Originally posted by: Jumpman
zombie,
Which is all very true...but some of what you've written will be used as an "I told you so" mantra when it comes to the Prequels. For me, having read many of his interviews, it was pretty clear that he was making this stuff up as he went on or "mis-remembers" certain aspects and remembers others perfectly well. It is very interesting but at the end of the day, it just goes to show how all-encompassing the creative process is when it comes to film.
I mean, this guy literally to the last moments in the editing room of Episode III, was still shaping the overall thematic structure of the saga, even though the five previous films were already done. I find that fascinating that he can ever do that.
Some would see your essay as the definitive evidence as to why the Prequels "don't work." I find it as evidence that the films themselves have flaws but the whole of the Saga is perfect.
Some of your conclusions I don't agree with, but you do provide ample evidence to said conclusions...most of the time. Again, it's a very informative write-up, you've produced. And, I'm glad you're putting it out there.
zombie,
Which is all very true...but some of what you've written will be used as an "I told you so" mantra when it comes to the Prequels. For me, having read many of his interviews, it was pretty clear that he was making this stuff up as he went on or "mis-remembers" certain aspects and remembers others perfectly well. It is very interesting but at the end of the day, it just goes to show how all-encompassing the creative process is when it comes to film.
I mean, this guy literally to the last moments in the editing room of Episode III, was still shaping the overall thematic structure of the saga, even though the five previous films were already done. I find that fascinating that he can ever do that.
Some would see your essay as the definitive evidence as to why the Prequels "don't work." I find it as evidence that the films themselves have flaws but the whole of the Saga is perfect.
Some of your conclusions I don't agree with, but you do provide ample evidence to said conclusions...most of the time. Again, it's a very informative write-up, you've produced. And, I'm glad you're putting it out there.
I agree with you, and i think that 90% of the time, when he changed things it was for the better. I think Revenge of the Sith is actually quite decent but if he hadn't changed it, if he had left it as it was shot, i probably would think that it sucked as much as AOTC did, so i am glad that he made such drastic character changes in the editing. The only instance where his changes hurt the story is in TPM and this is in a very indirect way--its not that the story was made worse (i happen to think it was but this is just my personal opinion) but that the following two films were very much affected and compromised in ways that Lucas himself didn't fully realise at the time. Thats the real problem. AOTC was hampered by the fact that everything had to be re-introduced and sped through, and so it came off as disjointed and shallow, and then when he started writing ROTS he realised that he had sabotaged himself from the start so he had to totally re-write the story treatment in the summer of 2002 because "the bridge to Episode IV" was still way too far apart, as he says. Basically a three-film arc was squeezed into two films, and even then AOTC was still fairly irrelavant to the actual story by Lucas' own admission.
Really though, i don't think these things can really be used as significant "anti-prequel" fire--the prequels were lacklustre because the characters, pacing, directing and writing were weak, not because the story turned out a certain way. If the story for TPM, AOTC and ROTS were identical to the final film but handled with more convincing characters, scripting and performances i don't think there would be a lot of backlash--its really the execution rather than the overall plot itself, for most people anyway, though obviously the plot impacts the dynamics of the characters.