# Intro to Star Wars: 1-2-3-4-5-6 or 4-5-6-1-2-3 ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 31, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070 "2010-01-31T00:56:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/1 "2010-01-31T00:56:58Z")
SO you meet someone who has never seen the Star Wars movies, and decide it’s your dity to introduce him (or her) to the series. Do you show him 4-5-6-1-2-3 or 1-2-3-4-5-6? (People suggesting that 1, 2, and or 3 never happened are not permitted to answer. I sympathize, but we live in the real world here.) ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/2 "2010-01-31T00:58:01Z")
4-5-6-1-2-3. If you know that Vader is Luke’s dad the whole time, there’s no punch to “Luke, I am your father.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/3 "2010-01-31T00:59:55Z")
I’m planning to introduce 'em 4-5-6 first, because I’m honestly not sure a kid will sit through 1 otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/4 "2010-01-31T01:07:21Z")
4,5,6,1,2,3 They are the order that the movies were made and the order in which most of us saw them. Plotwise 1-3 should almost be treated as the end of a series, rather than the beginning. At the end of _The Empire Strikes back_ the audience was shocked to find out that Vader is Luke’s father. It wouldn’t have near the impact if you had seen episodes 1 - 3 and already knew that. Likewise, the Han, Leia, Luke love triangle in 4-6 would seem kind of silly if you already knew that Luke was Leia’s brother. ETA **appleciders** beat me to it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/5 "2010-01-31T01:18:12Z")
The order they were made. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/6 "2010-01-31T01:19:59Z")
4-5-6, then stop. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/7 "2010-01-31T01:25:45Z")
In general, I will always say that a series should be viewed/read/whatever in the order in which they were produced, not in chronological order. If 1-2-3-4-5-6 is the “right” order, then why didn’t Lucas make them in that order? Surely he didn’t expect all those folks back in the 70s to wait two decades to see the movie, so as not to spoil anything. ---
**Author:** ![pope\_hentai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@pope\_hentai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pope_hentai)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/8 "2010-01-31T01:42:51Z")
if i’d have had to sit through 2 and 3 i would have never watched 4-5-6 ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/9 "2010-01-31T01:46:16Z")
1-2-3? Those were never made. Lucas promised but never delivered. So, just 4 - 5 - 6, then. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/10 "2010-01-31T02:29:20Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > 4-5-6, then stop. Yes. If you have to include 1-3, put them at the end because anyone who starts with those may not care about the other 3 by the time they’ve endured the first 7+hours. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/11 "2010-01-31T02:32:29Z")
The problem is that 1-3 are more or less reliant on having seen 4-6. Oh, the plots are coherent enough, but seeing 1-3 first robs both trilogies of dramatic and emotional impact. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/12 "2010-01-31T02:39:08Z")
Totally 100% 4-6, then 1-3. Or not even do 1 or 2. I still think 3 is a neat little thing to watch, even though it is rather boring for most of it. It was OK. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/13 "2010-01-31T02:41:37Z")
I agree with what others have said. The plot is revealed in such a way that 4-5-6 _must_ be seen before 1-2-3. 1-2-3 would suffer from not having the foreknowledge of what happens in 4-5-6, and 4-5-6 would suffer from being utterly spoiled if 1-2-3 are viewed first. [hijack] I feel similar (though to a lesser extent) about the Narnia books (about which there was a brooh-ha-ha a few years back). Character and plot develop in any writer’s works in a unique way as they live in the author’s mind. Watching or reading an author’s version of a character that’s been worked on for 7 years stuffed in between versions of a character that was just being created, for example, can be jarring and ruin narrative flow, even if it’s appropriate to the chronology of the story. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/14 "2010-01-31T02:42:29Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Yes. If you have to include 1-3, put them at the end because anyone who starts with those may not care about the other 3 by the time they’ve endured the first 7+hours. Here’s an idea: showing 4-5-6, then make them wait 16 years to watch 1-2-3. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/15 "2010-01-31T02:46:15Z")
> [@pope\_hentai](#): > > if i’d have had to sit through 2 and 3 i would have never watched 4-5-6 Really? I mean, I agree that 2 and 3 are inferior to 4, 5, and 6, but 2 and 3 have redeeming features (Ewan Mcgregor really does do a good job as Obi Wan) and 1 is just horrid. I’m surprised to see the hatred directed specifically at 2 and 3, rather than at 1. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/16 "2010-01-31T02:52:10Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > Really? I mean, I agree that 2 and 3 are inferior to 4, 5, and 6, but 2 and 3 have redeeming features (Ewan Mcgregor really does do a good job as Obi Wan) and 1 is just horrid. I’m surprised to see the hatred directed specifically at 2 and 3, rather than at 1. I thought 2 was way worse than 1, and 3 was OK, but ruined by a [single word](http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/). ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/17 "2010-01-31T02:52:57Z")
What, no love for _The Star Wars Holiday Special_? I vote 4-5-6(minus Ewoks)-stop. Nothing was added by filling in the backstory to the primary story of the Rebellion, save for several billion dollars of artless revenue. And just for the record, the _Chronicles of Narnia_ are 2-3-4-5-6-1 and maybe 7. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/18 "2010-01-31T02:56:32Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > 4-5-6-1-2-3. If you know that Vader is Luke’s dad the whole time, there’s no punch to “Luke, I am your father.” Ahem, it’s “No, _I_ am your father.” Count me with 4-5-6-1-2-3. Plus, then you’d already know that Luke and Leia are twins as well. AND, if we’re talking someone who’s completely unaware of the entire series, they’d be surprised at Yoda’s introduction in 5. (oh, and the Ewoks are cool. Read the Wraith Squadron books and you’ll understand) ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/19 "2010-01-31T03:12:33Z")
or you could not even bother, as in at all. honestly in retrospect the entire series is pretty weak, 1, 2, & 3, just proved beyond all shadow of doubt what a lucky hack Lucas really is. or you should go 4, 5, 6, then 1, 2, 3. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/20 "2010-01-31T03:27:25Z")
4, 5, 6 (yeah I know, stupid ewoks, what the fuck ever - it still had Han Solo in it, and Bikini Leia, and as far as I’m concerned that makes it cool.) Fuck 1, 2, 3. I would never show those to my kids or to anyone else. They’re movies with _no_ redeeming qualities. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070.md?page=2)