When I watch a movie and look for logical beauty within it, I am looking for a good story or ethical/philosophical meanings, not ways to remove seeming contradictions. For instance, the killing of “younglings” seems dramatic and horrible for me, until of course I try and understand a logical context for why on earth it is happening at all. Then my mind immediately starts to get sick of the whole thing. The emotional beauty disappears. I'm not sure I understand, you mean you are looking for a reason for Anakin to have slaughtered the younglings?
Originally posted by: Tiptup Sure, you guys can claim to CO that the original trilogy can work as a continuation of the "Anakin" saga. That all three of the movies are actually about a pair of twins working to "resurrect" their father from the opening scene in Star Wars to the closing scene in Jedi (as George Lucas tries to now claim), and you can jump through a million logical hoops to prove how this might work as the focus of the films as well. But where is the remaining beauty after you have tortured the films in this way?
Darth Vader was NEVER originally intended to be Anakin Skywalker or Luke’s real father until the preproduction of Empire Strikes Back. This is historical fact. Likewise, Princess Leia was NEVER originally intended to be Luke’s sister until George Lucas decided to go that route when writing the story for Return of the Jedi. This is historical fact. Therefore, to pretend that elements from the earlier movies somehow foreshadow these ideas is pretending only. Oh I agree, this "saga as a whole" was not something Lucas intended from the beginning. He set out to make the original trilogy, and initially the "prequels" were nothing more than a rough outline upon which he could hang the events he was going to tell in the classic trilogy. Sure he talked about even doing more than 6 films early on, but he was clearly fleshing this out as he went. Even so, I think it has all come together remarkably well in the end.
I don't see how the beauty is being tortured. I mean sure, the dynamic for an audience member is different for a first time viewer if they go into ANH knowing Luke and Leia are Vader's children. Are you saying that it works this way from a logical narrative standpoint but just isn't "beautiful" anymore?
Originally posted by: Tiptup The original trilogy is about Luke Skywalker. It is about giving form to classic themes from our world’s mythology. Darth Vader was originally just a villain in this context. To force the “saga” of Anakin as the supposedly “true” focus of the film does not work in any artistic way whatsoever. It doesn’t even emotionally work since all of the emotional elements from the original Star Wars have nothing to do with Darth Vader being anything more than the totally awesome villain. Sure ANH worked on that level of simply good vs. evil, but in the context of the whole saga, it now has the added benefit of depth. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about how it doesn't work artistically or emotionally. To me relating to Vader makes the emotions involved with ANH and the rest of the saga for that matter resonate deeper for me. When I had just seen ANH back in the day, before I even knew there would be any sequels, Vader was just this evil machine thing. The bad guy, the one to vanquish and do away with. Now he's this evil machine that used to be the nicest boy in the galaxy. Suddenly there is a part of me that roots for that kind person to come back. While that dynamic isn't intentionally addressed in ANH, the "point of view" Obi-Wan tells Luke works well enough as foreshadowing. Obviously Anakin was always going to be a fallen hero, even if he wasn't going to become the villain at first.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Wow, that is quite the lengthy explanation, but it totally missed the point unfortunately. I guess I should have been clearer with my question. I did not ask for a logical way in which the Midichlorians can function with a traditional idea of the force. I had already figured out that entire train of thought on my own after my very first viewing of the Phantom Menace.
What I was actually asking about the artistic method behind the film. You were supposed to explain why any of that stuff you typed up about Midichlorians should actually matter to anyone. In what way are any of the Star Wars movies enhanced by talking about Midichlorians? To me it served no purpose other than to waste time in the movie and make the force into an overly confusing subject. Normally, in aesthetics, you have simplicity tying together a number of complex concepts, yet George’s introduction of the Midichlorians actually did the exact opposite.
I think the more thought provoking the Force concept has become, the better it's gotten. There is something to be said about showing both sides to any given coin, which is what the scientific perspective does for the more mystical side of the Force. Everything about this "whole saga" is about showing different sides to the same things. In the prequels we have the "Good" establishment and the "Bad" rebels (separatists). In the classic trilogy we have the "Bad" establishment, and the "Good" rebels. The prequels start out with 2 Sith Lords in hiding waiting to take the galaxy back from the Jedi, while in the classic trilogy we have 2 Jedi in hiding waiting to take the galaxy back from the Sith. Even the Jedi and the Sith are similar in almost every way... but opposite. The beauty of the full saga together is like the beauty of a yin yang. To me this is much more meaningful than either side of the coin on it's own.
To me that's the beauty and meaning I find in the "whole saga".
Originally posted by: Tiptup Same thing goes for the mountainous Jedi jumping found in the prequels. Even the longest jump that Luke made in the original trilogy does not compare to what occurred in the prequel films. So, I ask, what was the point? What was added to Star Wars by introducing something so extreme and inharmonious? Just to have something “new”? Sorry, that explanation is bullshit. Old concepts can be just as compelling as new ones and more moderate, force-jumps would have been just as dramatic. Though, this isn’t really a problem when analyzed as a film-by-film basis. It is simply a “saga” problem from my point of view.
I agree he didn't -have- to make Jedi in their prime able to jump such amazing heights, but I don't see why it would be "bad" to have done so. The logic is that Luke isn't going to be quite as good as the Jedi we see jumping all over the place in the prequels. It also explains why their swordsmanship is superior as well. Are you saying this is a logic flaw or some kind of artistic flaw?
Originally posted by: Tiptup Also, Go-Mer, I would like you to answer the last question from my first post if you can. Thank you.
Sorry about that, I started to ramble about Midichlorians, and before I knew it, it was nap time.
Here is a quote from Lucas I saved from a while back about how Anakin turns to the dark side:
The message is you can't possess things. You can't hold on to them. You have to accept change. You have to accept the fact that things transition. And so, as you try to hold on to things or you become afraid of -- that you're going to lose things, then you begin to crave the power to control those things. And then, you start to become greedy and then you turn into a bad person.
