Filed under Star Wars; 2 comments.
Star Wars is a universe divided: an excellent trilogy followed by three awful prequels. Yet this division is something that unites the fans, as rarely will you find a Jedi wannabe who favors Jar-Jar Binks over Master Yoda. I'm not of a very different mind on this matter, though I have previously argued that even the prequel trilogy has its redeeming moments. If I have to choose sides, I just can't help but root for the underdog.
What is less often considered is the six series as a united whole, and the impact the prequels have on the original trilogy. Have you ever watched all six movies not in release order, but in chronological order? If so, did you notice some things that didn't make sense before suddenly take on a whole new meaning?
One creative author has organized all those threads into a logical supposition. In Keith Martin's reconsideration of Star Wars IV in the light of I-III, two characters that have always been fan favorites are cast in unexpectedly prominent yet subtle roles. Think the heroes of this film were Luke Skywalker and Han Solo? Think again. As unlikely as this casting is to be canon, it's an imaginative — and seemingly plausible — interpretation that gives George Lucas' galaxy more depth than even he intended. If you have time to read this 2,299-word dissertation, you won't be disappointed.
One point in the above essay that I had to question: was the Millennium Falcon anywhere in the prequel trilogy? I don't remember. I know it defended Earth from the Borg, roughly a century after R2-D2 went up against the Romulans. So it's entirely possible these characters would show up unexpectedly in their own franchise.
(Hat tip to Rotten Tomatoes)