Tiptup was talking about how the beauty of the classic trilogy is taken away because of the way the prequels reveal certain things that are revealed in the classic trilogy as surprises for the audience. Things like Yoda being Yoda, Vader being Luke's Father, and Leia being Luke's sister. It is true that these things uses to be surprises for the audience, but now that the viewer goes in with prequel knowledge, the Audience is not surprised by the details of the revelations. Tiptup was saying that the emotional resonance is now just gone with nothing to replace it, but to me there is a more substantial drama in waiting to see how this new information (which is still a surprise to Luke) effects him. With Yoda, we see how Luke reacts when he doesn't realize he is Yoda, and the audience now knows from the get go that Yoda is testing him. To me it underscores Luke's impatience better. Also, I think that without the setup in the prequels, the "Leia is my Sister" revelation was fairly hollow on it's own. I remember people back in the day complaining about "well who isn't related to Luke anymore"? Now because it's been there all along it's more substantial to me now. Before it seemed to be just a convenient way to tie everything up for ROTJ, now it seems like a solid backed up plot point.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Well, in Star Wars, you aren’t supposed to think about Darth Vader as Luke’s father, or Leia as his sister. You can call these ideas “depth,” but I call them a needless distraction. “Episode IV” becomes the weakest film out of the series because nobody can focus on its strengths anymore. We’re thinking about a bunch of other shit that makes everyone lame. Darth Vader is a whiny loser and an illogical psychopath, et cetera. The coolness of its story is irrevocably destroyed.
Also, most of the artistic emotional strengths of the original trilogy rely upon the viewer experiencing its story fresh, without knowing certain key concepts ahead of time. For instance, who is the strange and ridiculous little green creature that leads Luke around in Empire? Or, “Oh my God, that monster, Darth Vader, says he’s Luke’s father? Is he lying?” Are you actually telling me that you place no importance on those immensely great dramatic moments? You’re more worried about Anakin than Luke? You believe the prequel trilogy is important enough to demolish some of the greatest plot developments in movie history? To be sure the "I am your father" revelation" is one of the best revelations in cinema history. It really blew all our hair back when we first saw it, wondering if he was telling the truth between ESB and ROTJ. To a lesser extent, it was also surprising to find out that Yoda is really Yoda. These are some great surprises, but once you see them, they are over. They are like one trick ponies for the audience. To me the long-term dramatic value in these scenes really rests on how Luke will react to these revelations. If anything, knowing this information ahead of time puts more emphasis on Luke.
Otherwise, do you believe that it is wrong for a child to want to be with his mother? A child is evil for fearing that change? Or a man shouldn't want to save his mother from a horrible death? Or save his wife from dying if he can? The reason I ask these questions is because Yoda seems to imply that the basic emotion of fear in those examples is wrong for some reason. That's a dumb concept for George Lucas to preach. Certainly, fear can lead to bad outcomes based on how we choose to view our fear, but fear is often a good thing.
Fear is bad. It's debilitating. It only serves to make us unstable. Wanting to be with his mother is fine, being afraid of losing his mother is natural, wanting to save his mother or wife from death is natural. Fear is not a good thing, but it's a natural occurrence in the human condition. It's not the fear that's evil, it's the anger and hate that it can lead to that is evil. Well, in Star Wars, you aren’t supposed to think about Darth Vader as Luke’s father, or Leia as his sister. You can call these ideas “depth,” but I call them a needless distraction. “Episode IV” becomes the weakest film out of the series because nobody can focus on its strengths anymore. We’re thinking about a bunch of other shit that makes everyone lame. Darth Vader is a whiny loser and an illogical psychopath, et cetera. The coolness of its story is irrevocably destroyed.
Also, most of the artistic emotional strengths of the original trilogy rely upon the viewer experiencing its story fresh, without knowing certain key concepts ahead of time. For instance, who is the strange and ridiculous little green creature that leads Luke around in Empire? Or, “Oh my God, that monster, Darth Vader, says he’s Luke’s father? Is he lying?” Are you actually telling me that you place no importance on those immensely great dramatic moments? You’re more worried about Anakin than Luke? You believe the prequel trilogy is important enough to demolish some of the greatest plot developments in movie history? To be sure the "I am your father" revelation" is one of the best revelations in cinema history. It really blew all our hair back when we first saw it, wondering if he was telling the truth between ESB and ROTJ. To a lesser extent, it was also surprising to find out that Yoda is really Yoda. These are some great surprises, but once you see them, they are over. They are like one trick ponies for the audience. To me the long-term dramatic value in these scenes really rests on how Luke will react to these revelations. If anything, knowing this information ahead of time puts more emphasis on Luke.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Sorry, Anakin’s desires don’t move me in the least. I don’t want to identify with a whiny little piece of evil scum and I wouldn’t want anyone else to do so either. That teaches the wrong message if anything.
It teaches us that evil can happen to anyone, even us. By relating to an evil person such as Darth Vader, we can see how even a person who sees themselves as "good" can end up making the wrong choices. It teaches us to be ever vigilant of the evil lurking within ourselves.Originally posted by: TiptupOriginally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
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? The insane jumps are a logically artistic flaw when trying to tie together the 6-episode saga. If we start with Luke, considering his youth, his natural strength at using the force, his intense physical training with Yoda, and then Yoda stating that he’s basically learned everything he needs in RotJ, it seems silly to suddenly have every lowly Jedi that comes along able to dwarf Luke’s jumps by a mile. It was simply done for sensationalistic reasons so Jedi could jump like they were in “The Matrix.” I prefer artistic subtlety, thank you. The super jumps add nothing of value to the series, and the fact that viewers have to figure them out based on the earlier films takes away some fun for them.
Anyways, this is a small problem that most people don’t notice right away, including myself, so I don’t want to waste too much time talking about it. There are more important problems to analyze from an artistic standpoint. Luke started training when he was what 18-19, and ends up training for like what 10 years total by the end of ROTJ? To me it's more logical to assume Luke would -not- be as good as Jedi who had been training since at least 9 years of age, taught by a whole community of Jedi when they were still in their prime. Luke is a huge underdog as far as Jedi Hopefuls go, and that's another way the prequels augment the drama in the classic trilogy, by underscoring Luke's chances compared to fully trained Jedi.
To call Anakin a complete psychopath is to miss the humanity in his feelings of selfishness.Originally posted by: TiptupI 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? The insane jumps are a logically artistic flaw when trying to tie together the 6-episode saga. If we start with Luke, considering his youth, his natural strength at using the force, his intense physical training with Yoda, and then Yoda stating that he’s basically learned everything he needs in RotJ, it seems silly to suddenly have every lowly Jedi that comes along able to dwarf Luke’s jumps by a mile. It was simply done for sensationalistic reasons so Jedi could jump like they were in “The Matrix.” I prefer artistic subtlety, thank you. The super jumps add nothing of value to the series, and the fact that viewers have to figure them out based on the earlier films takes away some fun for them.
Anyways, this is a small problem that most people don’t notice right away, including myself, so I don’t want to waste too much time talking about it. There are more important problems to analyze from an artistic standpoint. Luke started training when he was what 18-19, and ends up training for like what 10 years total by the end of ROTJ? To me it's more logical to assume Luke would -not- be as good as Jedi who had been training since at least 9 years of age, taught by a whole community of Jedi when they were still in their prime. Luke is a huge underdog as far as Jedi Hopefuls go, and that's another way the prequels augment the drama in the classic trilogy, by underscoring Luke's chances compared to fully trained Jedi.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
It's set up by his fear of losing his mother, ratcheted up a notch with his inability to save his mother from death, and delivered by his choice to turn to the dark side in an attempt to save Padme.
Ahh, how interesting. So, you believe that the selfishness of a complete psychopath is a meaningful way to communicate the concept that a fear of change can often lead to bad things? Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
First of all, if I was worried about "logical beauty" I would have given up at the concept of light sabers. Instead of stopping at "well lasers wouldn’t just stop at one end" I rolled along with it for the sake of enjoyment. Nonsense. Light sabers were always presented in a very logically beautiful way in the films. They were mysterious and magical weapons that somehow needed the force to work and, unlike what you claim, they were clearly different from the laser blasters in the film (please don’t make flippant points). All in all, light sabers are a very simple and acceptable subject from a logical standpoint, and very enjoyable from a logical standpoint as well. Your assumption that light sabers needed the Force to work is unsubstantiated by any of the Star Wars films, and in fact, Han Solo uses one which pretty much disproves your assumption outright. But it is good to see you actively suspending your disbelief for this concept, because it will come in handy later on for other points I may make about the prequels.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Here is a quote from Lucas I saved from a while back about how Anakin turns to the dark side:
Lucas: 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.
To me it's the reasons Anakin falls to the dark side. I'm no film scholar, but Lucas starts out with an almost overly virtuous Anakin in TPM, and shows how his inability to cope with the prospect of change ended up being his undoing.
Anakin: But I don't want things to change.
Shmi: But you can't stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting.
First of all, if I was worried about "logical beauty" I would have given up at the concept of light sabers. Instead of stopping at "well lasers wouldn’t just stop at one end" I rolled along with it for the sake of enjoyment. Nonsense. Light sabers were always presented in a very logically beautiful way in the films. They were mysterious and magical weapons that somehow needed the force to work and, unlike what you claim, they were clearly different from the laser blasters in the film (please don’t make flippant points). All in all, light sabers are a very simple and acceptable subject from a logical standpoint, and very enjoyable from a logical standpoint as well. Your assumption that light sabers needed the Force to work is unsubstantiated by any of the Star Wars films, and in fact, Han Solo uses one which pretty much disproves your assumption outright. But it is good to see you actively suspending your disbelief for this concept, because it will come in handy later on for other points I may make about the prequels.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Now, if we were to have logically delved deeper into how light sabers supposedly worked in the films themselves and talked about plasma and shit like that, sure that might well have been an unsuccessful addition, artistically speaking. There’s no way for us to know though, since the films never went that route. I agree, in cases like this one, less it certainly more.
If you prefer "standard" fare that's fine. To me Star Wars is more meaningful because it is so much more thought provoking than "standard" fare. Most movies present their themes in such a way as to tell the audience how they are supposed to feel about everything. Star Wars presents it's themes and then forces the audience to make sense of it.Originally posted by: TiptupNow, if we were to have logically delved deeper into how light sabers supposedly worked in the films themselves and talked about plasma and shit like that, sure that might well have been an unsuccessful addition, artistically speaking. There’s no way for us to know though, since the films never went that route. I agree, in cases like this one, less it certainly more.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I'm not sure I understand, you mean you are looking for a reason for Anakin to have slaughtered the younglings?
Yes. Every time I watch Revenge of the Sith I try to grasp hold of a simple reason for this. Either Anakin is a complete, psychotic monster, concerned with his own pathetically little fears, or the Force operates in the most contradictory and stupid ways imaginable. (Maybe it’s a mixture of both, which would be even more stupid.) Either way, the fact that I’m forced to wonder so much about his crucial point means that the movie’s story, as a piece of art, is easily substandard. The entire “saga” falls apart at this point for me as well. Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
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". That is an admirable element of the prequel trilogy’s story. I too thought that the parallels and opposites found in the films were an interesting path to take. The Phantom Menace used this concept the best. Unfortunately, even in that film, a lot of the elements were generic and boring. Midichlorians, as presented in TPM, are a third-rate science fiction concept. They add nothing enjoyable to the experience of the movie, except when they helped Qui-Gon Jinn to analyze Anakin. After that, the explanation of how they are the beings that actually connect a Jedi’s mind to the force raises too many pointless questions about the force that take you out of the experience. I mean, seriously, if the force is connected to everything, then it should be automatically connected to a Jedi’s mind as well. Why can’t a Jedi’s mind know the “will” of the force without mindless bacteria telling him first? Let's examine how people hear things. In any movie with humans, it is usually assumed that people just hear things. If a movie got into the idea that there are these sound waves hitting a membrane inside our ear which causes these little bones to resonate, which in turn allow us to perceive sounds, then nothing is really changed, it's just now we have this additional information that is usually assumed. Beyond giving Qui-Gon a way to show that Anakin is particularly strong in the Force, the Midichlorian concept serves Lucas' theme about Symbiotic relationships. The Midichlorians are an example of life forms that live with other life forms for their mutual advantage. The saga shows all these symbiotic relationships, and parasitic relationships to show how symbiotic relationships end up making better sense in the long term.
To me, the questions it raises about the Force are similar to the kinds of questions that are raised about religious concepts here on Earth with the study of Mitochondria. So it's not just some space bacteria Lucas made up, it's very much in line with the dynamic faced by our culture today with science and religion both in existence. To me this isn't "distracting" it's thought provoking. I personally think it's good to think about stuff like this. It's more important to think about it, than it is to actually answer any of the questions being raised. It's just something that's good for our development as a society, and I think it's great the way Star Wars puts deep philosophical concepts like this in front of children at a fairy early age so they can start thinking about concepts like this as soon as possible.
Good art is capable of standing on its own. You accept what it offers without reservation because its artistic focus is well crafted. If that artistic concept is filled with an inordinate amount of annoying questions, there is less enjoyment on the part of an observer.
To me the most important component of Art is what the observer brings to the table. For a viewer like me who loves to wonder about stuff like this, this dynamic brings more enjoyment than if all of the concepts were wrapped up into a neat little package and sat on our lap with instructions on how we should feel about it.Originally posted by: TiptupI 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". That is an admirable element of the prequel trilogy’s story. I too thought that the parallels and opposites found in the films were an interesting path to take. The Phantom Menace used this concept the best. Unfortunately, even in that film, a lot of the elements were generic and boring. Midichlorians, as presented in TPM, are a third-rate science fiction concept. They add nothing enjoyable to the experience of the movie, except when they helped Qui-Gon Jinn to analyze Anakin. After that, the explanation of how they are the beings that actually connect a Jedi’s mind to the force raises too many pointless questions about the force that take you out of the experience. I mean, seriously, if the force is connected to everything, then it should be automatically connected to a Jedi’s mind as well. Why can’t a Jedi’s mind know the “will” of the force without mindless bacteria telling him first? Let's examine how people hear things. In any movie with humans, it is usually assumed that people just hear things. If a movie got into the idea that there are these sound waves hitting a membrane inside our ear which causes these little bones to resonate, which in turn allow us to perceive sounds, then nothing is really changed, it's just now we have this additional information that is usually assumed. Beyond giving Qui-Gon a way to show that Anakin is particularly strong in the Force, the Midichlorian concept serves Lucas' theme about Symbiotic relationships. The Midichlorians are an example of life forms that live with other life forms for their mutual advantage. The saga shows all these symbiotic relationships, and parasitic relationships to show how symbiotic relationships end up making better sense in the long term.
To me, the questions it raises about the Force are similar to the kinds of questions that are raised about religious concepts here on Earth with the study of Mitochondria. So it's not just some space bacteria Lucas made up, it's very much in line with the dynamic faced by our culture today with science and religion both in existence. To me this isn't "distracting" it's thought provoking. I personally think it's good to think about stuff like this. It's more important to think about it, than it is to actually answer any of the questions being raised. It's just something that's good for our development as a society, and I think it's great the way Star Wars puts deep philosophical concepts like this in front of children at a fairy early age so they can start thinking about concepts like this as soon as possible.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Anyways, the yin-yang concept was executed horribly in episodes II and III. One minute you’d have a concept be identical and then the next minute it would be opposite. But that contrast is what makes the parallels more meaningful than if they just repeated the exact same things.
Such as?Originally posted by: TiptupAnyways, the yin-yang concept was executed horribly in episodes II and III. One minute you’d have a concept be identical and then the next minute it would be opposite. But that contrast is what makes the parallels more meaningful than if they just repeated the exact same things.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
That and the parallels were often so simple that they insulted the audience’s intelligence. Like Obi-Wan saying “I’ll never join you,” or Anakin and “Padme” professing their love to each other while captured. Anyone could have come invented those generic and predictable copies of the OT within a few seconds. If they make enough sense to be predictable, why would you suggest Lucas is insulting your intelligence with them? The point of making a parallel is so the audience realizes there is a parallel. It's not like he was trying to sneak them by you, the goal isn't to make them so obscure that most people wouldn't notice them.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
so what are the logical inconsistencies you would have to look over to enjoy this as much as I do?
Every single, logical mess we’ve had to discuss in thread so far is what lessens my enjoyment of the prequel trilogy. Much of what CO, Scruffy, and others have mentioned for instance. These issues detract from the enjoyment of the films because they’re so convoluted, messy, and incomplete. Sure, you can explain them if you twist your reasoning around enough times, but that doesn’t make the films into good art. So much of what happens in the prequel trilogy’s story occurs for stupid reasons. That and the parallels were often so simple that they insulted the audience’s intelligence. Like Obi-Wan saying “I’ll never join you,” or Anakin and “Padme” professing their love to each other while captured. Anyone could have come invented those generic and predictable copies of the OT within a few seconds. If they make enough sense to be predictable, why would you suggest Lucas is insulting your intelligence with them? The point of making a parallel is so the audience realizes there is a parallel. It's not like he was trying to sneak them by you, the goal isn't to make them so obscure that most people wouldn't notice them.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Anyways, with all of that now said, here we now reach the most important part of my post, Go-Mer. I look forward to your response regarding the following ideas. They express the heart of why I do not enjoy the prequel trilogy films. If you can at least understand my point of view here, then at least we have gotten somewhere.
Well most of the time, you are just supposed to accept these things at face value. If you don't want to think about why something is the way it is, then all you have to do is -not- question it. Suspend your disbelief and roll along with it.Originally posted by: TiptupAnyways, with all of that now said, here we now reach the most important part of my post, Go-Mer. I look forward to your response regarding the following ideas. They express the heart of why I do not enjoy the prequel trilogy films. If you can at least understand my point of view here, then at least we have gotten somewhere.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Second, I really do enjoy figuring out ways apparent inconsistencies could make sense.
As do I. Yet, while I love spending the vast majority of my time on tough logical exercises, I do not like to do that in the middle of a film. A competent piece of art is supposed to focus the observer’s mind on the concepts its author intended it to communicate, and not distract the audience with needless complications or outright contradictions. In a film, that primary, communicated focus is usually the film’s story and all of the other neat concepts that are contained within a film hang off of that thread. Second, I really do enjoy figuring out ways apparent inconsistencies could make sense.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
so what are the logical inconsistencies you would have to look over to enjoy this as much as I do?
Good art is capable of standing on its own. You accept what it offers without reservation because its artistic focus is well crafted. If that artistic concept is filled with an inordinate amount of annoying questions, there is less enjoyment on the part of an observer.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I'm not sure I understand, you mean you are looking for a reason for Anakin to have slaughtered the younglings?
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Here is a quote from Lucas I saved from a while back about how Anakin turns to the dark side:
Lucas: 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.
To me it's the reasons Anakin falls to the dark side. I'm no film scholar, but Lucas starts out with an almost overly virtuous Anakin in TPM, and shows how his inability to cope with the prospect of change ended up being his undoing.
Anakin: But I don't want things to change.
Shmi: But you can't stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting.
It's set up by his fear of losing his mother, ratcheted up a notch with his inability to save his mother from death, and delivered by his choice to turn to the dark side in an attempt to save Padme.
Sorry, Anakin’s desires don’t move me in the least. I don’t want to identify with a whiny little piece of evil scum and I wouldn’t want anyone else to do so either. That teaches the wrong message if anything.
Otherwise, do you believe that it is wrong for a child to want to be with his mother? A child is evil for fearing that change? Or a man shouldn't want to save his mother from a horrible death? Or save his wife from dying if he can? The reason I ask these questions is because Yoda seems to imply that the basic emotion of fear in those examples is wrong for some reason. That's a dumb concept for George Lucas to preach. Certainly, fear can lead to bad outcomes based on how we choose to view our fear, but fear is often a good thing.