4 to 6 and 1 to 3

Comparing things that some people could see as a similar sort of disappointment, that is a time-honored tradition.     Expectations and memories and time and creativity and creative control and all those sorts of impressions.

Some thoughts then on comparing Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi to The Phantom Menace, Revenge of the Sith and Attack of the Clones.  


Without getting into the by-now classic argument about George Lucas himself, or how involved he is beyond the story itself, please.    How would we compare "the saga" (Episodes IV V VI) to "the newest three" (Episodes I II III).

Well, we can, but we can't.

A person watching Star Wars when it came out in 1977 was seeing something unique.   There was likely not much of any idea beforehand it would become a cultural phenomenon, and not many likely expected lines going around the block just to buy tickets and another to get in, depending on where you were.   That people would go see it dozens of times under those circumstances no less.   For Science Fiction of all things, seriously?   In large part, the actors were brand new to many (aside from some American Graffiti here, some Shampoo there, etc)  except for at the time such names as Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness.     The special effects were actually special (not much like what existed normally in quality) and  out of initiative and invention.   They were new and they worked on a popular level unlike most of what existed at the time.  The pacing of the film never seemed slow or plodding, nobody really knew what was going to happen.   Later, with the sequels, sometimes not even those in charge of the story.   Although if you watch the trailers, the entire story is pretty much there in order, but who cares about that.

Same for the sequels; it was essentially all new, and exciting, and they kept getting better in a number of ways both practical and otherwise.    We didn't know what was next either.      These movies made the unknowns, almost knowns and even unseen actors and actresses all stars.

The last three movies telling the pre-story, there's really not much of any of those things.   Decades of expectations had built up.  A lot of the actors and actresses were already stars.    Special effects that are by now the norm and not anywhere nearly as inventive as the original breakthrough ones, however much one may think they were breakthrough.

Mostly though , we already knew the ending of all three before we even started watching.   It took them 16 years to get around to the new ones; VI in 1983 to I in 1999.      With none of the three main characters that most everyone probably would have rather seen, no matter how virtually impossible that would have been.   And certainly impossible now without some reboot or CGI or stories about the heirs.   (Although grandparents Han and Leia and Jedi Grandmaster Skywalker would be interesting, should the actors just decide to be adults and actors and let go of their past.   That would indeed be very Jedi of them; are they up for the task, to do and not try?)

But comparing the original to the new?   Oh, my.   Never mind the years of expectations that couldn't possibly be matched without magic of some sort.   There's also that thing that can't really be reversed or accounted for.  If you were say 14 when you saw Star Wars in 1977.    You can't help but remember it through the eyes mind memory of a 14 year-old.   Which would have made you 36 for The Phantom Menace.  Memories at 14 are a galaxy far far away from 36.    Same goes for 8 and 30.  

Let's imagine the impossible.   (How could you remove 22 years of cultural experience, singular or shared?)    What would a child or teenager who'd never seen modern special effects and knew nothing about Ep. IV-VI think when they first saw Ep. I?    Would they have found it as enjoyable?  Great (terrible) question, there is no real answer.   There's no way to tell, because the people (of whatever age) going into the theater in 1977 had a background and set of expectations that nobody currently has to compare to.  It's a world full of 24 hour instant news, twenty different celebrity magazines at the checkout, 800(billion) TV channels, and for  people with data plan smartphones, always-on always-reachable Internet.   Movies are  full of modern special effects, where you can't always tell the actors from the computer images any longer.  

As to how different things are, take for example one of the newest animated movies, any will do. Toy Story say.     If they had started making one of those animated movies with every iota of all the computer power available on the entire planet in 1977, and never upgraded any of the equipment.  In another 117 years we'd have the first frame of the twenty-four we'd need to fill a second of screen time.

Handy fact.   If dealing with film, each frame might be displayed three times (triple-blade shutter) to create an effective seventy-two images per second.

The comparison with no comparison.