The Shifting Tone of Star Wars

I became a fan of SW before the prequels, and while I enjoyed those films when they came out, over time I've come to prefer the pre-PT SW films and expanded fiction more. There's something to their sensibility that just feels right to me.

In the years since the PT films came out (not to mention the books and other fiction), I've seen them accused of bad scripting, confusing plotting, poor acting, overuse of unrealistically dynamic special effects, etc. Those things notwithstanding, I think there is a shift in tone. I always found it hard to define, but I happened to read Adam Roberts' review of The Hobbit today and I think it gets at the notion very well:

Punkadiddle said:

My beef, if I may slip into a nonvegetarian idiom for a moment, is not with Tolkien's religious beliefs, which (although I do not share them) are clearly essential to the dynamic of his art. My beef is with the notion that all our bents and faculties have a purpose. In Tolkien's second version of The Hobbit, it is precisely the haphazardness, the intimations of glorious, human, comic incompetence, that must be sanded, smoothed and filed away. It is no longer enough for Gandalf to turn up on the doorstop of the world's least likely adventurer merely because that is the sort of thing batty old wizards do. Now he must do so because he has a larger plan.  In the first version of the story it doesn't really matter why Gandalf chooses a hobbit, of all people; or more precisely, his whylessness of choice is actually the point of the story. ('I am looking for someone to share in an adventure that I am arranging,' Gandalf says, with what sounds to me rather like desperation, 'and it's very difficult to find anyone.') This is because the novel is not about Gandalf's whys, it is about Bilbo's adventure: why he is chosen matters less than the way he acquits himself on his journey, and the extent to which he sheds his unheroism and becomes a better fellow. That's what matters because we are he. That's how the reading experience goes.

But in Tolkien's second version of the hobbit everything has to happen for a reason. Gandalf was not idly arranging an adventure; he was setting in motion one crucial play in a larger strategy of a grand war against Evil.

Obviously, there is some element of "crucial play[s] in a larger strategy" in the OT, specifically the two sequel films. However, the original film has a sense of adventure and "haphazardness," and I think that Empire and Jedi, while they pile on the additional story mythology and relationships, do not fully shift the feel.

In the OT, the Empire and the Emperor are politically powerful, but the universe itself doesn't have  to care; it's a fight between political factions and ideologies. Vader is a man who made choices and happens to be in the right place at the right time to end the Emperor's rule. In the PT, a "larger plan" of the universe is added. The Force itself wobbles, out of balance, and Anakin springs forth from it (in this, I'm going by a reading of the films; I've not read Plagueis and anyway even if Anakin's creation is explained there, the notion of his being born by the will of the Force seems widespread regardless). This drastically expands the scope of the narrative in much the same way LotR and the revised Hobbit change the original Hobbit.  

The comparison is inexact: The OT already had a strong freedom vs authoritarianism ("good" vs "evil") theme, true, and the PT was always going to focus on characters who also appeared in the OT, giving them (like Ben) more total screentime than the OT leads, perhaps making them feel more like the "main characters" of the films in general. That might account for part of the redefinition of the films into "Darth Vader's story." However, the shifting of the narrative focus to make it a truly cosmic-stakes battle, and to make Anakin (and by extension, Luke and Leia) unique characters in the universe, does change the whole feel. It's the retconning of the ring Bilbo wins from Gollum into The Ring of Power, forged in Mount Doom, the key to defeating Evil once and for all.

I think this shift has also been quite evident in the expanded material, by the way, with the focus - to near exclusion of all else - on the Jedi and Sith, the Force, and related concepts. I was looking at used books recently and found the old Brian Daley Han Solo novels, the ones that came out between SW and ESB. Their lack of Jedi and the Force is probably partially due to such things being reserved by Lucas, but I like to think it's also because the feel of the SW universe was such that Solo and Chewie were just as interesting and relevant to the galaxy as the stories of the old Jedi.

The Hobbit review goes on to say:

Punkadiddle said:

The story of The Lord of the Rings is that even 'the little people' (that's us, of course) have their part to play in the great historical and martial dramas of the age -- and it is a potent and truthful story, well told. But The Hobbit is that story only in its second iteration. In its first, the one we are chiefly considering here, The Hobbit is not about the great dramas of the age; it is about us-sized dramas of people being taken out of their comfort zone -- whisked away by Story.

I'm happy that there are two versions of The Hobbit, and feel no desire to try and force them into some notional procrustean 'coherence'. Only narrative fundamentalists, the textual Taliban, believe that all stories must be brought into that sort of rigid alignment. But of the two stories, really I prefer the one (homely, funny, a little bit slapstick and a little bit wondrous) over the other (grand-verging-on-grandiose, theological, epic and strenuously, to coin a phrase, eutragic).

I think this might be how I feel about Star Wars.

CWBorne said: Stuff

Agreed, excellently put. I wasn't even thinking of this in terms of the "bad" motivator as plot motivator, etc, but that's a great point.

It's way easier than that.  Leia is evil.  Luke set her on her path before the Emperor and Vader died, so no lack of balance ever existed.

DuracellEnergizer said:

This whole discussion just serves to remind me of Lucas' ineptitude at crafting a cohesive "cosmic" story that makes any sense.

George's party line is that when the two Sith personified in the beings of the Emperor and Vader were killed/redeemed, evil itself was pretty much destroyed, a horrible imbalance created by the Sith's use of the Force was corrected, and a possibly-eternal period of peace and prosperity was ushered into existence throughout the universe. So, how the hell does this exactly work? The Sith can't misuse the Force, since the dark side is an inherent aspect of the Force that exists independently of any user who may choose to weild it. Even if two darksiders could profane the Force, so to speak, how come the thousands of Jedi who used to exist - who supposedly used the Force in the right way - couldn't use their powers to offset this disturbance somehow? And anyway, assuming all this claptrap could be made to make sense, how does the eradication of two Sith prevent other non-Sith darksiders - either from within or without the galaxy - from coming into existence? Logically, unless the Star Wars universe doesn't extend far beyond the main galaxy, there will always be darksiders elsewhere in the universe to misuse and unbalance the Force.

The explanation that I've gotten for this seems to be that the Sith at some time pre-TPM took some deliberate actions to throw the Force out of balance. It's not just their existence, but something they did to affect it. If I recall, it's probably in the Darth Plagueis book.

How Anakin killing Palpatine and then dying himself would fix this, isn't immediately clear. Neither is what exactly was done to destabilize the Force in the first place, or why it couldn't just be done again. And the idea that it's something they did instead of that they exist at all is not clear from the films alone, I think.

Even though explanations for these issues can be made, I think the whole topic is unnecessary. From the OT, there's no particular reason to think that the Force can even be out of balance, and what "out of balance" means in this instance is pretty vague. And if Lucas included it to intentionally reference some aspect of Buddhist theology or make some other metaphysical point, it's a little bit lost on me. I used a World War II metaphor to describe this elsewhere - no matter if the Allies or the Axis won, the sun would still rise and set. This business of knocking the Force around changes the stakes. I suppose the point could be simply to make it more 'epic,' but again, it just seems unnecessary and a little too grandiose to me.

CWBorne said:

That particular description points to how the Force in the OT acted as a mythic phenomenon, but in some ways, like something akin to a science of sorts in that it was neither inherently good or inherently evil, only the actual users determined that. While it did have a power one had to respect (as it would have a physical effect eventually as Palpatine's form demonstrated) it seemed very much like a tool. A natural part of life that one chose to utilize for good (the Jedi using it to protect the Republic) or ill (Palpatine using it take over the Republic) but still in many ways a tool.

I also came out of the OT with a very nondualist interpretation of the Force (similar to yours, and I still prefer it).

However, it does seem like Lucas intended the Force to be split into actual dark and light parts, even during the OT. I can't remember the exact quotes right now, but I'll have to go through the Making Ofs and Annotated Screenplays, etc., because I'm fairly sure I remember them being there.  This seems to be a place where a lot of viewers made reasonable inferences about what they were being shown when the intention behind it might have been different. I think this comes from a combination of vagueness and assumptions based on Yoda's very eastern teachings.

Of course, the metaphysics of SW do seem to have really changed between the OT and PT, just not in that way (dual vs. nondual). In the OT (and related background materials) there isn't any suggestion of balance or imbalance in the Force, or any Chosen One(s), or anything like that.

Honestly, as much as I love Empire and Return of the Jedi and so much of the old EU, the original Star Wars film, the old Marvel comics, Splinter of the Mind's Eye, and the old daily Archie Goodwin comics really, to me, are just impeccably fun.  The original movie is just so swash-buckling and fun, while at the same time it has a dark and mysterious backstory and is very much grounded in reality despite being a shameless fairy tale in space...

This leads me to my other thought.  The original Star Wars, much like the first printings of The Hobbit (before LOTR and the Gollum scene change), is a fairy tale.  Empire and Jedi are much more "dark" and "epic", and deal so much with darkness, notions of redemption, seduction towards evil. etc that they are much more "epic" than anything the original film and the pre-ESB "EU" offered.  The same with how LOTR is so much more grave, embellished, and grand than The Hobbit which is such a "Wake up common people unaccustomed to adventure and excitement! Let's go get some treasure and have a jolly old time!" type of book.  However, none of these changes are that bad.  Empire and Jedi being much more "grand" and "epic" than Star Wars isn't a problem.  The same with LOTR to the Hobbit.  What is a problem is when the later story has to ret-con that of the original to make it fit in with the dark, grand scheme of the entire series which it spawned.  Empire and Jedi did it a bit to Star Wars...and then the Prequels made the entire Star Wars franchise all about prophecies, virgin birth, fate and fulfillment, and quasi-scientific explanations for EVERYTHING...except for the prophecies and fate....(also Tolkien shouldn't have changed the Gollum scene in The Hobbit...it just doesn't fit the original story...although that's still so much less of an atrocity to the Special Ed. changes to the OT films).  

Probably? Even his books about the Prequel era are pretty good! I can't imagine how great they would have been had he been able to craft his own backstory! He would have most likely written exceptionally about Anakin/Vader and the Old Republic...I feel like he was interested in that era a lot anyway (then George spoiled it...)

Well, even though I do think the entire OT rocks, it's very refreshing to see people who recognize the original Star Wars for the greatness that it really is and who doesn't gush over Empire endlessly and overzealously...and this is coming from an ESB super fan...but it is by no means this "sequel that tops the original" that everyone makes it out to be.  It's not The Dark Knight. 

So the original Star Wars is like the Hobbit full of fun swashbuckling adventure.

Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are like Lord of the Rings for taking that fun swashbuckling adventure and giving it more weight. 

And the Prequels are like the Silmarillion for filling in a lot of extra details while not really being a particularly engaging story from beginning to end.

I've never been one to take real issue with the new Star Wars that has been created since Phantom Menace came along and has continued to this day.  But I will agree that there is a different feel to it all that I sometimes miss being able to have. 

Anchorhead said:

American Hominid said:

... the original film has a sense of adventure and "haphazardness," ...

 

I've been meaning to weigh in on this discussion because it is the very reason why I'm a one-film-only fan.  I'll not bore the board - yet again - with the minutia of it all.  I will, however, point out that the essence of your statement is what spoke to me when I sat in the theater in 1977.

 

I think that Empire and Jedi, while they pile on the additional story mythology and relationships, do not fully shift the feel.

They may not fully shift the feel, but they very much get the ball rolling.  Empire starts the shift, Jedi completes it.  Can't speak to the tone of the prequels because I barely remember the only one I've seen. 

With a great deal of input from Marcia, Kurtz, and McQuarrie, Lucas got lucky in 1977.  A stand-alone film that works because it's stand-alone.  As soon as Lucas started trying to write more story, he ruined the story. The "adventure and "haphazardness," disappeared when Lucas shrunk the universe. Particularly the haphazardness of it all.

Where you see a shift in tone as the franchise goes along, I see it just the opposite.  To me, Star Wars is the only film in the series that didn't have that tone.  As I've stated before, I think Star Wars is the odd film out. 

Personally, I think the original Star Wars trailer is the best example of how different that film is from the rest of the franchise.  It's truly an adventure in a galaxy far far away, with a darker tone.  Actual darkness - not the cartoon darkness of the other 5 films.

My argument is a little different than that, though. The OT sequels did feel different than the original, no real argument there. However, the PT did something even beyond that, which is introduce the Chosen One plotline and a prophecy relating to the Force being "out of balance." I don't know how familiar you are with those things, not being a prequel viewer - but those are the big differences I see.

In the OT, even after the web of connections started becoming denser, it was still a political story and a personal one. It was not, I think, an overtly metaphysical one. By that I mean - in the OT, there is no reason to think that the Force could generate a person from nothing, let alone that this is actually the backstory to Anakin Skywalker. In the OT there is also no particular reason to think that the Force itself could be knocked "out of balance," whatever that even means. The addition of these elements - some of which have their origins in OT-era notes and thoughts, but are not explicit in any of the pre-PT films - elevates the characters and events to metaphysical significance, a stature that I don't think they had before.

These additions also put the Force-users in the absolute center of the setting, demoting smugglers, pilots, moisture farmers, bureaucrats, and the like to fiefdoms along the periphery of a universe that hinges on the actions of and relationships between demigods.

OzoneSherrif, that's really interesting about Zahn's idea of the Emperor being elevated to power by the military elite.... sort of like if Hitler were an evil wizard. (Hitler's turn as Chancellor came about largely due to the consent of the German military and political leaders, who hoped to control him and use him as a figurehead in their efforts to undermine Weimar democracy and reestablish authoritarian rule.)

Of course, such a backstory is incompatible with the Prequels' vision of Palpatine already being Supreme Chancellor for years and years.... but of course, Lucas' two, originally conflicting, versions of the Emperor--the Nixonian bureaucrat repeatedly elected to office in violation of term limits, and the Sith sorcerer who was a dark counterpart of Ben Kenobi--fully merged only during the PT.

When the old EU was being developed, the PT era was considered off limits by Lucas since he still held on to the possibility that he would make 1, 2, and 3.  Though this did eventually happen, I often wander how well a set of novels by, say, Timothy Zahn telling the story of Anakin's fall to the dark side might have turned out.

Darth Bizarro said:

When the old EU was being developed, the PT era was considered off limits by Lucas since he still held on to the possibility that he would make 1, 2, and 3.  Though this did eventually happen, I often wander how well a set of novels by, say, Timothy Zahn telling the story of Anakin's fall to the dark side might have turned out.