h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What is the actual time-line sequence now?

I will be a heathen and admit - I have never seen a single "episode" from front to back. But where the hell to begin?

From what I see, they are now pre-quels, sub-quels, and who knows what?

We have the definitive entry on that, Nick:

A87790189

The short answer is that you should see IV, V, and VI and generally ignore I, II, and III. However, if those interest you, I've heard it's a good idea to watch IV, V, II, III, and then VI in that order.

Sadly, this does mean you'd miss the Duel of the Fates, but fortunately we have the internet now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-L2K2f2YWM

** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-L2K2f2YWM

Sadly, Han Solo seems to have aged quite bit in the new episode, so some of the characters we all came to know and love in earlier ones may have reached the end of their shelf lives.

A great pity it is!

I think the real solution would have been to keep the Expanded Universe completely intact and just have the new movies, like, a thousand years in the future. Everybody would've been happy with that.


But my genius is wasted...

Now that's an excellent idea

My genius wasted is, as well.

Brand me the heretic, I think that I will actually pass on the lot.

As far as I was aware, in the town that I lived at the time - Battlestar Galactica arrived first, and I saw that at the drive-in theatre. But now that Star Wars has grown to 7 episodes - it puts me in mind of other movie lines that simply go too far with trying to make more money off of a good premise. Hallowe'en series, Friday the 13th, Saw ... Just keep flogging it for a few more millions.

I've heard that Disney intend to release one new Star Wars movie per year.

I've also heard that even though they paid George Lucas $4b for the rights, they were already in profit from the merchandising deals they've struck, even before anyone had seen the new movie.

This isn't cinema in the old sense, is it?

"This isn't cinema in the old sense, is it?" [Icy North]

How far back do you want to go?

How about the 1920s, with very young actor named Mickey Rooney, who began making short films in 1926, when he was five or six. The first was "Not to be trusted." That must have been well-received, as he appeared in five more in 1927 as the same basic character, 14 in 1928, 12 in 1929, 10 in 1930, 8 in 1931, 5 in 1932, and 7 in 1933.

A little later, he tried out a new character: Andy Hardy, whom he portrayed 15 times in full-length movies between 1939 and 1946.

Hollywood has not minded giving people more of what they wanted for as long a they would keep on buying tickets.

I count 6 Ma and Pa Kettle movies between 1949 and 1954. How many times has Hollywood returned to Oz? How many times has Superman appeared n the silver screen?

Sorry, Icy, but show business is like any other kind of business when it comes to giving customers what they want.....

Nod and Osh are booked to see VII on Monday and started their preparation today. It was interesting to hear their discussion on what order they should watch I to VI. I mean, I would have thought, watch them in that order, but apparently not.

They started with IV, if it helps.

Mol

I think IV was the first one that came to theaters, back in the 1970s. It created a *huge* sensation. I was too old for it, though. The coming-of-age theme seemed a better bet for teenagers. I was nearly 30 at the time.

Um... That it wasn't your thing is all well and good and everybody's allowed to have their own preferences, but I'm almost 30 now, and if Star Wars came out for the first time this year I'd still love it, so I don't think it's appropriate to say that you were "too old" for it...

Truthfully I've never understood the preoccupation with "age-appropriate" activities anyway. To me it just seems like an excuse to avoid having fun.

I've lost interest, but I don't think it's anything to to with my age. And Star Wars is not really anything to do with science fiction, anyway. It's just as much a generational story of good vs. evil. Downton Abbey on an epic scale with sfx.

We watched VI, V and VI (were they called that back then? I think they might have been) back in the early 70s, when they really broke new ground in film-making.

And the thing about Mickey Rooney playing the same character 7 times in a row may be Hollywood over-milking a product but we must remember this was back in the days before TV. Nowadays, people get so identified with a TV character that they play, that they either have to be really good or really prolific to shake it off.

No, they weren't called IV, V and VI back then, and I know this because we had that discussion here in our living room as soon as IV ended yesterday (not at you, TC, obvs, at my family).

There are very few films, I think, which are only for children, and they tend to be not-very-well-made straight-to-DVD animations. I'm thinking of, say, the first Barbie film, which really didn't have a lot in it for adults. But to be honest, it didn't have a great deal in it for children.

I didn't see Star Wars on its original release because we didn't really go to the cinema as kids. My siblings subsequently got *well* into it, so I can name most of the robots, characters, and vehicles, and I know enough about what happens to be able to thoroughly enjoy the Family Guy version. I have also built a Lego X-wing

Mol

They were simply called 'Star Wars', 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' back then.

I'm not sure which franchise popularised numbered sequels - Jaws, maybe?

Nope: in 1977, the film that came out was called "Star Wars". At that point, there was still a fair degree of doubt among those who'd made it whether they'd made a terrible clunker. It's hard to see with hindsight just how outside the box the original was compared to basically all other movies up to that point.

As soon as things went completely bonkers and it became clear that there was going to be a sequel, George Lucas went back and (in a harbinger of much worse to follow 25 years later) fiddled with the original to add the words "Episode IV - A New Hope" to the beginning of the opening text crawl.

So "The Empire Strikes Back" was always, from day one, "Episode V", but the first film was called "Star Wars", no episode number, and it was only damned Lucasian revisionism that changed that.

And Han shot first.

The first Star Wars film did not have "Episode IV" at the start. This was added later.

But "The Empire Strikes Back" did have Episode V at the start when it came out in the cinemas. I remember the reaction from the audience clearly:

"What?"
"I thought this was Episode 2?"

and the knowing smirks from those in the know.

By the time The Return of the Jedi came out, nobody was surprised at the Episode VI at the start.