Echoing others who have commented, I really like how you've taken ownership of the material.
NeverarGreat said:
Thanks!
I've got a question for a fellow writer:
Which do you find more difficult to write, a prequel story or a sequel story?
I ask this because it seems to me that prequels fly in the face of one of the most integral writing styles used by most writers, that of letting the story gain a life of its own, and go in unexpected directions. It seems that as the prequels would be seen by many people before the originals, the prequels must therefore be smaller in scope than the originals, and have a collapsed sense of awareness about them. This has been very difficult perspective for me to write from, as I must unlearn what I have learned (including that line!), if only to look at everything anew.
Do you find this to be true?
Nerverar really hits the nail on the head with this question. Making a PT that is constrained within the scope of the OT and yet surprising, engaging and important as its own story is really hard. I've really only recently come around to realizing how much more it needs to be than an explanation of the OT. I think there is sympathy to be had for GL on that front. Half of his PT was to provide unnecessary background for the OT and the other half was a superfluous original story. Thus it never felt sufficiently important in any way.
I do wonder, McFlabbergasty if there is one great challenge in each episode (eg the Death Star) or if at least the first episode is more akin to Empire in that the hero must come face-to-face with her destiny? I know I have an ongoing concern in my own PT struggles with the story feeling grand enough.
McFlabbergasty said:
What do you guys think of the whole "third way" business? It's based on one of the very few things I liked about the prequels: Qui-Gon's unorthodox, anti-authority stance on being a Jedi. I'm thinking of making this philosophy the linchpin of Jeni's character and worldview.
Also something I'm thinking about. So far I think it doesn't work to have a third way/grey Jedi (I'm assuming they are the same idea?). I think of Yoda's words: Once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Or I think about the description of the Dark Side as being quicker and easier, that it is based in hate and anger. All in all, it's a slippery slope and no self-respecting person with a sense of the Force should go in that direction. I don't think it makes much sense to be Jedi-ish.
I do think the third way business resonates nowadays because many aspects of our society have moved toward a more relativistic philosophy. And yes, also, it makes for a dynamic story, it's a twist.
I also agree that Qui-Gon was interesting for not being dogmatic. But to my eye, that need not qualify as a third way. There were also clear differences between Obi-Wan and Yoda. And Luke was also his own man, choosing faith in and commitment to his friends, while Yoda and Obi-Wan would have had him act in commitment to a 'greater' goal. I like the idea that being a Jedi does have a fundamental meaning, but that doesn't mean individual Jedi are all the same.
I think showing the human struggle in the context of being a Jedi makes for an interesting story, without having to reject being a Jedi in some fashion. I think it means exploring the real foundational elements of Jediism, not reducing being a Jedi to being religiously orthodox. I think the question is what makes for a positive connection to the Force vs a negative one?
I'm enjoying your work and it's spurring good discussion!
