How to watch Star Wars

[Eddie Teach]

You don't. Star Wars sucks. The first 3 are only good because millions of 40 years old suffer from nostalgia & the latter 3 are crap.

is it hard being so stupid?

Not enough people with berets and tattoos slouched against a lamp post smoking.

[crazy canuck]

I didnt think there was any question here.  Have them watch the movies in the order they were released.  Otherwise the plots lines in the original movies will be damaged.

[Valmy]

I woule prefer the extent of Star Wars my kids experience are the KOTOR games.  But if we have to do it originals first.  The prequels are prequels and meant to be watched second

[fhdz]

Usually, I sit in a chair and look at a screen that displays the movie.

Ed wins the thread.

[Savonarola]

"Star Wars" came out when I was five, and turned thirty six this year.  For a fourteen year old today, the movie was made twenty two years before he was born; the equivalent of 1950 in my case.  The original "Star Wars" would have been the equivalent of "Treasure Island" (the Disney version) or "When Worlds Collide."  At 14 I though the former was a fine film; but certainly no "Return of the Jedi."  The latter (and the whole of 1950s Sci-Fi) I found dull, plotting and filled with abysmal special effects.

Based on my own experience I think a fourteen year old of today would find a film as old as "Star Wars" difficult to access; today movies are quicker and special effects are better.  I would recommend he watch the prequels and skip the originals.  For an older viewer, I would recommend the watching them in the order they were released.

[grumbler]

Based on my own experience I think a fourteen year old of today would find a film as old as "Star Wars" difficult to access; today movies are quicker and special effects are better.  I would recommend he watch the prequels and skip the originals.  For an older viewer, I would recommend the watching them in the order they were released.

I am not sure why you would have the fourteen-year-old of today watch any Star Wars Movie, if you really think that today's fourteen-year-olds cannot appreciate movies made before they were born (I happen to disagree, working with a hundred fourteen-and-fifteen-year-olds each year, but that's beside the point).  The later movies didn't have anything special in terms of plots, acting, or special effects, and pretty much all the cultural impact of the movies comes from the three you think they would hate because you didn't like 1950s SF.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, I'd figure most anyone who prefers the prequels to the originals is going to be unimpressed with the series as a whole.

[The Brain]

Forbidden Planet was awesome. And the trailer had yellow text scrolling away into space... hmm.

[Ideologue]

Based on my own experience I think a fourteen year old of today would find a film as old as "Star Wars" difficult to access; today movies are quicker

Are they?  I disagree.  Pace is a huge issue for a huge number of contemporary movies.  I almost wonder if kids these days can put up with pacing issues better than us; on the other hand, I wonder if absolute number of edits and the fact that stuff is always moving (even if the movement is pointless) tricks the brain into thinking that the story is moving forward.

Even then, you'd have to explain the success of the languid Dark Knight trilogy, far, far more methodical/boring than the Star Wars films.

[The Brain]

The race stuff in the prequels have more in common with films from the 30s anyway.

[jimmy olsen]

"Star Wars" came out when I was five, and turned thirty six this year.  For a fourteen year old today, the movie was made twenty two years before he was born; the equivalent of 1950 in my case.  The original "Star Wars" would have been the equivalent of "Treasure Island" (the Disney version) or "When Worlds Collide."  At 14 I though the former was a fine film; but certainly no "Return of the Jedi."  The latter (and the whole of 1950s Sci-Fi) I found dull, plotting and filled with abysmal special effects.

Based on my own experience I think a fourteen year old of today would find a film as old as "Star Wars" difficult to access; today movies are quicker and special effects are better.  I would recommend he watch the prequels and skip the originals.  For an older viewer, I would recommend the watching them in the order they were released.

The films were rereleased in the mid 90s with the special effects updated and since then they've been updated for each new dvd/bluray release.

[CountDeMoney]

I  almost wonder if kids these days can put up with pacing issues better than us; on the other hand, I wonder if absolute number of edits and the fact that stuff is always moving (even if the movement is pointless) tricks the brain into thinking that the story is moving forward.

This Assberger Generation doesn't understand pacing.  Except back and forth. Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.  Yeah.

[Barrister]

"Star Wars" came out when I was five, and turned thirty six this year.  For a fourteen year old today, the movie was made twenty two years before he was born; the equivalent of 1950 in my case.  The original "Star Wars" would have been the equivalent of "Treasure Island" (the Disney version) or "When Worlds Collide."  At 14 I though the former was a fine film; but certainly no "Return of the Jedi."  The latter (and the whole of 1950s Sci-Fi) I found dull, plotting and filled with abysmal special effects.

Based on my own experience I think a fourteen year old of today would find a film as old as "Star Wars" difficult to access; today movies are quicker and special effects are better.  I would recommend he watch the prequels and skip the originals.  For an older viewer, I would recommend the watching them in the order they were released.

If you go back and watch other 70s sci-fi it doesn't hold up particularly well either.  In that I agree with Sav.

But Star Wars... well, it was ahead of its time.  It helped invent the modern blockbuster.  The special effects set a new bar and the pacing was quick.

Now what might hurt a modern kid watching Star Wars is that space exploration, and the whole space opera genre, is kind of passé. But not the movies themselves.

[Barrister]

"Star Wars" came out when I was five, and turned thirty six this year.  For a fourteen year old today, the movie was made twenty two years before he was born; the equivalent of 1950 in my case.  The original "Star Wars" would have been the equivalent of "Treasure Island" (the Disney version) or "When Worlds Collide."  At 14 I though the former was a fine film; but certainly no "Return of the Jedi."  The latter (and the whole of 1950s Sci-Fi) I found dull, plotting and filled with abysmal special effects.

Based on my own experience I think a fourteen year old of today would find a film as old as "Star Wars" difficult to access; today movies are quicker and special effects are better.  I would recommend he watch the prequels and skip the originals.  For an older viewer, I would recommend the watching them in the order they were released.

The films were rereleased in the mid 90s with the special effects updated and since then they've been updated for each new dvd/bluray release.

But the special effects haven't all been updated.

What struck me on watching the 90s re-release is that the most dated special effects, being the 1970s-era vector graphics computer displays, weren't updated at all.  Think Luke's targeting computer on the Death Star run...

[CountDeMoney]

It helped invent the modern blockbuster.

Wrong.  That was Jaws.