# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![RoniaBorkason](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9dc877/32.png) [@RoniaBorkason](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoniaBorkason)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/81 "2010-02-01T18:48:43Z")
I would go 4-5-6, then 1-2-3-4-5-6. That way you get the good movies first, and then the whole story arc. Once, over a weekend in bed sick, I watched them in 1-2-3-4-5-6 order, and it really transforms the story. Its all about Vader, the whole thing. Only barely about Luke. But 4-5-6 is still the better set of movies. Always watch them. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/82 "2010-02-01T19:17:08Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Wait–why would you start with Prince Caspian and end with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe? > > Even the poor sots who think the books should be read in terms of internal chronology put it at: > Magician’s Nephew (6) > Lion (1) > Horse and his Boy (5?) > Prince Caspian (2) > Dawn Treader (3) > Silver Chair, (4?) > Last Battle (7) > > Seriously–why would you start with Prince Caspian? > > PS: Star Wars: 4,5,6, stop. The problem is that in recent publishings, the Narnia books have been renumbered. So if you just say “2-6, 1, 7” we need to know if you’re going by the original numbering, or the new numbering. FWIW, the correct order is the order in which they were published (the original 1-7), starting with LWW. Same principle for Star Wars: 4,5,6,1,2,3. Although I kind of like the idea of saving 6 for last. ---
**Author:** ![Taomist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@Taomist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taomist)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/83 "2010-02-01T19:49:31Z")
Since we’ll likely have all the Star Wars geeks here \<‘geek’ in a good way\>, maybe someone can answer me something: When Star Wars first came out, I was in 6th grade. Didn’t care much about it until later, when I saw it in music class \. Anyway, I recall learning that there were actually _9_ segments to the Star Wars trilogy, that it was actually 3 sets of 3. We ended up with 2 sets of three, and I waited a number of years for the ‘other 3’ but never heard a word. Now I am thinking I must have sorely misunderstood something way, way back then. Anyone have any ideas what George was thinking at that time? Did he EVER have 9 segments planned, or was I just a misinformed nerd? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/84 "2010-02-01T19:55:19Z")
Well, if you were misinformed, it was by George Lucas. He did say that at the time. I remember thinking that none of the other segments would _ever_ get made, and was surprised that Lucas actually came back and did the “first” trilogy. The effects are better, but the story’s not compelling. I seriously doubt that he’ll ever make the “last” trilogy. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/85 "2010-02-01T19:57:58Z")
I don’t even think the effects _are_ better. I think they’re worse! With the puppets in the original films, they managed to make creatures that looked real because they were real, in the sense of being actual, physical objects which were created and filmed. I didn’t think any of the CGI creatures came anywhere near the sense of realism created by those puppets. ---
**Author:** ![Taomist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@Taomist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taomist)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/86 "2010-02-01T20:21:52Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Well, if you were misinformed, it was by George Lucas. He did say that at the time. I remember thinking that none of the other segments would _ever_ get made, and was surprised that Lucas actually came back and did the “first” trilogy. The effects are better, but the story’s not compelling. I seriously doubt that he’ll ever make the “last” trilogy. Thank you, thank you!! At least I didn’t imagine it, which is what I was really curious about. 😛 Now I’m curious as to what might have been the plan for 7-9. I know I’ve read a few SW books regarding Leia and Han’s twins, but don’t know if that had ever been the plan movie-wise. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Piranha\_Brothers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aca169/32.png) [@The\_Piranha\_Brothers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Piranha_Brothers)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/87 "2010-02-01T22:20:55Z")
> [@Tanbarkie](#): > > he has a direct line to Lucas’s brain. George lucas has a brain??? Surely, this has long since been replaced by a special edition brain with new special effects. ---
**Author:** ![caligulathegod](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/caligulathegod/32/9685_2.png) [@caligulathegod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligulathegod)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/88 "2010-02-01T23:43:51Z")
> [@The\_Piranha\_Brothers](#): > > Well, if you’re tired, why do you do it? Anyway, it seems al you do is repeat the same arguments, most of all that there is no dialogue. Well movies aren’t just about dialogue. You still haven’t satisfactorily explained the two references in VI. > > Incidentally, I don’t think ANYONE here claimed it was a big romantic struggle between the 3 of them. But you are the only one who seems to deny every possibility. How do you know? > From a writer’s point of view, it was a minor subplot that could be picked up when the story needed it. **(Could have, but wasn’t)** And that is exactly what happens in VI. > > Writer #1: ‘Oh, this could really do with a romantic storyline. But what about?’ > Writer #2: “I know. We’ll say that Han thinks Leia loves Luke even though it makes no sense that she would. It will end happily because she’s his sister.” > Writer #1: ‘Great idea. The audience will totally buy it.’ > > Many movies and series make changes like that when something is suddenly very important that none of the characters cared or thought about before. > > Also, if people think it’s there, and there is no official source denying it, how can you really say that it is nonexistent? So what if there’s no reason why Leia should abandon Han for Luke? It’s a movie. Eye of the beholder and all that. What does it matter to you, anyway. I make the argument because of the same reason anything here gets discussed: To combat ignorance. It’s one of the biggest misconceptions about Star Wars. > [@Fenris](#): > > In addition, in the context of the original movie “Star Wars” (remembering it was a stand-alone as originally conceived, Lucas’s rewriting of history notwithstanding), Luke is the farmboy-turned-hero. Of _course_ he gets the princess. Han was LUKE’S sidekick in the first movie: Luke is the one who decides to rescue the princess…Han just tags along. Luke takes on the Death Star–Han only follows afterwards. In the context of the first movie, NO ONE GET’S THE PRINCESS. They get a medal. They _kind of_ set up a potential love trangle for the next movie _that doesn’t happen._ Leia NEVER shows any interest in Luke. A quick peck on the cheek for luck before the swing across the chasm is not interest. Other than some random lines that Leia could have barked at anyone in the vicinity (“Find the controls to extend the bridge!,” Her comforting Luke at the loss of Ben, etc.) Leia and Luke never really speak to each other at all in the first two movies (almost not at all in Empire). In Star Wars and Empire, any time Leia actually _talks_ to anyone, she either talks to Han or about him (or Lando. I’d actually argue that the closest we get to a Love Triangle in Empire is between Han, Leia and Lando.). Luke, as well, NEVER shows any interest in Leia. After his initial infatuation (which, is a bit of dialog meant so that Han can state his first romantic interest in her.), Luke never again in the entire trilogy shows ANY interest in Leia. He is physically separated from Leia for the entirety of Empire Strikes Back so they never get a chance to set up any romantic tension. When they do finally meet back up, it is when she rescues him after he gets his ass kicked by Vader. The man she _does_ love, for whom she has so dramatically declared her love, has just been frozen in carbonite and shipped off to Jabba the Hutt. At this point, “Han and Leia” are firmly established. A love triangle requires one character to be torn between two potential suitors, which doesn’t happen in these movies. There is only a straightforward romance between Han and Leia. In Jedi, Luke knows she’s his sister and tells her such (in their only conversation in the entire trilogy. Keep in mind, Han and Leia have done nothing BUT talk to each other and kiss for two straight movies, so it isn’t insignificant that Luke and Leia never actually have any scenes together), so it’s ridiculous to insist there is a triangle in that movie. Han’s brief misunderstanding (which doesn’t affect the plot and is only there to ride the coattails of the cathartic ending) aside, where is there any triangle? So we have a “triangle” with two of the three characters that have no interest in each other. That’s not a triangle. It’s just a plain old regular romance. Han flirts with Leia constantly, she pretends like she hates him, then she falls for him. Luke doesn’t enter the picture at all, he’s becoming a Jedi. > [@Tanbarkie](#): > > Don’t you _get_ it? Those references were put there accidentally! George Lucas fell asleep and gremlins came into his office and wrote those lines! _Obviously_ he never had any intention of setting up romantic tension between Luke and Leia (despite the kisses in episodes 4 and 5, the obvious competitiveness between Luke and Han after the latter, and subtext throughout all three films so blatant that it’s basically text) - **caligulathegod** said so, and he has a direct line to Lucas’s brain. Cite please for ANY subtext of romantic tension between Luke and Leia if it is that obvious. Cite one instance of Leia showing any romantic interest in Luke in any of the films and Luke showing any after him “feeling Han out” about his interest in Leia. Other than Luke’s shit eating grin after Leia’s kiss, cite this obvious competition between Luke and Han. Competition is not a slight misunderstanding that comes out of nowhere in the last line of dialog in the trilogy. Competition implies two people are going after the same goal. What we have here is that we saw these films as children before we understood romantic subtext. The child in us assumes that Luke, being the hero, will get the girl. Han gets the girl, so we imagine that there must have been some competition between the two. Only when we watch the film taking the filter of childhood off do we realize that Luke’s storyline has nothing to do with Leia, but is about him becoming a Jedi. Most viewer take Leia’s kiss and conflate it with our expectations and imagine that we saw something that isn’t there. Now here’s the kicker. In the radio adaptation, there ACTUALLY IS a competition between Luke and Han over Leia. It’s not hinted at, it’s there. All of these scenes are conspicuous by their absence in the films. Why would Lucas have cut these scenes (one even makes it to one of the early trailers!) if he intended there to be a romantic triangle? He didn’t have to shoehorn any scenes in. They were in the original rough scripts. In the editing room, he specifically cuts them out. Right before Leia kisses Luke, in the original cut, Luke and Leia have a moment and almost kiss for real. C3P0 comes in and cockblocks them. C3P0 does this exact same thing again when Han is about to kiss Leia later in the film It’s a freaking CALLBACK (that we know Lucas LOOOOOVES) that Lucas actually cut out of the film. That shows intent. He didn’t just happen to trim out scenes that made more of the relationship of Luke and Leia. He specifically cut the ONE major scene that actually had a payoff later in the film! Lucas knew that Luke was to become a Jedi and Han was to get Leia and he excluded ANY conflict in the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/89 "2010-02-01T23:45:13Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > Fine. Raj, Howard and I will watch the Clone Wars TV show without you. Just don’t sit in my seat. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MJinks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@MJinks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MJinks)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/90 "2010-02-01T23:50:48Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I don’t even think the effects _are_ better. I think they’re worse! With the puppets in the original films, they managed to make creatures that looked real because they were real, in the sense of being actual, physical objects which were created and filmed. I didn’t think any of the CGI creatures came anywhere near the sense of realism created by those puppets. I completely agree. The CGI just feels really fake, you’re fully aware it’s all done on a computer. It prevents me becoming absorbed in the action. The fights are worse. In my head I’m picturing the actors in front of a blue screen performing carefully choreographed moves while flying around on wires. The old films felt meaty and dirty. The new films look clean and are void of emotion. So, erm… I would go with 4, 5, 6 and then some of the extended universe stuff. There’s plenty of material to waste your time on that is better than 1, 2, and 3. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/91 "2010-02-02T00:06:18Z")
> [@MJinks](#): > > … > The old films felt meaty and dirty. The new films look clean and are void of emotion. > … Quite true, which is ironic because the signature, dirty universe that Star Wars took place in was kinda revolutionary. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bith_Shuffle)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/92 "2010-02-02T00:27:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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.) Do I have to deny that 1, 2, and 3 were made to deny that they are good movies worth showing my friend? The dialogue between prettyboy and prettyface in Episode 2 was insufferable. At times, it was as bad as _The Matrix: Revolutions_ I would show them A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, The Return of the Jedi, and then ask them whether they wanted to keep watching Star Wars movies or do something that was actually enjoyable. If they really did want to see the newer movies, I would show them. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/93 "2010-02-02T01:02:01Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Wait–why would you start with Prince Caspian and end with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe? > > Even the poor sots who think the books should be read in terms of internal chronology put it at: > Magician’s Nephew (6) > Lion (1) > Horse and his Boy (5?) > Prince Caspian (2) > Dawn Treader (3) > Silver Chair, (4?) > Last Battle (7) > > Seriously–why would you start with Prince Caspian? > > PS: Star Wars: 4,5,6, stop. I wouldn’t. You have them numbered in original publication order, but modern publication number (as I have listed them) has them in “chronological” order. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![cactus\_waltz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@cactus\_waltz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cactus_waltz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/94 "2010-02-02T01:26:09Z")
> [@caligulathegod](#): > > What we have here is that we saw these films as children before we understood romantic subtext. The child in us assumes that Luke, being the hero, will get the girl. Han gets the girl, so we imagine that there must have been some competition between the two. Only when we watch the film taking the filter of childhood off do we realize that Luke’s storyline has nothing to do with Leia, but is about him becoming a Jedi. I see your point, but there are few things I would like to mention: 1. It is not just the child in us that assumes these things. It is a huge movie trope that “the hero gets the girl”, which makes Luke and Han rivals _even if Luke actually spends most of the second movie becoming a jedi._ The audience simply can’t rule out the possibility that Leia will come to see what a great guy Luke is, especially after he has been upgraded into Jedi Luke. 2. The fact that nobody gets the girl in the first movie means that it’s an unresolved matter which bleeds in the second movie and per association the entire trilogy. The fact that Luke has his kissing moment in the second movie and that Han Solo delivers a line of confusion in the third movie only further settles it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/95 "2010-02-02T02:04:45Z")
> [@caligulathegod](#): > > See, I’m blowing your mind. Where is this romance? Star Wars sets it up. Watch it with your chick flick filter on. Every scene sets up Han and Leia. Luke has a few moments of establishing that Leia is desirable, but it is all for Han’s benefit. It’s pure formula. Actually, the Han-Luke-Leia relationship is the one part of the trilogies that _isn’t_ pure formula. The formula would be “hero gets the princess.” That she ended up with the lovable rogue instead is quite literally the only part of the entire series that breaks with cliche. Also, I’m sorry, but you have completely failed to blow my mind. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Piranha\_Brothers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aca169/32.png) [@The\_Piranha\_Brothers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Piranha_Brothers)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/96 "2010-02-02T08:56:53Z")
> [@caligulathegod](#): > > I make the argument because of the same reason anything here gets discussed: To combat ignorance. It’s one of the biggest misconceptions about Star Wars. Sounds more like your personal opinion, for which you can’t cite a shred of proof. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that it’s obvious that it’s going to be Han and Leia. I agree, it’s clearly set up to go that way and there is not a single Luke-Leia scene that could counter that. But I answered that in my earlier post. Cactus Waltz also has a valid point. > [@Miller](#): > > Actually, the Han-Luke-Leia relationship is the one part of the trilogies that _isn’t_ pure formula. The formula would be “hero gets the princess.” That she ended up with the lovable rogue instead is quite literally the only part of the entire series that breaks with cliche. Exactly. And suppose Han Solo had been played by another, less talented, actor. The sequels would have been written in a different direction. ---
**Author:** ![caligulathegod](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/caligulathegod/32/9685_2.png) [@caligulathegod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligulathegod)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/97 "2010-02-02T10:03:08Z")
> [@cactus\_waltz](#): > > I see your point, but there are few things I would like to mention: > > 1. It is not just the child in us that assumes these things. It is a huge movie trope that “the hero gets the girl”, which makes Luke and Han rivals _even if Luke actually spends most of the second movie becoming a jedi._ The audience simply can’t rule out the possibility that Leia will come to see what a great guy Luke is, especially after he has been upgraded into Jedi Luke. > > 2. The fact that nobody gets the girl in the first movie means that it’s an unresolved matter which bleeds in the second movie and per association the entire trilogy. The fact that Luke has his kissing moment in the second movie and that Han Solo delivers a line of confusion in the third movie only further settles it. > [@Miller](#): > > Actually, the Han-Luke-Leia relationship is the one part of the trilogies that _isn’t_ pure formula. The formula would be “hero gets the princess.” That she ended up with the lovable rogue instead is quite literally the only part of the entire series that breaks with cliche. > > Also, I’m sorry, but you have completely failed to blow my mind. This is what’s so brilliant about Empire Strikes Back, it plays with our expectations and subverts them. Let’s look at it like a screenwriter. Star Wars IV introduces us to the characters. We have a young Hero, his mentor, a rogue older brother type character, a Princess, and some lovable sidekicks along with a villain. The dialog sets us up to believe there’s going to be a bit of a rivalry. Then we get to Empire and instead of a rivalry, the Hero goes off to learn a monastic discipline to enable him to confront the villain and the rogue character gets the girl. This does break the cliche but it doesn’t actually break formula. With the knowledge of Empire Strikes Back, lets go back to examine Star Wars again and realize that they fooled us. Luke discovers the Princess through R2’s message. R2 is the MacGuffin. He needs to be taken to the Princess on Alderaan. To get there, he meets Han, the rogue. We think that Han is just going to be the sidekick but it turns out that he is actually the second primary character. Luke’s place in the story is to be the Joseph Campbell Hero with a 1000 Faces. While Han is actually the romantic hero. > [@](#): > > (from Wikipedia)“The hero starts in the ordinary world, and receives a call to enter an unusual world of strange powers and events (a call to adventure). If the hero accepts the call to enter this strange world, the hero must face tasks and trials (a road of trials), and may have to face these trials alone, or may have assistance. At its most intense, the hero must survive a severe challenge, often with help earned along the journey. If the hero survives, the hero may achieve a great gift (the goal or “boon”), which often results in the discovery of important self-knowledge.” Instead of being in position to get the Princess, his story function is to introduce the Princess to Han while he pursues his adventure (becoming a Jedi and confronting Vader and eventually the Emperor. His boon: the redemption of his father). While both characters seem to “meet cute” with Leia, look at the dialog. Luke’s tends to be functional. I’m here to rescue you. It’s basic fairy tale stuff, which lulls us into believing they will get together. Look at Han and Leia’s dialog. It’s pure romantic comedy formula “meet cute” that blows Luke’s out of the water. Again, I’ll refer to wiki, since this is the best explanation of “meet cute”. > [@](#): > > “A meet-cute is a convention of screwball comedies and their heirs, the romantic comedies, the contrived encounter of two potential romantic partners in unusual or comic circumstances, a comic situation contrived by the filmmakers entirely in order to bring them together. During a “meet-cute”, scriptwriters often create a humorous sense of awkwardness between the two potential partners by depicting an initial clash of personalities or beliefs, an embarrassing situation, or by introducing a comical misunderstanding or mistaken identity situation.” There’s the initial clash of personalities: > [@](#): > > LEIA: This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a > plan for getting out? > > HAN: (pointing to Luke) He’s the brains, sweetheart. > > Luke manages a sheepish grin and shrugs his shoulders. > > LUKE: Well, I didn’t… > > The princess grabs Luke’s gun and fires at a small grate in > the wall next to Han, almost frying him. > > HAN: What the hell are you doing? > > LEIA: Somebody has to save our skins. Into the garbage chute, wise > guy. > > She jumps through the narrow opening as Han and Chewbacca > look on in amazement. Chewbacca sniffs the garbage chute and > says something. > > HAN: Get in there you big furry oaf! I don’t care what you smell! Get > in there and don’t worry about it. > > Han gives him a kick and the Wookiee disappears into the > tiny opening. Luke and Han continue firing as they work their > way toward the opening. > > HAN: Wonderful girl! Either I’m going to kill her or I’m beginning to > like her. Get in there! > > INTERIOR: DEATH STAR – GARBAGE ROOM. > > Han tumbles into the large room filled with garbage and muck. > Luke is already stumbling around looking for an exit. He finds > a small hatchway and struggles to get it open. It won’t budge. > > HAN: (sarcastically) Oh! The garbage chute was a really wonderful > idea. What an incredible smell you’ve discovered! > > **snip** > > LEIA: Listen. I don’t know who you are, or where you came from, but > from now on, you do as I tell you. Okay? > > Han is stunned at the command of the petite young girl. > > HAN: Look, Your Worshipfulness, let’s get one thing straight! I take > orders from one person! Me! > > LEIA: It’s a wonder you’re still alive. (looking at Chewie) Will > somebody get this big walking carpet out of my way? > > Han watches her start away. He looks at Luke. > > HAN: No reward is worth this. Then we get the first hints of respect. > [@](#): > > Before even thinking, Han draws his laser pistol and > charges the troops, firing. His blaster knocks one of the > stormtroopers into the air. Chewie follows his captain down > the corridor, stepping over the fallen trooper on the floor. > > HAN: (to Luke and Leia) Get back to the ship! > > LUKE: Where are you going? Come back! > > Han has already rounded a corner and does not hear. > > LEIA: He certainly has courage. > > **snip** > HAN: (laughing) Hey! Hey! > > LUKE: (laughing) I knew you’d come back! I just knew it! > > HAN: Well, I wasn’t gonna let you get all the credit and take all the > reward. > > Luke and Han look at one another, as Solo playfully shoves > at Luke’s face. Leia moves in between them. > > LEIA: (laughing) Hey, I knew there was more to you than money. Leia barely relates to Luke in anything other than as an acquaintance let alone friend but she loathes Han until she finally sees some worth in him. This continues on through Empire. Han is obviously smitten with her. His first several conversations are him trying to get Leia to admit she feels the same about him as he does her. In Star Wars, Luke displays a bit of a crush, but it’s a child’s crush. In Empire, he drops it. He’s all business. The only time he interacts on screen with Leia, he’s recovering from his wounds. Watch the scene again. He’s not sitting there pining over Leia. He’s distracted about how he’s going to tell them that he’s leaving for Dagobah. He just sits there expressionless. Han, on the other hand is riding Leia and pushing her buttons. She’s pissed he’s leaving but won’t admit to herself that she does love Han. Finally, in a fit of pique, she seeks to “prove” to Han that he’s full of shit so she suddenly kisses Luke. The only passion in the kiss is her burning resentment of Han. Luke’s expression changes from surprise into gloating. Why shouldn’t he gloat? He’s been kissed by a pretty woman and he just spent 5 minutes rolling his eyes at Han pushing Leia’s buttons. His lip smacking is him saying “buuurn!” to Han. It’s not his big kiss moment with Leia. We, the audience, filled with our expectations from fairy tales project that it is, but storywise, it isn’t. It’s just part of the initial “dislike” period of the formula romantic movie story. In Jedi, Han’s relationship with Leia is confirmed. It’s not ambiguous. First thing Leia tells Han is she is “Someone who loves you.” Later, when they are at the bunker, there’s a callback to Han’s smartass,“I love you.”“I know.” There is nothing in the story indicating ANY competition with Luke over Leia. Han does question Leia if he should step aside for Luke. Nothing so far in the trilogy has indicated that this should be the case other than Han having a moment of jealousy about her keeping a secret from him. Storywise, one can assume he might have had a moment of doubt since he was on ice for a year. Why Han thought this is really unimportant. He’s already had her tell him straight out twice in the film that she loves him. Why did Lucas put the line in there? A few reasons. First, it’s a story telling device to give her a reason to tell Han her “secret”. He needed a bit of dialog to prompt her to reveal that Luke was her brother. Why this moment? The Death Star 2 was just destroyed. She can feel that Luke had gotten off in time. It’s a cathartic moment. Her reveal to Han is the topper. Now it’s on to celebrate. Second, not that there is any lingering doubt that they need to clear up the story (we, and all the characters know that Luke and Leia are sibs, and Han and Leia are in Love), but one has to realize that the primary audience for Star Wars is children. Children are sometimes a bit dense and even the obvious needs to be spelled out for them, regardless of actual doubt. That’s why they had the big reveal with Yoda confirming Vader really was Dad. If you are still unconvinced, all I can say is watch the film again with this new insight. Most of watched these as children and when we watch them now, we go in a reverie and are children once again. Watch them again with the critical eye of an adult and you will see that what you have believed your whole life about Han, Luke and and Leia is actually an illusion not supported by anything in the films themselves but by the projection of the child in all of us. ---
**Author:** ![caligulathegod](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/caligulathegod/32/9685_2.png) [@caligulathegod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligulathegod)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/98 "2010-02-02T10:05:17Z")
> [@The\_Piranha\_Brothers](#): > > Sounds more like your personal opinion, for which you can’t cite a shred of proof. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that it’s obvious that it’s going to be Han and Leia. I agree, it’s clearly set up to go that way and there is not a single Luke-Leia scene that could counter that. But I answered that in my earlier post. Cactus Waltz also has a valid point. > > Exactly. And suppose Han Solo had been played by another, less talented, actor. The sequels would have been written in a different direction. You replied while I was composing my last post. I hope that this satisfies your need for a site. ---
**Author:** ![cactus\_waltz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@cactus\_waltz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cactus_waltz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/99 "2010-02-02T10:53:48Z")
> [@caligulathegod](#): > > If you are still unconvinced, all I can say is watch the film again with this new insight. Most of watched these as children and when we watch them now, we go in a reverie and are children once again. Watch them again with the critical eye of an adult and you will see that what you have believed your whole life about Han, Luke and and Leia is actually an illusion not supported by anything in the films themselves but by the projection of the child in all of us. First, I find it a bit insulting that you assume that our opinions are the opinions of children. Yes, I am able to distance myself from my 9-year old me. What this boils down to is that the ESB makes a twist to the Hero Gets Girl trope. Star Wars is in many ways a classic adventure and so you expect a classic outcome. You, caligulathegod, disregard these expectations due to the fact that there aren’t scenes or lines to support them well. But they are still there, carried through by the power of Western story-telling and stubborn movie cliches. They make the relationship between Leia, Luke and Han a love triangle _of sorts_, because no matter how unfounded it is, Luke’s character is still the Hero archetype and the princess (sic!) is therefore in his supposed interest. It’s a strength in the ESB script that this doesn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Piranha\_Brothers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aca169/32.png) [@The\_Piranha\_Brothers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Piranha_Brothers)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intro-to-star-wars-1-2-3-4-5-6-or-4-5-6-1-2-3/527070/100 "2010-02-02T11:44:03Z")
> [@caligulathegod](#): > > You replied while I was composing my last post. I hope that this satisfies your need for a site. Not really. It’s still your interpretation of the movie. Now if you could back it up with George or someone else involved in the making of star wars saying that there never ever was any idea of Luke and Leia, that would be real proof. But you haven’t got that otherwise you would have quoted it long ago. > [@cactus\_waltz](#): > > What this boils down to is that the ESB makes a twist to the Hero Gets Girl trope. Star Wars is in many ways a classic adventure and so you expect a classic outcome. You, caligulathegod, disregard these expectations due to the fact that there aren’t scenes or lines to support them well. But they are still there, carried through by the power of Western story-telling and stubborn movie cliches. They make the relationship between Leia, Luke and Han a love triangle _of sorts_, because no matter how unfounded it is, Luke’s character is still the Hero archetype and the princess (sic!) is therefore in his supposed interest. It’s a strength in the ESB script that this doesn’t happen. Perhaps this is what caligula means when he says it is not there but only exists in our preconceptions. But he forgets that these expectations are also in the minds of the writers and directors. That is why they bring up that bit in VI. Personally, I think in 1977 everything was still possible and undefined. I think the sister-brother thing was only invented later when the single Star Wars movie became part IV of a trilogy. (Originally it was not “Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope” but just “Star Wars”.) This is just the way it turned out partly because Han was a very popular character. Strange, really, that someone who calls himself Caligula is so adamant about Luke never touching his sister. After all, the real historical Caligula did touch his own sister frequently. [Previous 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=4) [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=6)