor has (the accent and speech patterns are very close if you think about it). And Natalie Portman has a few moments where she's clearly just gone '**** it' and ignored the direction and done what she thought was best (there's an Anakin-Padme scene in particular). But it takes both experience and confidence to overcome a bad director. And really, how much can you do with a line like "I trust that the kiss that we shared will not become a scar upon our hearts".

I think the only two who really pulled off a good performance in the prequels were Liam Neeson and Christopher Lee. Both because they simply have so much sheer presence that they don't even have to act - just walk around and let the camera capture that.

Anyway, posted this a while back on the Edge of the Empire forums in a similar thread, but I think it'll stand a single re-appearance here.

To me, publication order almost always beats chronological order (unless it's a tv-series where the network screws up the order).

I know where you are going with this, browncoat.

That, but have you tried figuring out the order to watch Clone Wars in?

What exactly is the point of this post now? You can't argue the blatant contradictions that were portrayed between OT and Prequels.

Sadly enough, they are the only continuity of SW now, which is pretty jacked.

Example from above:

(Obi Wan blatently LIED (yes he did) by saying "a young Jedi named Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father" in ANH.)

This only becomes a lie, when you don't tell the backstory to match what you had shown first. The statement that a young JEDI name DARTH VADER isn't a lie, it's a contradiction. Because Vader is a Sith apprentice whilst we know before hand he was Anakin Skywalker.

Now there has been stuff on "Dark Jedi"s which only early reference if from 96 rest is 00's. Then SWTOR and a 12' book, they pop in, drum roll, LIGHT SITH! WTF

So, really the only thing to argue is the fact, once again, that from the same man, GL, we have 2 completely different stories(Trilogies)

Er...... the lie/contradiction isn't that Darth Vader was a Jedi.

Spoiler alert. It's that Darth Vader didn't kill Anakin Skywalker. This is the lie.

At the end of the day Ben lied to Luke by telling him that his father was dead. Not turned. Not under the influence of the Emperor, but dead.

The fact that Vader reveals himself as Luke's father in ESB and both Yoda and Ben are aware that Vader is Anakin (though they never say so to enhance the reveal) has nothing to do with contradiction created by the prequels.

The whole "from a certain point of view" guff in RoTJ was Lucas covering the fact that Ben and Yoda had to misinform Luke about Vader being his dad simply so Lucas could do the whole big reveal in ESB.

pretty sure the only one to be really successful was harrison ford because he was the only one that could truly act

Did you just say that Alec Guinness cannot act?

Harrison Ford comes across well in the film because he rolls with the level it's pitched at. There's the story of Mark Hamill asking shouldn't they all still be filthy from the trash compactor and Harrison Ford replying: "This ain't that kind of movie, kid."

He knew what they were making and pitched his acting at entertainment rather than pathos. Doesn't mean others weren't skilled.

The Star Wars movies did well because Lucas had one basic trait - a love of childishly simple grandeur. Everything you need to know about why Star Wars is popular is contained in that single opening scene of Episode IV. We see a moon. The camera pans, there's a bigger planet. A space ship soars over us surprising us with its size. Whilst we're surprised, an even More Bigger space ship follows it. The bigger spaceship eats the littler space ship.

Later there are swords made out of lasers.

This is the essence of Star Wars' popularity.

Are you saying that Lucas wrote the Original Trilogy without drafting the background of 4 of the main characters?

The evidence suggests so. Even within just the OT there are things that strongly suggest he hadn't mapped the background out properly as there are seeming inconsistencies between IV,V and VI. Between the OT and the PT, absolutely Lucas didn't think things through.

The whole "from a certain point of view" guff in RoTJ was Lucas covering the fact that Ben and Yoda had to misinform Luke about Vader being his dad simply so Lucas could do the whole big reveal in ESB.

Or the fact that it was never intended that would be the case. From what I understand the death of Luke's father was going to simply be a background thing, forming a connection between Luke and Darth Vader in the process. It was never really meant to be an important plot thread, and then when writing the Empire Strikes Back they decided that Luke was Vader's son. As far as I am aware, the decision to make Leia Luke's sister was also an almost on the fly decision during the writing of Return of the Jedi. So the plot problems (Obi Wan saying Vader had killed Luke's father, what ended up being the incestuous kiss from Empire Strikes Back etc), were not problems when they were written, just with what they decided to with the characters later. Hence the "from a different point of view" stuff from Obi Wan's ghost to cover their plot hole.

I believe there was a theory going round between Star Wars and the Empire Strikes Back's release that R2D2 was actually a droid made with Luke's father's brain.

Basically, Lucas claim that there was a great plan which guided his story was nonsense. Ok, when he made the Empire Strikes Back he may have started working on something, but I think it is clear from the first film, and where it went in the prequels that no great detailed plan was in existence. Maybe, once they had decided that Vader was Luke's father, decided that the story would have to do with Vader's rise and fall in the prequels, and so the original trilogy would feature his redemption, but anything other than that? No, I don't really think so.

In the book 'The Making of Star Wars' consisting of a detailed timeline of the production, changes listed by date and compared to the original concepts and interviews with pretty much everyone who was even remotely involved J W Rinzler really clears up how much of Lucas original story ended up in the films. Almost nothing.
He changed his mind at the drop of a hat and every time he saw something new he wanted to put it in. Luckily back then he had people to keep him on track and even say no to him on occasion resulting in the original Star Wars. Not a film full of depth and meaning but a Saturday matinee popcorn flick which was all it was ever intended to be. I dont mean that in any disparaging way as i loved those films in a way that was far probably not healthy for a 13 year old in the 70s *L*
The original draft would have been like a cross between Zardoz and Flash Gordon and that would have been dubious to say the least. Some of the concepts from the early drafts ended up in the later films and some or most of them were not even conceived of until production of Empire or Jedi.
The changes make it clear that the characters as we know them did not have much of a background story as much of the origins of each was discarded as the story itself changed. Even down to the sudden decision, during filming no less, to kill Obi Wan Kenobi. Which for some reason didn't please Alec Guiness who according to the script was to be the wise teacher for the whole film and appear in any sequels even though at the time they were not exactly sure there would be any.

Even the space combat changed radically, funnily enough right after Lucas saw the opening of Space Battleship Yamato in Japan, to be more WW2 fighters in space and less Flash Gordon.

Well, it's not as if Alec Guinness minded being killed off.

from my perspective, the biggest problem of the prequels is that if you remove the Star Wars part (nods/references to chars/situations of the original trilogy, staging stuff for later) there isn't much left of a movie to hold viewers in their seats.

...you could have compressed the prequel trilogy to a 5-10min trailer without loosing any good stuff - might have worked as an intro/prolog for the remastered original trilogy....

side note in short, as a character Vader was a good villain - Anekin is just an idiot and what does that tell you about the Emperor or the Jedi Council and their hiring strategies?

a bit longer:

there are a few basic issues with prequels which require good to excellent story writers - if you don't have them don't just heap special effects on it to hide it:

- determinism: everyone who cares knows where it is going to end (overall plot and characters), so you have to make the way there the focus, which requires more effort than a few cliches

- one of the main cast ends up as the villian at the end (also known) , which requires special care with that char so that the audience actually "cares" about him and doesn't hope he gets run down by the first pod racer available.

- covert plots for chars = screaming obvious ones for the audience : if you give chars hidden agendas or just want to hide that they are on a straight way to the dark side and let the audience know from the beginning, you have to give the chars on both sides a certain depth or the duped parties look just plain silly.

neither of these cases were handled well, just for record keeping