New YouTube Series about recutting George's STAR WARS SAGA. — Page 3

G&G-Fan said:

JoyOfEditing said:

Basically, in the Gospels, Jesus’ disciples think he is going to violently overthrow the oppressive Roman Empire and lead them to freedom. Instead, Jesus allows himself to be sacrificially killed in order to restore Mankind’s relationship with God, Nature, and other Human Beings by defeating Sin, Death, and Evil on the cross. In STAR WARS, the Jedi in the Prequels and the Rebel Alliance in the OT try to defeat evil politically and through warfare, but the real victory comes when Luke and Anakin both sacrifice themselves to defeat the Emperor.

Of course Star Wars is a myth, and therefore falls under very supernatural logic. I’m very much in agreement that Star Wars needs to be treated more like a myth then pure sci-fi.

There are plenty of times in the Bible where good things happen violently. There’s more violence in the Bible then most stories. The Hebrew God is very violent, and it’s always portrayed as righteous.
Jesus’ sacrifice is entirely about giving people who have sinned a path to heaven, nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire.
The two demon space Nazis didn’t stop being demon space Nazis because Luke preached love. He tries with Vader and fails.
Christian mythology isn’t the only one Star Wars is based on. There’s also lots of classical mythology infused into it. And the Greek and Roman gods were anything but pacifists. Heracles (the demigod Son of Zeus, the King of the Gods) proved himself as a hero through violent trials.
I’d even argue Star Wars’ equivalent to demigods (the Skywalkers) harkens a lot more to Heracles then Jesus, with the exception of the Chosen One thing.

The OT is still about restoring man and defeating sin (though replace relationship with God with the Force), but it doesn’t wholesale reject violence. And violence can be committed out of loving sacrifice. They’re not mutually exclusive.

Luke wins when he defeats Vader, but refuses to give into the dark side.
The Rebellion ultimate wins when Anakin kills the Emperor. It’s a loving self-sacrifice, but still a violent solution, and it saves the galaxy.

JoyOfEditing said:

Does Luke’s decision to lay down his weapon make sense? No.

I wasn’t criticizing the story, I was pointing out that Luke made a mistake. Which is good writing, it’s consistent with the portrayal of his character.

It wasn’t smart of him to let his guard down in front of the Emperor. If it wasn’t for what was practically a miracle (a genocidal tyrant deciding to be selfless for his son), the Rebellion would’ve lost.

JoyOfEditing said:

Neither did his decision not to kill the Ewoks that captured him and Han a few scenes prior.

Because he knew he had to win the Ewoks to his side if they were to beat the Empire. He realized there was a higher purpose for them and gained their trust.
Starting a war with the Ewoks whilst already fighting the Empire would be terrible.

JoyOfEditing said:

Both of those irrational decisions lead to the Force being brought back into balance, whereas Anakin’s rational decision to try to save Padme from death, led him down a dark path.

That was not a rational decision. He made that decision out of power-hunger, a desire to cheat death.
And the way it’s portrayed in the Prequels makes him look like a moron. He trusts a guy who admits to lying to him his whole life based on some legend that he has no evidence of.
Meanwhile, when Vader tried to convert Luke, not only did he actually tell him the truth (that he can sense through the Force is true), but Luke actually has reason to believe Vader will hold up his end of the deal.

The way to solve this, I think, is to portray it as dark side addiction more broadly (like Luke), and emphasize that the Sith have always been searching for the secret to cheat death.
Anakin would find ancient Sith holocrons and scrolls describing their goal of immortality (for both himself and his loved ones). Intrigued, he starts experimenting with the dark side, and becomes addicted to it.
He knows the dark side is the only path to what he wants, it’s about subverting nature, while the light side is about respecting it (being a Force ghost isn’t what they want, as they “release” themselves, essentially becoming pure agents of the Force).
Also, Palpatine would outright say, “I want the power as much as you do. Join me and we’ll find it together.”

There several parallels to Frankenstein and the other Gothic monsters, as well as Doctor Faustus. The dark side is the Devil’s work.
Anakin is both Victor Frankenstein and his Creature: in becoming Darth Vader, he becomes his own monster out of his selfish ambition to cheat death. And like Victor, its done out of ego and greed.
Even Vader’s “If you only knew the power of the dark side!” line is a parallel to the Invisible Man’s power-hungry rant to Flora from the 1933 classic.

JoyOfEditing said:

In this way Obi-Wan’s destruction of Darth Maul wasn’t wrong, but it didn’t lead to the Force being brought back into balance, rather it continued the cycle of violence.

It didn’t bring balance to the Force because Maul wasn’t behind everything, Palpatine was.
It also didn’t continue anything. There’s 10 years of peace after. It actually put a setback in Sidious’ plans, only remedied because a Jedi with Separatist sentiments decided to become evil.

JoyOfEditing said:

The Biblical/Christian narrative logic is that the restoration of loving relationships between God, Man, and Nature, and the destruction of violent cycles doesn’t come through victory in battle or politics, but through loving sacrifice. That is why the “victory” in Lord of the Rings comes through Frodo’s sacrifice, not Aragorn’s victory in battle.

Frodo beats Sauron because he pushes Gollum off a cliff. Nobody could resist the strength of the ring that close to the volcano. Gollum basically accidentally saved Middle Earth.

And Aragon’s violent solution was necessary, otherwise Sauron’s minions would’ve murdered Frodo and Sam the second they entered Mordor. Just like the events of ROTJ couldn’t have happened without the Battle of Yavin or Endor.

Aragorn was going into to battle knowing he could potentially die. He was, for all intents and purposes, lovingly sacrificing himself. He was fighting for love of the people of Middle Earth, for Frodo, not out of hatred for Sauron. It’s honorable.

I think we’re in violent agreement on most things, haha! At least as far as STAR WARS and LotR goes. Your gloss of LotR is absolutely correct. I am merely saying that the sacrificial act of Frodo taking the Ring to Mount Doom was the focus of the reason good triumphed, not the all inclusive reason (Gollum tripping is the final reason that the ring was physically destroyed, but to Frodo’s credit he did get it 99.9% of the way there). The same goes for STAR WARS, Luke and Anakin’s sacrifice is the focus, not the all-inclusive reason that the Empire falls (I mean c’mon Lando and Wedge did their part!). When I edit, I try to shape the narrative around the primary focus and then align all the secondary and tertiary ideas to the main thread. Part of what makes STAR WARS so rich is how George weaves all sorts of myths and references together, which you did a great job laying out. And while George references a ridiculous number of mythologies ala Joseph Campbell, the core logic for the narrative structure is distinctly Christian, so I find it helpful to use that “Christian Scaffolding” to keep the plot and the characters consistent and cohesive, which is exactly what Tolkien did to tie together Gollum/Aragorn/Frodo at the end of LotR.

One of the things I didn’t mention is that I massively overhauled Palpatine and Anakin’s relationship across all 6 films, to make the “main thread” more clear and consistent. It’ll take way too long for me to go through all those changes here, but I look forward to seeing what you think once I finish that episode of the YouTube Show. I think a lot more of what I’m going for will make sense once you have that key change in mind.

From an academic standpoint, we’re gonna disagree on Jesus, lol! But your gloss is the popularly held view (George used a version of Christianity closer to the one I was trying to explain). I have the misfortune of being a Literature Major who accidently minored in Theology (who in their right mind takes a course called “Apocalyptic Literature in Anglo-Saxon England”?), and I would argue that “Going to Heaven” was not something a 1st century follower of Jesus would have been terribly concerned about. His initial followers were much more concerned with the Kingdom of God coming to Earth (where Rome is) as it is in Heaven, but I don’t wanna sidetrack this thread, haha! So if you wanna talk more 1st Century Theology PM me. 😃

Could I see your edit of the ANH duel?

I could go down a slippery slope of asking to see every one, so I’ll just limit myself to the one I’m most interested in.

G&G-Fan said:

Could I see your edit of the ANH duel?

I could go down a slippery slope of asking to see every one, so I’ll just limit myself to the one I’m most interested in.

I cut it. . . Except for the hangar portion. . . Nothing of consequence (To the plot of the SAGA) happens in the initial scene, so I just use the end of the duel framed as if Ben is holding Vader off so Luke can escape. It’s a pretty common action trope to lose track of one of the secondary characters, and just as our heroes are about to get on the chopper the poor secondary character emerges from the woods only to be dragged back in by the monster as the rest of our heroes watch in horror.

I’m still fine tuning that whole sequence, but when I get it done, I’ll PM you a link. If you’d like to see my prequelized version of the Empire Duel, that’s ready to go if you’re interested.

JoyOfEditing said:

If you’d like to see my prequelized version of the Empire Duel, that’s ready to go if you’re interested.

I’m interested.

G&G-Fan said:

JoyOfEditing said:

If you’d like to see my prequelized version of the Empire Duel, that’s ready to go if you’re interested.

I’m interested.

All right buddy, here’s the “Prequelized” version of the Bespin Duel: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1D71gfooBPieEGCXGnD414-IpcRnD_PGu?usp=drive_link

I smashed the three duel sections together, and the color is the ungraded HDR footage, but it should still give you a pretty good idea of what it looks like.

JoyOfEditing said:

I smashed the three duel sections together, and the color is the ungraded HDR footage, but it should still give you a pretty good idea of what it looks like.

This was an interesting watch. I prefer the original version, a lot more was cut then I like (the 3rd “act” of the duel is actually my favorite; “It is useless to resist” is an all-time shot), but the edit isn’t bad.

G&G-Fan said:

JoyOfEditing said:

I smashed the three duel sections together, and the color is the ungraded HDR footage, but it should still give you a pretty good idea of what it looks like.

This was an interesting watch. I prefer the original version, a lot more was cut then I like (the 3rd “act” of the duel is actually my favorite; “It is useless to resist” is an all-time shot), but the edit isn’t bad.

Yeah, it’s an all time great line. I just didn’t want Luke to roll around on the floor like a goober, lol! In all fairness, even I wouldn’t say my version is “better” so to speak. It’s playing by a completely different set of rules than the original cut. Personally, I like my Darth Vader as lethal as possible, and I tried to make Luke a little more naturally gifted (which in turn makes Vader more intimidating). More than anything I wanted see if the new cutting techniques Ben Burtt and his team used for the Prequel Duels would work, and I was shocked at how well they did!

Jar Jar Bricks said:

JoyOfEditing said:

potty meister said:
I love this explanation so much

Oh good! I’m glad that made sense. If you want to know why all the Disney STAR WARS stuff hits different, that is the reason why. Disney abandoned the spiritual narrative framework George was using to link the original six films together, probably because they never realized it was there, haha!

Just curious. What changes do you think they could have made to the sequels to make them align within this framework?

Technically, TROS ends with two sacrifices of love. Rey gives her life to stop Palpatine from killing her friends, and then Ben gives his life so that Rey can have hers back.

The short answer is that the Sequels simply cannot be aligned with George’s original six.

Here’s the long answer in two parts:

1. The POV changed. The sequel trilogy has been reframed from God’s POV to Rey’s POV. When you study medieval literature and history one of the first things you run into is the “God’s POV” system. In other words, God (In STAR WARS’ case the Force) is the main character binding the story together and observing/passing judgement on the events. The reason Lucas used this Medieval POV framework is so that the deeds of the Jedi and the Senate in the Prequels could be “judged” by the Force. Every character in the Prequels does not live up to their own ideals, and in the OT, all of the characters cast aside their initial ideals to align themselves with the Force’s ideals. Luke stops chasing adventure, and faces his sacrificial destiny, Vader casts aside his power to save his son, Han gives up his shifty ways to become a hero his friends can depend on, Yoda sets aside the grandeur of the Jedi Temple to embrace the swamps of Dagobah (His natural environment), Obi-Wan becomes Luke’s spiritual father to make up for his failure mentoring Anakin, Princess Leia transforms from a feisty Rebel into a wise and just political leader who can build the New Republic, and so on and so on and so.

In the Sequel Trilogy Rey writes her own adventure and decides to be a Skywalker instead of a Palpatine, rather than becoming the person the Force purposed her to be, because Rey is the Force, lol! The sacrifices Rey and Kylo make are part of a “cycle”. They do not lead to the creation of a new world, which brings me to the second reason.

2. The Sequel Trilogy abandoned Lucas’ Christian Apocalyptic Framework, and turned the SAGA into a Pagan Cycle. So if you think of the Norse Saga’s they loop endlessly like the turning of a wheel. The Christian viewpoint is that God is not bound to cycles (Fatalism), and He can and will make “all things new.” The end of Revelation in the Bible doesn’t end with everything in the past being destroyed, instead it ends with the resurrection and glorification of Humanity and Nature with “Every Tribe, Tongue, and Nation” peacefully living together in the “New Heavens and the New Earth”. This is why our Heroes in Return of the Jedi are adopted into the Ewok Tribe, because the Force being brought into balance is not a redo of the corrupt Old Republic, it is the harmony of “Every Tribe, Tongue, and Nation.” In the Sequels it’s all about our main characters finding out who they are by burning the past, instead of realizing the part they were created to play within the story of the Force that leads towards the balance of all things. I would have done the sequels the way George was planning them, by focusing on the way Luke, Leia, and Han work together to build a just society through the New Jedi Order and the New Republic (New Heavens and the New Earth), rather than Disney’s take which is to cycle the “New Republic” into the same bureaucratic nightmare that the “Old Republic” was. Apocalypse in the Christian sense means “unveiling”. In George’s SAGA all of our character were “unveiled” so that we could see who they were meant to be. Disney threw all the veils back on and cycled Luke, Han, and Leia back to the point where we met them in A New Hope. I have no problem if someone likes one storytelling system over another, but I sure as heck cannot make a Pagan Cycle line up with a Christian-style Apocalypse, because the Apocalypses in the Bible were actually designed to challenge the Pagan view of the Cosmos, lol! Does that make any sense? George’s main idea for STAR WARS was “What if ancient Celtic Animism became institutionalized like Christianity?” All lot of the “Theology” George created for the Force is pantheistic/animistic, but the storytelling system George used was distinctly Christian. Probably why he jokingly referred to himself as a “Buddhist Methodist”, lol!

Jar Jar Bricks said:

I can kinda see your angle there. Most of the problems are in TLJ, personally - best exemplified in Snoke’s line from TLJ: “Darkness rises and light to meet it”. In the Biblical worldview, darkness/hell is simply being separated from the absence of God’s light. This is similar to how in Star Wars the dark side is a corruption of the Force, and it being balanced is there being absolutely absolutely no dark side (contrary to popular belief). These aren’t supposed to be opposite forces that are kept equal to each other in power. The dark side is a cancer.

And you can’t say it’s just that Snoke has a misunderstanding of the Force, because Luke says the same thing to Rey: “powerful light, powerful dark”. I think the only way you can retcon this line is that Luke is referring to the potential a powerful person can have to either do good or bad things. The real world answer is that DOTF was originally going to make the dark side an amoral thing, and you should tap into both sides of the Force (yuck!). I don’t understand the people that enjoy that leaked script at all.

Character regression is an entirely different discussion. I do think it’s possible to slip back into old patterns and habits in life, so there is some interesting narrative potential even within the context of a Christian framework. You are supposed to remain constantly vigilant or else the dark side (devil) can devour you like a lion. There’s a solid story there to be told there, and it reminds me of Voldemort’s return in the Harry Potter series with the ministry denying his return and not doing anything about it (New Republic vibes). I just don’t find the way they did it with Luke all that believable. He nearly killed his father because he’d threatened his sister; we are never shown exactly what Ben would do according to his dream. And there wasn’t much payoff for Han or Leia’s regressions besides redeeming their son in TROS.

For the new main characters, I think they did actually end up adhering to what the Force wanted them to be. It’s why I like Kylo’s character so much. He reveres his grandfather to an unhealthy degree, and keeps pursuing the dark side because he thinks that is who he truly is and will satisfy him. But this just makes him more and more miserable. It’s only when he becomes Ben Solo again that he feels peace and love. As for Rey, yes, I can see why you might think that her taking on the Skywalker name is a denial of the truth the Force created her as, but I simply see that as an example of the good that can be made out of bad. George refers to Palpatine as the devil himself, so it’s hilariously ironic how his machinations end up being as own undoing. Adoption into a new family and being given a new name are also solidly Biblical concepts.

I genuinely believe there are plenty of concepts within the sequels that can align with these ideals, just not within the idea that the end of ROTJ is supposed to be the second coming.

Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you just said. From the character regression side, I totally agree that can be a compelling narrative and that it works within George’s and a Christian framework. Pretty much all of the main characters regress across the Prequels. I was simply arguing that George set up Luke, Leia, and Han not to regress, based on where his system was leading. I actually see Return of the Jedi as the “Crucifixion/Resurrection” point in STAR WARS narrative, with Lucas’ planned Episode IX serving as the “Second Coming”. I also agree that Kylo is a really great character/idea in principle, and you’re correct that he does fit into George’s system very nicely.

As for Rey, I was simply making a joke about the mechanics of her name giving. In the Bible it is usually God who renames someone to reroute their destiny/identity, like when Jacob (Deceiver) is renamed Israel (Prince of God). In Rey’s case she renames herself based on who she identifies with, putting herself in God’s place as the identity giver. In that way, Rey calls herself what she likes, but isn’t being “called” to a task. Her main “journey” isn’t so much to save the galaxy, but to find out who she really is, at least that’s the way JJ Abrams framed it. She ends up right where she started on a desert planet with a stick and a random old lady, lol! Again, nothing wrong with that. Disney is making a modern story where the hero must create their own identity, and Lucas was telling a story from a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Fair point that the name giving usually derives from the higher power, but in the case of the Force I’m not sure how it could have been executed much better than it was. When attuned to the Force, it only communicates to you through feelings and instincts. Who’s to say she didn’t feel the Force telling her in that moment it was proper for her to take on that mantle? It basically did, after all, since Luke and Leia show up as Force ghosts (who are one with the Force). Ben too, if you’re watching Ascendant.

Okay, hear me out. . . The Rey name thing is kinda a bad example for what I’m getting at. The basic thing I’m saying is that I had no idea what JJ Abrams was trying to do in that scene, or why Rian Johnson burned all the books, or the point of Maz or what Snoke stands for. I simply don’t get it. In George’s case I’ve read a lot of the same books he has, and bless his heart, he’s super consistent in his themes across all six of his films, so I have little trouble re-editing them to be a little truer to his original vision. If I can’t understand what you’re trying to do, I can’t fix it. Someone else might be able to, but I’m not clever enough, haha!

O00ll00O said:

All right buddy, here’s the “Prequelized” version of the Bespin Duel: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1D71gfooBPieEGCXGnD414-IpcRnD_PGu?usp=drive_link

I smashed the three duel sections together, and the color is the ungraded HDR footage, but it should still give you a pretty good idea of what it looks like.

Great edit! I was never a fan of how Luke looked when stuff was being thrown at him, so I was glad to see that cut. And I loved how fast Vader comes out the door to the bridge fight. It was a much more aggressive tone after that which was done really well. Also cutting the hammed up Luke acting before he fell played better than I expected. Thanks for the fun watch!

Cheers! Glad you enjoyed it! Fast/Aggressive Vader is the best Vader in my opinion, haha! I had a lot of fun recutting all of the duels especially Duel of the Fates.

Bonus points if you can find the one recomposited shot in the Empire sequence. There is one shot in my sequence that doesn’t exist in the theatrical cut, and was made by combining elements from two different shots in the original duel.

JoyOfEditing said:

Yeah, it’s an all time great line. I just didn’t want Luke to roll around on the floor like a goober, lol! In all fairness, even I wouldn’t say my version is “better” so to speak. It’s playing by a completely different set of rules than the original cut. Personally, I like my Darth Vader as lethal as possible, and I tried to make Luke a little more naturally gifted (which in turn makes Vader more intimidating). More than anything I wanted see if the new cutting techniques Ben Burtt and his team used for the Prequel Duels would work, and I was shocked at how well they did!

Respect for the goal of making Darth Vader more lethal and intimidating and Luke more gifted. I want Vader and Luke to be that way. I just think the original version gets that across just as well.

Just jumping in to say this has been a very interesting discussion and I love the theological side of Star Wars, and also Joy I have been REALLY enjoying the YouTube series. It’s helping me as an editor too, appreciate the time you take to explain your mindset and ways of thinking for framing whole segments.

Just tell me if you’d rather not discuss this any further and detract from the other great stuff you’ve got going on here (love that ESB duel btw), I’ve just never had an opportunity to discuss the sequels under this lense on this forum before lol.

Rey’s arc throughout the trilogy is anchored in her feelings of inadequacy, much like Kylo Ren. She grows up her whole life thinking her parents abandoned her, and even though she finds out this isn’t true, she then thinks Luke, Leia, and all of her friends will abandon her because of her dark heritage/tendencies because that’s what she subconsciously expects. This is quite similar to how you can be offered salvation, but believe that you are unworthy of it because of your past transgressions or who you feel that you naturally are. Oftentimes, this is indeed because of a biological parent who is an awful person and you just don’t want to turn out like them. Rey accepting the name of Skywalker at the end of the movie makes sense because she spends a good chunk of it convincing herself that she doesn’t deserve to belong with anyone because she’s a monster - thus why she tried to abandon herself on Ahch-To. She is finally accepting her salvation/redemption in the end by declaring herself a Skywalker.

The serpent cave scene in TROS is actually a metaphor and foreshadowing of this. Rey represents the injured serpent - spawn of Palpatine (the deceiving serpent) and traumatized by her past. While appearing to be evil on the outside, once the serpent is healed from its trauma, it is kind and helpful to our main characters and helps them escape from the tunnels. Kylo Ren holds a similar belief to Rey: his parents shipped him off to his uncle because they didn’t know how to deal with his dark tendencies, only for his uncle proceeding to (from his perspective) nearly kill him. He sees himself as a monster because of his family being scared of him from the jump, and admits this to Rey in TLJ. So he leans further and further into this persona because nobody ever expected anything different out of him, despite the fact that being evil isn’t fulfilling to him. His water baptism back into Ben Solo occurs on the Death Star II wreckage because his mother wanted to let him know she still loved him even at the cost of her own life (another sacrificial archetype).

Rian Johnson didn’t actually burn the Jedi texts - if you have a keen eye you’ll notice Finn opening a drawer on the Falcon with them at the end of TLJ. Rey studies them in TROS to learn about the Sith way finders and Force healing. Yoda was simply instructing Luke to not be such a fundamentalist Jedi. There is great wisdom in the sacred texts, but if you get so hung up on understanding every single little detail (and why they might not make sense given modern understanding), you’ll forget how to actually put your faith into practice in your life. Yoda reminds him to focus on the here and now, “the need in front of your nose”. That need is to pass on what he has learned to the next generation, including his failures, so that they might live a more peaceful life than he did. This is actually a really beautiful scene that I’ll give TLJ credit for.

I’m not sure Maz is supposed to represent anything significant, but Snoke is actually a pretty good representation of the “principalities and powers” concept. There are rich and powerful people who believe that they are in complete control of everything, and so they will do terrible things for their own gain - little do they know that they are merely a puppet for a dark force that will cast them aside as soon as they are no longer useful for an even more sinister takeover. The power Snoke had in life was never his, it was given unto him by Palpatine. In real life we might say these people “sold their soul to the devil”.

No man, you’re good! Theological Editing is still editing, lol! I’m planning on doing a episode wayyyyy down the road on how to edit/design theological narratives because Harry Potter, Dune, STAR WARS, Lord of the Rings, and a bunch of the Ghibli films all use Theological Editing techniques, and I’m not aware of any courses out there teaching how to do that. Frankly, until now I didn’t think anyone would be interested, haha! The only thing I’m trying to avoid is discussions of Theology by itself (discussions I love to have BTW just not on this specific post).

To your sequel trilogy point, based on that breakdown, I’d watch the snot out of a Sequel Trilogy written by you haha!, but to be honest I think you’ve put 500 times more thought into the theological editing than Rian and JJ did.

I’m also gonna be honest, and say I haven’t given the Sequels a whole ton of thought, because I have no intention of recutting them. But I’d sum up my impression of why I don’t think they theologically jive with George’s six by quoting one of Jesus’ two pronged questions from the gospels: “What is the law? And how do you read it?” I think Disney often gets the “law” right, but “reads” it wrong. That Jesus quote is in reference to a Teacher of the Law who wants to be good with God, but stay a racist. Jesus’ point is made by telling the parable of the good Samaritan where the law fulfills it’s purpose by making the Good Samaritan love his neighbor regardless of his race. The Teacher of the law knew the law said he needed to “love his neighbor”, but he didn’t want to define Samaritans as his neighbors so he could still hate them. Jesus’ two-pronged question is calling him on his BS. The law is fine. It’s the “reading” that’s whack. (BTW I’m not calling Disney STAR WARS racist, I’m just explaining the principle of “law” vs. “reading” LOL!)

Basically, I think Disney threw together a lot of references (law) to the Original Trilogy and the Prequels without understanding the original purposes of those references, and because of that break down, I don’t know how I’d be able to fix it, because the purpose of the setup is deleted by the payoff. Just like how the Teacher of the law redefined “neighbor” to justify his racism when the law’s purpose was to end racism. An example would be the book burning you mentioned. If you pay attention to the Prequels. Qui-Gon is the only one who explains the religious side Force to Anakin. Obi-Wan never really does, and frankly the Jedi are so preoccupied with the political machinations of the Senate, they don’t really seem interested in becoming “one with the Force”. When Anakin finally goes to Yoda for advice in Revenge of the Sith, Yoda can’t help him, because all of Anakin’s religious training has been coming from Palpatine (this is Obi-Wan’s great failure. He never taught Anakin how to “read” the “law”). Fast forward to the OT, and Obi-Wan’s first instruction of Luke involves explaining what the Force is, followed by Yoda’s expansion on that explanation in Empire Strikes Back. Suddenly Yoda and Obi-Wan are preoccupied with the Mystical Side of the Force, which means their repentance has been genuine. The way Lucas was setting up the his version of the sequels, Luke was going to renew the Jedi Order with the worship of the Force (not power and politics) at it’s center. I can see how Yoda burning “most” of the books can serve as a reminder for Luke to keep the main thing the main thing, but that is not where the story was leading. George was setting up his version of the Book of Acts, where Paul is brought in to explain how the New Covenant aligns with the purpose of the Old Law, by “reading” it correctly. If the purpose of the law was to end racism and discrimination in all of it’s forms, then to quote Paul “There is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female,” all humans are made in the image of God and are of infinite value. Paul is a master “reader” and because of that he is a master “liver”, his reading leads to a well lived life. Lucas was setting up Luke to be that kind of character, because he is also a master “reader”. He sees through the Emperor’s trap, and refuses to kill his father, because the will of the Force is not that Luke kill Vader and continue the cycle of violence, it is that he redeem him, and give birth to a new world of balance. When I saw the Last Jedi for the first time, I have to admit I was furious. The idea that Luke would be able to see through Palpatine and confront the darkness in himself in order to stay his hand, but then revert back to worse than his starting point, made no sense to me. Luke’s role was going to be like Paul’s. He was going to be tasked with building the New Temple. In short, I think Disney got the key “laws” that were present in the other STAR WARS films, but they couldn’t “read” it well enough to continue the compelling parable George was telling.

In short the concept of “Law” vs. “Reading” doesn’t just apply to interpreting scripture. It’s also a key concept whenever you’re editing someone else’s writing. Whenever I edit someone else’s story, I spend most of my time trying to figure out not “what did they write?” but rather “what are they trying to say, and is there a way for me to make that point clearer to the audience?” If I’ve done my job well, my edit of George’s six films should be as true to his ideas as possible. At least that was my aim when I recut them.

Acbagel said:

Just jumping in to say this has been a very interesting discussion and I love the theological side of Star Wars, and also Joy I have been REALLY enjoying the YouTube series. It’s helping me as an editor too, appreciate the time you take to explain your mindset and ways of thinking for framing whole segments.

Thanks man, I’m so glad you find it helpful! Honestly the fact that series involves STAR WARS is incidental, the main thing I’m trying to do is teach the editing principles I learned in Film School and my Literature Degree, because I couldn’t find a good free course teaching that skill. Back in the day I learned how to use After Effects by watching Andrew Kramer’s tutorials on VideoCopilot.net, and he did a great job teaching how to think like compositor/animator. Because of that training series I was not only able to learn AE well enough to work professionally as an animator, I also learned how to well. . . learn, lol! My hope is that my series will do something similar for folks who wanna learn how to think like an editor.

I’m now working on the next episode, where we’re gonna cut 50% of Episode’s 4’s opening sequence, from the opening shot to the droids’ arrival at the Lar’s Homestead, so hopefully you’ll enjoy that one too! It might even involve some digital magic: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-1x6VCG9Drp3GiZMgKXlOllfIvOGvOVA/view?usp=sharing

Yeah, big points for bringing a new perspective to editing and adding to the discussion here Joy. And your micro-edits within scenes are very impressive too. You might enjoy reading Hal’s Rise of Skywalker Ascendant thread (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-Rise-of-Skywalker-Ascendant-Released/id/71835), that one’s the most impressive project from the perspective of having so much collaboration on it.

I think the best way to summarize what you’re saying here is that the sequels take random bits and pieces from the original 6 movies without understanding exactly why they worked in the first place. I’d agree with this assessment, but this doesn’t discount the fact that there certainly exist theological elements in the sequels. It just means that they are present there because of where they originate from, and the writers only put them there subconsciously at best.

As EddieDean said, I’d highly recommend at least checking out some edits of the sequels that exist here. Hal’s Ascendant edit and TFA: Starlight in particular. The debatable topic here is whether or not a skilled editor’s hand might be able to take the disparate elements in the sequels and create a more uniform framework between them, and the saga at large. I’d argue that we are very close with these edits on this forum.

Yep, I agree with all that, and Hal is the man! His Prequel edits are masterful, even though mine are drastically different. I have seen Hal’s Force Awakens recut, but my feeling after seeing it was, “Just like I thought. It’s unfixable, but Hal fixed it as far as it could possibly go.” You’ve piqued my interest in checking out Hal’s Ascendant Cut, because if anyone could pool the community together to make something workable, it’s Hal. Great edits are always the product of good collaboration. Anyone who says otherwise is nuts!

Essentially, I have no interest in ever trying my hand at recutting the Sequels, because I can fix a Software Issue (George’s SAGA), but I don’t have the patience to fix Hardware. I honesty didn’t change a single one of the major themes, story points, or world ideas that George was aiming for. I just reworked their execution when it was getting in the way of the story George was trying to tell. Like George, I HATE writing, and I only have the patience to do that in my own original work. To attempt to recut the Sequels would mean rewriting them, not just rediting them, and that’s too much work for me to put in on a project that I’m not getting paid for, haha!

The other problem, and this is the MAIN problem with recutting the Sequels is that there isn’t enough footage. In George’s case, I think his films all work best right around the 90 minute mark (Except for RotS which works best at 75mins [That’s still feature length, baby!]). That means in a film like Empire I can cut 40 minutes without even worrying about it. When I saw Hal’s TFA cut, I became drop dead certain that there was no way to fix it, due to a lack of good footage. Think about it, you can cut the WHOLE GUNGAN CITY SEQUENCE from the Phantom Menace, and still have three unique planets, a land battle, a space battle, a sick lightsaber duel, a pod race, and hundreds of new characters/vehicles/props. So even when you cut something major out of a George film, you still have that whole big world in the background at any given time. That’s just not the case for the Sequels.

Last thing. I can’t make the George’s Poetic Mirror Network extend to the Sequels. I have a degree in Medieval Literature, so I know EXACTLY how George’s narrative structure is supposed to work. Basically, the Visuals are the “poetry”, so as long as I keep the Visual Rhyme Scheme in step, I know my cut is working. In the Sequels, I’d have to come up with a Rhyme Scheme (Writing) and then make it musical (Editing), whereas with George I just have to retune an instrument that fundamentally works. A lot of folks don’t realize that the Meta-Structure of George’s 6 films is Two Inverse Trilogies with a Negative Center. . . which is the exact Meta-Structure of the Bible [Creation-Fall-Exile]-(500 Years of Silence)-[Exile-Crucifixion-New Creation] or [I-II-III]-(Interwar Period)-[IV-V-VI]. I is inverse VI, II is Inverse V, III is inverse IV; and the two trilogies meet in the negative center. This is why I had to re-edit all six films at once. There was no other way to balance them out and maintain George’s Visual Poetry Scheme. The only way I could work VII-IX into that scheme (assuming there were enough visual mirrors to do so), would be to film an entire mirrored prequel trilogy to the current prequel trilogy in order to maintain the negative center, lol!

Bottom line, y’all are more than welcome to talk Sequels here. I love it! And if y’all are working through a problem on one of your sequel edits that you think I can help with, feel free to drop me line, but I’m not gonna take a crack at a full sequel edit myself. I’ve got way to much writing/editing on my own stories to work on.

EddieDean said:

Yeah, big points for bringing a new perspective to editing and adding to the discussion here Joy. And your micro-edits within scenes are very impressive too. You might enjoy reading Hal’s Rise of Skywalker Ascendant thread (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-Rise-of-Skywalker-Ascendant-Released/id/71835), that one’s the most impressive project from the perspective of having so much collaboration on it.

I’m so glad someone loves Micro Edits as much as I do! The next episode of the YouTube show is gonna be full of them!

See the reply that I wrote to Jar-Jar Bricks for a response to the second part of your post.

JoyOfEditing said:

Hey y’all, if anyone is interested in learning the artform of film editing through recutting all six of George’s STAR WARS films, I’ve started a series on YouTube to do just that! The first four episodes are up.

https://www.youtube.com/@JoyofEditing

Enjoy the Edits!

New Episode Premiering Now! This time we recut the Opening Sequence of A New Hope, and learn how to maintain narrative flow across multiple episodes, and how to maintain intensity in an action set piece. Enjoy the Edits!

https://youtu.be/zZ5JzEvO8Jk