What I want to know is the timeline between when Luke and Leia are born, and Anakin becomes Darth Vader. You see them building the Death Star in the background. Then in the first Star Wars, Luke is a grown man, and the Death Star is finished. There's how many years there, inbetween? Do I have this right?

You make good points here, but they are in taken in hind sight. I think the reasoning behind why he chose these time frames has more to do with setting up how the Republic Fell and the Empire rose, while still following the plight of Anakin.
- RooNosHockey

I suppose it is all hindsight, but I do think it all comes back to telling, not showing. There was a certain subtlety lost, it felt more like a video game than a space opera.

I haven't posted an image in a while

What I want to know is the timeline between when Luke and Laura are born, and Anakin becomes Darth Vader. You see them building the Death Star in the background. Then in the first Star Wars, Luke is a grown man, and the Death Star is finished. There's how many years there, inbetween? Do I have this right?
- MJL

I think it's about twenty years between the end of Episode 3 and the beginning of Episode 4.

I think it's about twenty years between the end of Episode 3 and the beginning of Episode 4.
- BulliesPhan87

Exactly. That's a huge gap in time. It took twenty years for them to finish building the Death Star?

Exactly. That's a huge gap in time. It took twenty years for them to finish building the Death Star?
- MJL

Maybe it takes twenty years to build a Death Star. But if that's the case, why did 2.0 only take two movies to put together. Maybe they kept the first one in a space closet for fifteen years or something.

Exactly. That's a huge gap in time. It took twenty years for them to finish building the Death Star?
- MJL

They should have dumped the first movie altogether. And taken the storyline from the second and third movies and fleshed them out in to 3 episodes.

Most of what happen in the first movie was superfluous to the whole story. Instead, it felt rushed and not very believable how quickly and easily Anakin goes over to the dark side.

They should have dumped the first movie altogether. And taken the storyline from the second and third movies and fleshed them out in to 3 episodes.

Most of what happen in the first movie was superfluous to the whole story. Instead, it felt rushed and not very believable how quickly and easily Anakin goes over to the dark side.
- MBFlyerfan

Should've been titled "Star Wars Episodes I: The One We Stuffed Liam Neeson Into"

Maybe it takes twenty years to build a Death Star. But if that's the case, why did 2.0 only take two movies to put together. Maybe they kept the first one in a space closet for fifteen years or something.
- BulliesPhan87

Palpatine was secreatly constructing 2 star destroyers.

I think it's about twenty years between the end of Episode 3 and the beginning of Episode 4.
- BulliesPhan87

Its about 18 years, as Luke was 18 in ANH.

Exactly. That's a huge gap in time. It took twenty years for them to finish building the Death Star?
- MJL

There are many published works between Revenge and A New Hope... Like "The Force Unleashed"...

What I want to know is the timeline between when Luke and Laura are born, and Anakin becomes Darth Vader. You see them building the Death Star in the background. Then in the first Star Wars, Luke is a grown man, and the Death Star is finished. There's how many years there, inbetween? Do I have this right?
- MJL

You have an avatar of Vader and you call Leia...Laura...?!?!?!?

You have an avatar of Vader and you call Leia...Laura...?!?!?!?
- RooNosHockey

Old General Hospital watcher, obviously. Surprised his avatar isn't Robert Scorpio.

http://www.avclub.com/art...-first-you-were-ju,69159/

http://www.avclub.com/articles/george-lucas-says-han-never-shot-first-you-were-ju,69159/
- tangent_man

Also, I've been overcome with an urge to watch The Wrath of Khan. I love this movie almost as much as I love Empire Strikes Back.

Exactly. That's a huge gap in time. It took twenty years for them to finish building the Death Star?
- MJL

Even dumber is if it's only 20 years in between how come Obi-Wan aged so (frank)in much?

Also, I've been overcome with an urge to watch The Wrath of Khan. I love this movie almost as much as I love Empire Strikes Back.

- BulliesPhan87

Star Trek > Star Wars on so many levels.

Even dumber is if it's only 20 years in between how come Obi-Wan aged so (frank)in much?
- Pike_Tyson

While we're at it, did Padme really decide to marry Anakin after knowing him for less than a week? It's worth noting that during this one week they'd been together he slaughtered an entire village, then went on a psychotic rant about it to her. Like, really? This was the big romance the cinematic world waited twenty years to see? It feels completely rushed and forced. I'm not buying any "will of the Force" excuses, either.

Star Trek > Star Wars on so many levels.
- Pike_Tyson

See, like Takei, I can't hold them against each other. Certainly Star Trek is the more cerebral franchise, but Star Wars isn't really sci-fi. It's a space opera, a fantasy movie in sci-fi clothing. It has princesses, wizards and knights, a war against an evil kingdom, and tunics and robes. And that original trilogy nails it.

Star Trek, however, is true sci-fi. I think there's a greater dearth of amazing Star Trek material to work with. But it always comes back to the movies for me. Now, I don't think Star Trek gets a free pass on movies, either. Star Trek V was... well, very obviously directed by William Shatner. Dreadful. Then those TNG movies came out, I'm not sure what the logic behind those was. But the Genesis Trilogy is great, and I love The Undiscovered Country. Even Search for Spock was enjoyable. It wasn't the perfect film Wrath was, but I liked it as a really long high quality episode.

Also, Best of Both Worlds. Enough said.

Star Frontiers > Star Trek > Star Wars on so many levels.
- Pike_Tyson

Vrusk that!

See, like Takei, I can't hold them against each other. Certainly Star Trek is the more cerebral franchise, but Star Wars isn't really sci-fi. It's a space opera, a fantasy movie in sci-fi clothing. It has princesses, wizards and knights, a war against an evil kingdom, and tunics and robes. And that original trilogy nails it.

Star Trek, however, is true sci-fi. I think there's a greater dearth of amazing Star Trek material to work with. But it always comes back to the movies for me. Now, I don't think Star Trek gets a free pass on movies, either. Star Trek V was... well, very obviously directed by William Shatner. Dreadful. Then those TNG movies came out, I'm not sure what the logic behind those was. But the Genesis Trilogy is great, and I love The Undiscovered Country. Even Search for Spock was enjoyable. It wasn't the perfect film Wrath was, but I liked it as a really long high quality episode.

Also, Best of Both Worlds. Enough said.
- BulliesPhan87

debatable.

debatable.
- Feeling Glucky?

Fortunately. If it weren't there'd be no discussion to have, and what kind of sad world can't have conversation about Star Wars/Trek?

debatable.
- Feeling Glucky?

No, it isn't. Especially if only the Roddenberry material is considered.

Your DS9 garbage is not true sci-fi.

I CAST THEE OUT!



...more to come later....