Proper order to watch the Star Wars movies?

[jollysunflora]

I personally prefer them in release order.

[Rynjin]

I do understand you're argument, thanks for the condescension though, I just think it's wrong. It all looks choreographed because it is.

Well-choreographed fights shouldn't look choreographed. The same way well-made sets shouldn't look like sets, and a good actor can sell themselves being someone other than they are. That's the entire art of cinema, crafting a believable world and a plot, characters, and actions within it.

The prequel fights aren't well-choreographed. They look slick on a first viewing but then you realize none of it has any weight and it's clear the actors are TRYING to miss or hit their opponent's weapons instead of their opponent. Good choreography would change the framing. The blow almost hits, but is deflected by a desperate block. The character is nearly gutted, but jumps back and the attack merely cuts their clothing instead. Instead of it being clear that person A was aiming at patch of air B, it becomes Person A is aiming at Person B, but Person B knows to dodge or block at that moment.

[Dragonexx]

I suppose your perception varies. For me, I watched the prequels first in theatres, and didn't actually sit down and watch the originals all the way through until several years later and wasn't really that impressed (though yoda was cool as ever), so I don't have the same connection to them that a lot of other people do and resent all the fellating people try to give them. The lightsaber fights look pretty stiff and awkward and the acting really isn't that better (an in some instances is worse). Also I don't really buy Han and Leia's relationship and don't really care for Luke all that much either (Chewbacca and Lando are still awesome though). Han and Leia are divorced in The Force Awakens and that totally makes sense.

Also this:

[Rynjin]

Doesn't particularly matter what order you were exposed to them first in. I watched the prequels first too (on TV) and thought they sucked even as a kid. They're so slow and boring just to get to the fun action scenes.

A more objective and specific dislike for them is just something I've developed over time.

I'm not a particularly huge fan of the original trilogy either, but in every technical aspect they are superior stories. Better AND faster paced, a more coherent narrative, character motivation that make sense, etc., etc.

[Murk]

Doesn't particularly matter what order you were exposed to them first in. I watched the prequels first too (on TV) and thought they sucked even as a kid. They're so slow and boring just to get to the fun action scenes.

A more objective and specific dislike for them is just something I've developed over time.

I'm not a particularly huge fan of the original trilogy either, but in every technical aspect they are superior stories. Better AND faster paced, a more coherent narrative, character motivation that make sense, etc., etc.

An "objective dislike" is a weird thing that I'm not sure is possible.
As for "superior stories", no, I don't agree with that. I think everything about the original trilogy is superior for its time (the acting, the effects, etc.) except for the stories. The things you named - the narrative, the character motivation, etc. - are the only things that I think are better in the prequels.

So, yeah, "objective" doesn't really apply here.

[Czhorat]

I watched them in release order as they came out. I'm old.

I also really don't get the prequel hatred. Whatever flaws they have (wooden acting, poor dialog, etc) are shared by the originals. I love 4, 5, 6 mainly for nostalgia, but even I have to admit that young Mark Hamill's acting was, at points, embarrassingly bad.

So far as order is concerned, I agree on release order. It lets the reveal at the end of Empire have its impact and, as has been stated here, the prequels refer back to the originals.

I thought Rogue One didn't add much, and may have detracted overall. That, however, is a different discussion.

[Czhorat]

I'm not a particularly huge fan of the original trilogy either, but in every technical aspect they are superior stories. Better AND faster paced, a more coherent narrative, character motivation that make sense, etc., etc.

Need I remind you that the first two movies set up a classic love triangle between Luke, Leia, and Han only to have Lucas cheat his way out of it by making Luke and Leia siblings? The original trilogy definitely felt like something they were making up at they went along.

[Rynjin]

Need I remind you that the first two movies set up a classic love triangle between Luke, Leia, and Han only to have Lucas cheat his way out of it by making Luke and Leia siblings? The original trilogy definitely felt like something they were making up at they went along.

Given that love triangles are one of the worst tropes to ever hit media, cheating your way out of one should be cause for celebration.

[Czhorat]

Given that love triangles are one of the worst tropes to ever hit media, cheating your way out of one should be cause for celebration.

I have no problem with the idea. It's one source of tension not only between protagonists but also internal to the character with a choice to make.

I didn't realize it at the time (because i was five years d), but the L, L,H triangle is very archetypical with Luke as pure, naive and slightly boring to Han's more daring but less reputable "bad boy". Whether you like this story line or not, it's pretty clear to me that "Luke and Leia are sisters" was a last-minute change to prevent one of them from having to lose. That's what I mean by a lack of consistency.

[pendell]

The order is pretty easy: Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back , Return of the Jedi, the new Disney movies. There were no prequels .

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Nightcanon]

The order is pretty easy: Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back , Return of the Jedi, the new Disney movies. There were no prequels .

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

This could be called the truncated machete order. To recap, machete order is 4, 5, then 2, 3 (because having found out the relationship between DV and LS at the end of 5, one goes back to find out more about how AS became DV), then 6. In truncated machete, one simply accepts that the prequels do such a terrible job* of explaining Vader's back-story that you are literally better off with what Luke can glean from Obi-Wan and Yoda than what the prequels present.

*to be fair, they may not be that terrible- I can't remember. I mean, I watched Attack of the Clones less than 2 months ago, and struggle to remember much about it at all in terms of dialogue, character development or plot (beyond "bad guy secretly orders up clone army, and kills off a bunch of Jedi, mainly because we start the film with no clone army and lots of Jedi, and everyone knows that in 2 films' time we need to have no remaining Jedi and a whole bunch of clones").

[JoshL]

What, no mention of the Ewok movies? I'm alone in my love for those, I think...

Seriously though, new viewers I always suggest release order, but when I rewatch them, it's usually chronological. Including the prequels (and, yes, 2 is the worst of the bunch). There's too much to squeeze in, but maybe a selection of important episodes the Clone Wars series could go in there too. Mostly because you can never have enough Ventress.

[Peelee]

I do understand you're argument

I don't think you do.

[KillingAScarab]

But now I'm curious, how many of you saying "skip the prequels" have seen the animated Clone Wars series? While some of it is undoubtedly cringe-worthy, there are other moments that make you really feel for the characters and make the whole thing worth watching. And you wouldn't get the same reaction had you simply skipped the prequels.

Also, since the thread is heading that direction anyway, what are your thoughts on RO and Episode VII? Personally, I loved how well RO flows into Episode IV, I like the characters (mostly) and the visuals, but most of the story was too garbled to follow properly.

...
I'm really excited to see what happens in Episode VIII.

If you want to include Clone Wars in the watch order, make sure to skip the three episodes in season 4 which take place on that Force planet. Later Clone Wars also includes Darth Maul, which you would think requires knowledge of The Phantom Menace but... you could just watch the duel scene.

The Force Awakens requires no prequel knowledge. Actually, I think it would be better served without any sense of the timeline of the Empire. Just as in A New Hope, Han's point of view makes more sense without realizing Palpatine was only Emperor for one generation.

[Rynjin]

An "objective dislike" is a weird thing that I'm not sure is possible.
As for "superior stories", no, I don't agree with that. I think everything about the original trilogy is superior for its time (the acting, the effects, etc.) except for the stories. The things you named - the narrative, the character motivation, etc. - are the only things that I think are better in the prequels.

So, yeah, "objective" doesn't really apply here.

"More objective".

I.E. there are objectively observable flaws in movies you may otherwise like or dislike as your preference. A plot hole is a plot hole, it's not a subjective factor, as an example.

I didn't like them as a kid because they were slow and boring. I don't like them as an adult because they're slow and boring...and that dislike is magnified by the many other flaws.

[Lethologica]

Release order, with a curated selection of Clone Wars afterwards if so desired. (I wonder what it would be like to watch Clone Wars before/without episodes I and II.)

This could be called the truncated machete order.

Or we could just call it "the original trilogy," or "skipping the prequels," instead of reorienting everything around the haphazard fan retrofit that most people have never heard of.

[dps]

Just as in A New Hope, Han's point of view makes more sense without realizing Palpatine was only Emperor for one generation.

It's not just Han; there are several other characters whose attitudes and knowledge of the Force clearly don't make much sense if the events of Episode III are just 20 years before the events of Episode IV. To a great extent, for that reason (and the fact that Obi-Wan clearly lied to Luke about his father, the weak-assed POV excuse notwithstanding) I sometimes sort of wish that Episode IV was the only film in the series that was ever made.

[Nightcanon]

Or we could just call it "the original trilogy," or "skipping the prequels," instead of reorienting everything around the haphazard fan retrofit that most people have never heard of.

Yes we could, of course. What you miss is that mine was a tongue in cheek reply to Pendell's "there are no prequels", with an equally tongue in cheek dig at the notion that machete order maintains the worthwhile and necessary bits from the prequels. Again, with tongue firmly in cheek, the trouble with 'original trilogy/ omit prequels' is that you miss the the worthwhile bits of the prequels; truncated machete deals with this.

[Rynjin]

Define worthwhile. What in the prequels has had an impact on the franchise going forward? The original trilogy stands just fine on its own, it's no more necessary to watch the prequels to appreciate the original trilogy than it is to play Knights of the Old Republic or read the novels.

[Cespenar]

Jedi Outcast, Jedi Academy, Republic Commando, Kotor 1, Kotor 2.

You were asking about these, right?

[Lethologica]

Yes we could, of course. What you miss is that mine was a tongue in cheek reply to Pendell's "there are no prequels", with an equally tongue in cheek dig at the notion that machete order maintains the worthwhile and necessary bits from the prequels. Again, with tongue firmly in cheek, the trouble with 'original trilogy/ omit prequels' is that you miss the the worthwhile bits of the prequels; truncated machete deals with this.

Fair enough. My sense of humor is all out of whack the past couple days.

Define worthwhile. What in the prequels has had an impact on the franchise going forward? The original trilogy stands just fine on its own, it's no more necessary to watch the prequels to appreciate the original trilogy than it is to play Knights of the Old Republic or read the novels.

The prequels honestly introduce a ton of compelling story elements. The downfall of the rigid, politicized, corruptible, elitist Jedi Order; the rise of Palpatine; the dynamic young prodigy who chafed at the constraints of the Jedi and became a war hero trying to save people, who was nonetheless constantly confronted with his inability to protect those he loved most; the orthodox mentor who did things the Jedi way and quarreled with his wayward apprentice, but became increasingly aware of the Jedi's failings as he was forced into extraordinary conflict; the ceremonial queen turned career politician who spent her life playing a dangerous and wearying game with people who all want something from her, and fell in love with the one person who just wants her; the whole question of clone personhood/agency...

Some of these things, like the clone issues, don't make a splash beyond the prequels. Some, like Anakin's story, augment our understanding of characters from the original trilogy. Some arguably have a transformative impact, but that's getting deep into fan-wank territory. Really, though, the issue is that most of them are either hidden (like anything to do with the clone wars themselves) or buried under layers of bad execution.

[Seppl]

Some of these things, like the clone issues, don't make a splash beyond the prequels. Some, like Anakin's story, augment our understanding of characters from the original trilogy. Some arguably have a transformative impact, but that's getting deep into fan-wank territory. Really, though, the issue is that most of them are either hidden (like anything to do with the clone wars themselves) or buried under layers of bad execution.

To me and a lot of other people, the prequels do not actually add anything worthwhile, but instead lessen the original. They added a lot of backstory but that backstory was bad.
Darth Vader? Now an angsty teenager. Also Jesus. Nooooooo!
Yoda and the emperor? Now jumpy lightsaber swinging CGI.
The Force? Now a genetic condition. Also mostly used to jump high and swing lightsabers really really fast.
C-3PO? Now built by some kid who just happens to also be Darth Vader.
The Republic? Built to fail.
The Jedi order? Now so dumb they just forget the whole secret plot between movies.
Obi Wan? Ok, the prequels did some things right.

All those people, things and concepts where probably much cooler in the audience's head when they were only hinted at in the original trilogy. We did not need to know any of this because we already knew the most important plot points and could fill in the blanks. When the prequels tried to fill in the blanks, those did not turn out to be very interesting. So what did the prequels add that was worth seeing? I bet nobody ever said that Padme was their favorite character from Star Wars. Or Qui Gon or Grivious or any of the others from the prequels. Certainly not Jar Jar. Windu maybe? But mostly because he is played by a famous actor. Is any of that enough to be worth seeing when you have to endure all the bad stuff, too?

[Nightcanon]

Fair enough. My sense of humor is all out of whack the past couple days.


The prequels honestly introduce a ton of compelling story elements. The downfall of the rigid, politicized, corruptible, elitist Jedi Order; the rise of Palpatine; the dynamic young prodigy who chafed at the constraints of the Jedi and became a war hero trying to save people, who was nonetheless constantly confronted with his inability to protect those he loved most; the orthodox mentor who did things the Jedi way and quarreled with his wayward apprentice, but became increasingly aware of the Jedi's failings as he was forced into extraordinary conflict; the ceremonial queen turned career politician who spent her life playing a dangerous and wearying game with people who all want something from her, and fell in love with the one person who just wants her; the whole question of clone personhood/agency...

Some of these things, like the clone issues, don't make a splash beyond the prequels. Some, like Anakin's story, augment our understanding of characters from the original trilogy. Some arguably have a transformative impact, but that's getting deep into fan-wank territory. Really, though, the issue is that most of them are either hidden (like anything to do with the clone wars themselves) or buried under layers of bad execution.

Don't worry about missing my attempt at dry humour
You make a good argument, really you do: better than the Prequel Trilogy films do, in fact, which of course is the problem. In my opinion (and of course, all of this is purely opinion and I don't denigrate anyone else's opinion or their right to it), part of the problem is that the prequels try to tell both the story of how the Republic was subverted and became the Empire, and how Anakin became Darth Vader. I don't think it does either particularly well (partly because linking the two themes in the way that they did means that the Empire has to be slightly younger than Luke, and a 20-odd year-old Empire is less awe-inspiring than a 1000-year Reich). For what it's worth, I think that the Fall of Republic theme is done slightly better than the Fall of Vader, if only because the latter is done so horribly badly. The Anakin of Ep1 is taken from his mother yet treats it like being taken off to fly more exciting spaceships for the day as a treat, showing no convincing attachment to his mother; in Ep2 he comes across as a stroppy teenager and Ep3 ends with him having a tantrum and killing his former allies and their children. If written and acted better, one could claim that Anakin's Fall was the inevitable result of the emotional stunting that results from having been a slave on Tatooine and then being separated from his mother by the Jedi. He is presented by the story as being more capable and understanding of love than Obi-Wan and the Jedi Council, while being acted as if portrayed by Big Bang Theory's Dr Sheldon Cooper. It's supposed to be the story of how innocent Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, yet the answer offered is "he wasn't allowed a girlfriend and totally lost his temper over it", while it feels like the only reason why his love for Padme was forbidden is for the metaplot reason that he had to have something to lose his temper with the Jedi Council over.
To me, the Anakin-becomes-Vader story as presented in the sequels is literally is less convincing and evocative than the retconned explanations that my 13-year-old came up with for what Obi-Wan tells Luke in Episode 4 ("Darth Vader killed your father"/ "obviously what I meant was that the part of your father's personality that became Darth Vader did so only by 'killing' all that was good in your father when he turned to the Dark Side, and I really did intend to tell you the full story but I got killed before I managed to gather the emotional strength because even now, forty years later, the betrayal is still raw; no of course we didn't change this later when we were trying to think of a good ending for Empire Strikes Back") and Obi-Wan addressing Vader as 'Darth' as if it were his given name, not title ("obviously I know that his real name is Anakin, and that Darth is a title assumed by Sith Lords; I was calling him Darth because I was acknowledging that he had achieved the status that he had so long sought, whilst subtly mocking him for giving up his former self and questioning the value of his new status").

[druid91]

Personally, I don't really know what great big plot threads are meant to be held by Attack of the Clones that aren't revealed by Revenge of the Sith. A two movie flashback isn't nearly as good of an idea as it sounds.

Rogue One, 4, 5, 3, 6, possibly 7

You get to see the best of the prequels as an extended flashback to the height of the clone wars.

[Aliquid]

For me, the reason I don't like the prequels and would skip them all together is that they ruin the whole feel of what made Star Wars special to me.

The original Star Wars was a fantasy story set in space. A classic story with Wizards (Jedi), swordplay (light sabers), magic (the force), monsters and a damsel in distress (that turned out to be bad-ass). The Jedi were an ancient and mysterious order that died out long ago

Then the prequels come out...

The Force went from:
- "The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together. "
- To Midi-cholrians... replacing a mythical and mysterious magical power with a scientific explanation ruined the force

The Jedi went from:
- "Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fort-... "
- To Jedi everywhere! How could the Jedi be an old and mysterious group when they were at the height of their power a mere 20 years earlier?

For me Star Wars was an awesome "alternate reality" that just happened to be the setting for the original 3 movies. Even if the story writing and acting were better in the prequels (which they weren't), I still would have been disappointed by the world the story took place in.

[dps]

For me, the reason I don't like the prequels and would skip them all together is that they ruin the whole feel of what made Star Wars special to me.

The original Star Wars was a fantasy story set in space. A classic story with Wizards (Jedi), swordplay (light sabers), magic (the force), monsters and a damsel in distress (that turned out to be bad-ass). The Jedi were an ancient and mysterious order that died out long ago

Then the prequels come out...

The Force went from:
- "The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together. "
- To Midi-cholrians... replacing a mythical and mysterious magical power with a scientific explanation ruined the force

The Jedi went from:
- "Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fort-... "
- To Jedi everywhere! How could the Jedi be an old and mysterious group when they were at the height of their power a mere 20 years earlier?

For me Star Wars was an awesome "alternate reality" that just happened to be the setting for the original 3 movies. Even if the story writing and acting were better in the prequels (which they weren't), I still would have been disappointed by the world the story took place in.

I don't disagree with any of this, but the bolded part essentially happened as soon as we found out that Vader is Luke's father.

[warty goblin]

The prequels are the Star Wars I watch most often. Not Episode 1 so much, but I rather like the sheer weird insanity of II, and III has, to my mind, pretty much the most compelling drama of the whole series. I don't think I'd start there, simply because I think a lot of the pleasure of III is knowing how badly it ends, and dreading that.

But I'm weird like that.

[Aedilred]

I agree with the consensus that you should watch them in release order. I don't hate the idea of the Machete Order but I've never tried it.

I think for a new viewer the differences between the prequels and the original series are likely to be much less marked, especially if they're watching a later cut of the originals with the added Jabba scene and some new CGI bells and whistles. A large part of the reason the prequels are considered so terrible is (firstly) the hype, to which they singularly failed to live up, and (secondly) that where the original film was groundbreaking and remains cinematically significant so its flaws can be overlooked, the prequels were not. But watching them with a dispassionate eye, Episodes IV and VI are pretty ropey. (V remains pretty solid). They have some great moments, but most of the dialogue is atrocious, the acting is pretty wooden, and there's a lot of cringe. Which is pretty much exactly what people say about the prequels. I think from a dispassionate perspective, III is at least as good as VI and probably better.

I have to disagree though with what seems the prevailing view that II is worse than I. Comparing the two films, I think II has a slight lead in terms of moments so horrendous you want to bite through whatever is to hand, but when it's not doing that, it's watchable. I on the other hand is, so far as I can make out, wholly without merit. Even when it's not being aggressively terrible there's nothing really good about it. Liam Neeson phones it in. Ewan McGregor has yet to find his level and has been given an awful script. The lightsaber fights look like they're trying way too hard with the choreography. The plot and setting make basically no sense and the central conflict is boring. It detracts from the presence of Anakin/Vader in later films by depicting him as a thoroughly irritating child, and adds nothing else of value to the overarching plot. Jar-Jar is frequently present. The CGI is everywhere and most of it has dated terribly. It's a bad film in its own right and it's a worse series entry.

I think that, no matter what order you watch them in, episode I can safely be skipped and nothing of value will be lost. But a younger viewer might have fun with it. I wouldn't like to say so definitively but I've heard that it was at least more popular with children than with adults - though that might just be because the children weren't old enough to appreciate the original trilogy.

[Aliquid]

I don't disagree with any of this, but the bolded part essentially happened as soon as we found out that Vader is Luke's father.

Well... sort of yeah, but not necessarily. It could have been that the Jedi were on a decline for a while and there were only a handful left when Vader was a Jedi... So even when Vader was a Jedi, the general population (of a vast universe) barely saw them and thought of them as eccentric followers of an ancient religion. Then Vader turned Sith and took the killing blow on the Jedi order.

[JoshL]

Also, if I recall, in the first movie Luke is told his father was a Jedi, so they couldn't have been that long gone. But it did seem, as a kid, that the Empire had been in place for way longer than 20 years.

If we were to run with that idea, it would have been neat to see the Force all but gone from awareness in the galaxy, except some lunatic fringe sensitives, playing at old rituals. Until a young Anakin discovers a long lost text, detailing a ritual that unlocks potential for training, making the myth real once more, but overwhelming him with the Dark Side. The temple, finally vindicated in their beliefs, is slaughtered to keep anyone else from gaining power. A lone monk, Brother Kenobi, escapes with his life. The Dark Side is starting to take him, until he finds an obscure swamp plant, where practice of the Force has been alive this whole time, and he learns control. He goes to fight Vader, fails, nearly burning himself out in the process. He goes into hiding until one day he meets a young man named Luke with an unhealthy fixation on power converters....

At this point it's starting to sound like a Riddick sequel