I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noted that there is a huge difference in the tone of the PT and ANH as compared to TESB and ROTJ. I feel that TPM, AOTC, and ANH have a certain sense of fantasy and whimsy about them while TESB and ROTJ contain a much more hard edged reality. True, they are much more serious stories to begin with, but there also seems to be a certain sense of fun that is missing from them. The cynical adult in me likes the series of dischordant notes plaed out in TESB, yet it is ANH hat always makes me feel like I'm 6 years old again. My topic here is what you think on the subject: are TESB and ROTJ better because the directors included a greater sense of reality in them, or is it possible that the sense of fantasy present in the PT and ANH has been lost when filtered through people who don't communicate in the same language that GL does?

Oh by no way was I attempting to cast judgements as to what is more "Star Wars" than what, I was merely seeking to see if anyone else shares this point of view or if I am, like always, alone in the corner on this issue.

No, I agree. I see the goofier tone of ANH in relation to the prequels. I think ANH would have been even more goofy had Lucas not been advised on some of the editing choices made in '76/'77. Sorry, but the Toche station scenes are pretty cheese with Luke making some real "Yippie!" moments.

The prequels are less encumbered by outside influences, IMHO. They're more true to what George has in mind. He's a really freaky, goofy guy, it seems. The weird, quiet kid making up adventures in his mind. Not to be a Lucas apologist, but this week I'm really starting to take off the glasses a begin seeing how seriously some "fans" take these films and to what extent they'll go to think that they're some sort of profoundly theological cinema experience.

Actually, you know what's funny about those cut scenes? Everyone always says it was Lucas who wanted to keep those scenes but the people advised against him doing it, so he cut it. Well in insider #78 on page 37 it says:

Well, whaddya know, crow tastes like chicken.

And "it's very good on toast" -Shrek

I thought the current version was that Fox wanted such introductory scenes, but Lucas never wanted them, and ultimately managed to do without them?

I have also heard that a major reason those scenes were cut is because the acting in them was SO terrible that they will never see the light of day, even in a "deleted scenes" section on a home video release.

I think Richard Chew and Paul Hirsch thought it was the mainstream way to go, but thought Lucas was right. I think Bill Huyuck and Gloria Katz pushed for those scenes when they were pumping up the dialog before filming started. I think I read that they took out a lot of the corny dialog in the Biggs scenes. Fox thought it was a horrible idea to introduce the hero 20 minutes into the film. I believe Marcia Lucas thought the idea was a bit dumb as well but said something like George knows what he's doing. I will look up some quotes on it later on to make sure I am 100% correct.

Yeah what I meant was that people who argue that Lucas had nothing to do with the success of Star Wars (i.e. it was the people around him) say that his friends told him not to keep those Biggs scenes even though Lucas wanted to keep them. This is the first time that I've heard officially that Lucas actually didn't want to have those scenes in the film.

Some kids mature more quickly than others. Asshole. ;-)

I'm with you as well. They are just movies, great ones at that, but they're just entertainment. I love talking about them, but they're not my life. This time next year I'll be a father, and I'm really excited for when the time comes to be able to show the films to my kid and see if they get as big of a kick outta of them as I have.

They've already seen the light of day, on the Behind the Magic CD-Rom. They are execrable.