Especially if she's not a huge action fan, definitely 4-6 first. I showed my ex, who wasn't an action fan or a nerd Episodes 4-6 first, and she enjoyed them quite a bit. Especially Episode 5, which has a lot to offer more "civilian" viewers.Thaliur said:
Whereas, 1-3 are mindless action sequences tied loses together with bland, boring scenes of characterization. The camera angles are flat and the characters have no life. Episodes 1-3 have absolutely nothing to offer someone who doesn't want to see shit explode/get cut in half by a lightsaber, or nerds who wanted to know more about Darth Vader.
I mean, the prequels are basically officially endorsed Extended Universe bullshit. Except that Episodes 1-3 are a little below the normal level of quality for the Extended Universe.
The prequels suck and they are rubbish. You should just leave them. To say, "Oh, don't tell me they suck," is to cut a huge portion of the discussion out. Specifically, you should show her 4-6 first because these are the good movies. These are the influential movies. These are the movies that changed modern science fiction, that changed the way Hollywood works, that gave Harrison Ford one of his most famous roles, that became fixations in pop culture.Thaliur said:
The prequels, on the other hand, were blatant cash grabs produced in a halfhearted manner on the gamble that if you put any schlock in the feeding trough, the little piggies will still come to feed.
So, to show anyone the prequels first and the original trilogy second would be to cheapen the whole experience for them. And the reality of the matter is, this is an important consideration when asking the question, "Which order should you watch the films?"
It's like saying, "Should someone's first hamburger be cooked in the backyard on the grill or purchased from McDonald's? Also I want a sane vote, no McDonald's is homogenized crap rubbish."
Why is that the case? Because:
None of the characters are likable: Padme is a flat, two dimensional cartoon, Anakin is a moody jerk, Obi Wan is also a moody jerk who is an incompetent Jedi.
They involve a nonsense plot and is focused around a war in which you are not emotionally involved at all: oh, robots are fighting clones.
If the robots win, then something.... "bad" might... happen?
But if the clones win then I guess the space democracy that I don't care about might... survive, or something.
And every time a robot or a clone dies, it doesn't matter in the least because it wasn't a real person fighting for something they believed in.
But, oh wait, Palpatine has this crazy plan that makes no sense, and the clones are actually the bad guys. So the bad guys fight the bad guys, and the main good guy is also the bad guy, and the bad guys win.
I mean, this has been posted 100 times before, but it bears repeating everytime someone attempts a defense of the prequels:
I have done this. It's kinda being bored watching the previews before a movie in a theater---you know, mostly disinterested and then occasionally something explodes or something and you pay attention for a few seconds.LookingGlass said:
Only this is like watching 6 hours of previews before the real film begins.
Having read the OP, I still find the need to explain why 1-3 are garbage. The awfulness of the prequels is simply too important a concern when considering showing someone the Star Wars movies for the first time.suitepee7 said:
