Mrebo

Wow, I had forgotten about those. I did like the pictures. Wasn't Zorba Jabba's father? In art class in middle school I made Zorba out of clay (2D). Guess I was really Star Wars deprived.

twooffour said:

You must've missed out on at least a half of my post, then.

Didn't I make a clear distinction between a written score, and a RECORDING? Like, the score is the play/script, the recording is the movie?
A composer writes his own composition, performs it, records it, and may or may not release a score (if he doesn't, people will make their own). It's not "meant to be adapted" in any way.

You are absolutely correct that I didn't catch you were talking about recordings. The reason is that it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Playing around with something already recorded is like playing around with a movie already made - see Fan Edits forum. Or look at the "Special Editions" which were not remakes.

But they really can't "remake" it.

Well, neither can you a movie.
It's already been made, and it's here to stay. Has Jackson really "remade" King Kong, if a song cover can't be called a remake, either?

I've already argued that I think music is more like plays which are by their nature are to be adapted infinite times. A movie script can be used similarly to the written music or written play, but it really is a different creature. I'm not going to explain yet again why I think this is. But surely it can be used in the same way. For you that's the end of the matter.

This is clearly highly offensive to you.

Who ever said anything about "offensive"? I just don't see any purpose, or sense.

Nobody had to use the word "offensive," it's a matter of tone.

Well, so are Willy Wonka and Apes. So your "bad examples of remakes" were also book adaptations ;)

Yes. I mentioned that in the very first post in which I raised them. To explain yet again: I referenced them to offer a potential reason for why remaking (in the sense I've been talking about) movies would generally be a bad idea. Put another way, if I were using a citation signal it would probably be "Cf."

It also led to me offering a totally different theory for why remakes generally turn out poorly, as I wrote: "But maybe the issue is that only 'good' movies are remade and thus are more likely to pale in comparison to the originals."

I'm honestly just exploring the issue, or trying at least.

Your position seems to be that any remake might be good. That it basically depends on the people making it. That remakes of Star Wars, Love Story, Toy Story, whatever, are all potentially good ideas. Maybe the theory I've been floating (and you've been trying to push under the water) is flawed. I've accepted this from the get-go.

But there are elements of it that I think raise legitimate considerations for why a remake may, in principle, be a bad idea. One is the lack of creativity. If something is already made and made well, why copy it just to put one's own fingerprints on it? In your zeal to be correct, I think you are refusing to see even a sliver of validity in these kinds of considerations.

King Kong is neither demeaning, nor absurd, nor uncreative. And all it took for it to be this, was... good ideas and execution.
Doesn't that really say everything about your "media shouldn't be remade into the same media" maxim, that should be said?

No, not everything. A single example doesn't prove anything. My "maxim" may still be generally true.

If your argument is that movies have so many dynamic elements that they are more open to true remaking than books, I can see how that might be the case. Still doesn't mean it's generally a good idea, but it addresses my argument head on.

Maybe you question my yearning for some over-arching principle. Maybe you fear such a principle would stifle creativity (not that anyone is trying to implement anything).

Some people say the Wizard of Oz should never be remade. I have sympathy for that point of view. It's culturally important. Last year Warner Brothers was pursuing a remake that apparently fell apart, in part due to the controversy that they would dare remake it. And the stupidest thing was that they were going to use the original movie script. I say stupid because the movie is so memorable and already exists. There is simply no need to make the same movie again.

And perhaps you've been champing at the bit for this (I always used to think it was chomping at the bit): The Wizard of Oz is based on books. I would truly be curious to see a straight adaptation of the Oz books. Both Wizard of Oz and Return to Oz combined elements of various Oz books. The movies are fun and memorable for what they are. Redoing the movies is minimally creative. Re-adapting the Oz books would be enormously creative. If you cannot see the distinction here, there's not much more I can say on the matter.

Since it is late, I'm going now to rewrite Goodnight Moon. Not a bedtime book substantially similar to Goodnight Moon, mind you, but actually Goodnight Moon. Night.

Billie Holiday.

twooffour said:

Um, the problem with your "philosophy" is that you're trying to take a rather diverse issue (remakes can be done differently, have all kinds of relationship to "the original", in content and quality, there can be different intents behind it, etc.), and reach a simple conclusion like "this is inherently wrong".

Which is absurd in itself.

It makes much more sense to just look at individual works, or groups of works, and evaluate them in how well they work in whatever aspect, rather than strive for some universal conclusion about a certain approach being "wrong" by principle.

I'm very clearly talking about a subset of remakes, not any and all movies that are generally considered remakes. But yes the entire topic of remakes does involve a great variety of considerations. I'm not contesting that.

And maybe it does make more sense to just look at individual works, as you arbitrarily insist.

Someone will say that once a composer has recorded their own composition, there's no need for others to "play the same piece, too". I mean, dead composers who never recorded their music, ok, that's kind of needed, but in this case? WHERE'S ALL THE CREATIVITY GONE?

*buzzer*

Sorry, but you continue to simply not understand my argument.
The written composition is made to be adapted - ie played by an instrument. In playing the instrument, just as an actor acts in a play, there will be variation and in instances of improvisation. That is the nature of music. Just as I've not argued that a play must only be acted once!

How would one "remake" any song? One can be inspired by it to write something similar. One can perform it in their own special way with their own voice. But they really can't "remake" it. Think of the various versions of Blue Moon (The Marcels ; Billie Holiday; Frank Sinatra). They take the same set of lyrics and set them to different music. But that is really just adaptation.

Why do you need some particular "reason" to validate a remake? Like, there either should be some compelling necessity for it to exist, or just don't make it? Well, *why* that, please?
Someone has an idea how a movie could look with different actors and mood, but essentially the same storyline (because it's already cool as it is). He doesn't want to change the names, because then it'll look like a rip-off, but he also wants to do the same story, and some similar one with "comparable tropes", because THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE WORK.

Don't be confused, please. I'm not running for dictator-of-what-remakes-shall-be-remade. I'm not deeply wedded to this theory of mine. I just wanted to explore it. This is clearly highly offensive to you.

You really have not taken a deep breath and tried to understand the distinctions I've made. Thus I continue to repeat myself. To illustrate:

Think in terms of a PLAY, like you attempt to do all the time. Different directors keep staging the same play, in different settings, with different actors, with different tweaks. And it can ALL BE INTERESTING, despite being the same work all over again.
Same with a movie remake. You take what is essentially the same "script", plus some cinematic features maybe (just as the director of the play will probably be influenced by other stagings). and dress it up differently.

I did think in terms of a PLAY (capitalized?). See my first post. It can be INTERESTING. Now you finally start to sort of engage my argument by saying you disagree with a distinction I drew in my first post between scripts and plays. I do think a script is fundamentally different from a written play. Certainly a script can be treated similarly as a written play.

Someone wanted to do "True Grit" with a drunk, grumpy Jeff Bridges, instead of the classic straight-up John Wayane.
May I ask you, what is the necessity for that someone, to toss away that idea, and instead write some new Western with Jeff Bridges as a mentor figure in it? WHY?

Maybe because True Grit is an adaptation of a book?

Peter Jackson wanted to remake KING KONG. Complete with the obsessed director, the blonde, pure starlet, a raunchy manly captain, menacing natives, and a GIANT GORILLA. His remake had a LOT OF AWESOME in it.
So what, should he have said "no, a remake isn't valid, I should do something inspired by the original King Kong", and then, what? Do another movie with a giant Gorilla, just named differently? In a jungle, not on an island? But including the Empire State Building as a "homage"? Maybe replaced the crew? Done it with a giant Chimpanzee instead?

Oh wait, no, he wanted to make a new KING KONG. So where does your philosophy come into any of that?

Not my philosophy. Just an idea I was floating. You've not convinced me it's wrong. But I'm not further convinced it's right either. I wanted people to give examples, like Kong, to see how the theory may be supported or undermined. Is Kong an exception to a general rule? I'm not really sure.

Since I don't think either of us will make headway, I'm moving on.

So what remakes did you enjoy or not enjoy, twooffour? How come you didn't like the one's you didn't like?

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Out of a lack of anything constructive to say I've held back on articulating my muzzel in your thread.

I soooooo want to understand what this means...

Haha, I'm being very cute, referencing the post so as to say that the ability to articulate a muzzle doesn't justify the effort to do so. Fairly clever double entendre, imho.

Sometimes I don't know if you fully understand the point I'm making, twooffour. 12 Angry Men was originally a play (technically a "teleplay")! It was meant to be adapted. I think that's why it lends itself to remakes so well.

twooffour said:

Oh, ok, so it's NOT about outrageous changes then, just the copying part.

Clearly I'm not arguing "eww, they changed it so I don't like it!" So again, I don't know that you really are trying to understand my argument.

Listen, I still maintain that this thread should be redubbed into "good remakes vs. bad remakes", because this "theory" of yours seems to be very arbitrary, and ill-supported.

Can we talk about what factors might-maybe-perhaps determine why remakes can be a bad idea? Or must we accept your premise that they might always be a good idea?

My theory is not arbitrary. So again, even if you disagree with it, it appears to me that you aren't even trying to understand it. I think it works better with regard to books. Anchorhead gives some good reasoning for it. Maybe it's a little philosophical, but not arbitrary.

Yea, it can be easily abused by producers who want a shortcut, there are many ways it can go wrong etc., so why don't you talk about those things?

 

Um, because I had this sort of philosophical idea I wanted to explore?

Nothing about this is "obvious", or "intuitive".  A work of fiction, be it a book or a movie, isn't just "written and basta", it's not some kind of holy, homogenous entity that just "exists" and that's it.
It's made up of lots of general concepts, details, and creative decisions, all of which can be reworked and modified. What's so "absurd" about that?

And many many many works have been inspired by pre-existing works and have totally ripped off plots, characters, and story elements. See Star Wars (in a good way); see Harry Potter (in a shameless way). I'm obviously not objecting to using pre-existing works to derive new ones. So again, I think you really just don't want to understand the argument.

The issue is about the need or the reasoning to make the same work again. And as stated, the absurdity of this is most clear with books. Technically I can't "rewrite" the same book. The book does exist as the precise collection of words and phrasing. Tolkien was quite particular about words and spellings. To "rewrite" it is only a bastardization, or at best an edit.

One book I really enjoy is L'Etranger. But most Americans will not enjoy it unless it is translated. That translation is done by necessity (or at least it's easier to translate than to teach everyone french). In some sense it is a "remake." But you can't really appreciate it until you've read it in the original Klingon french. Some of the meaning is lost in translation (a lot of it is in the tone). The same goes for rewriting a book in the same language. This is not an arbitrary point.

There are many movies that could be obviously IMPROVED, but then we're not talking about an innocent remake anymore, are we?
If it's just an innocent remake, the original doesn't have to "benefit" from or "need" it in any way, it'll just be another version.

I don't know what an "innocent remake" is. I'm questioning the need for "just another version." To my "why?" you say "cuz." The Burton examples I raised earlier, Charlie and Apes (which are adaptations of books, so not what I'm addressing under my argument, but raising them specifically for this point), were failures in my view because they were "just another version" of films that already existed (certainly they suffered from other flaws as well). When one makes a film based on a film this problem is all the more likely.

Not to get all too lost in examples... hmm... could imagine a Matrix remake somewhere down the line.

The Adjustment Bureau not good enough for you? Oh sorry, you mean the same movie about aliens and a guy named Neo who takes the red pill, unplugs himself, and fights in slow motion. Because we really need to see the same movie again, this time with passion. I certainly could see a sequel to Matrix (well envision, anyhow) that follows the same basic plot (really, that's what most sequels do). But to use the same script again? Has the well of creativity really dried up that much?

------

I completely disagree with thejediknighthusezni that the OT will be remade. Star Wars proper (ANH, ESB, ROTJ) exists as it exists. There is no rationale to "remake" them. For the reasons I've argued, I think it's an absurdity. Even cynical greed won't dictate they be remade. Cynical greed may result in sequels and certainly in every manner of product, but not in remakes. Star Wars is fixed in our consciousness as it exists. So much of its value lies in that shared consciousness. I'd direct you to watch Jeremy Messersmith's video/song "Tatooine." Even without dialogue and omitting much of the movies, it greatly captures the feelings many of us have about Star Wars. A remake can only degrade that (*note I have no problem with adaptations of Star Wars, to the stage, radio, even a cartoon - just with a live-action "remake") (*note I feel these lengthy parentheticals are necessary in order to stress the nuance of my arguments).

I also completely disagree with generations owning films and that every generation might need their own version. I'm thrilled when succeeding generations adopt the OT as their own. There are members of this site who are at least around 20. I don't think they missed the cutoff date for owning the OT. When we think of classical movies we love, they aren't obsolete or taken to the grave by our forefathers. Out of a lack of anything constructive to say I've held back on articulating my muzzel in your thread. I think we're all entitled to our exploration of "what ifs". That said, I disagree with your premise.

Hope it was a good birthday, Warbler!

(so far I'm closest in age to ferris)

TV's Frink said:

doubleKO said:

I enjoyed the new Star Trek ... remake.

Agreed.  Though, would Star Trek 2009 really be considered a remake?

It would be my impulse to say "not really." It was a new story with the same characters. And that's really what a TV serial is all about. Granted with new actors, but I'm not sure that fact alone makes something a "remake."

doubleKO said:

I don't completely agree, for me it depends on the quality and characteristics of the remake in question, as well as my feelings for and familiarity with the original material. I enjoyed the new Star Trek and The Italian Job remake. I held the belief that Clash of the Titans should be remade for years and was very disappointed with the result when it finally was. Some regard the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead as superior. I agree that most remakes I have seen are inferior and demeaning to the original work in some way, but I am not against the idea altogether. It does make less sense to remake something in its original format.

My biggest problem with remakes is that by using the same name and material, comparisons are automatically invited and the importance of this comparison is often overblown to the point where the "loser" of the comparison suffers from a similarly overblown negative public perception rather than being judged on its own merits or appreciated for its own strengths.

Of course we are talking about Hollywood, and the major influence here is money. This means that movies that could be significantly improved due to having a great premise and shoddy execution are going to be sidelined in favour of stuff that they already know people like and will pay to see. So the movies that get remade will usually be the movies that need it least.

I agree about the Italian Job! It was a lot of fun (and I like what the director had to say in the commentary about not using CGI). As for Star Trek, I do think TV serials easily lend themselves to be remade (a point I made in my first post).

I did not see the new Clash of the Titans but why do you think it could benefit from being remade?

You're right about remakes inviting comparisons with previous efforts and Hollywood's zeal for money. I think these are certainly factors in the failures of remakes.

To some extent, I am working my thinking out here. And that's part of the reason it might seem "all over the place."

My basic thought is that a remake of a movie, that was originally made as a movie, is a bad idea. To show why I think this might be, I compare movies to books. If an author declares that she is rewriting Jane Eyre, to me is absurd. It is already written. It is what it is. Maybe I'm not explaining this point well enough but strikes me as obvious, or at least instinctual.

One can be inspired by a book to write something similar or write about the same characters, but to write the same story with the same characters in the same format? It seems there would rarely be a good reason. Perhaps that is the crux of the matter.

The degree of similarity between an original and a remake comes into play to show whether or not it is really a remake - rather than merely inspired by the original. I'd toss Karate Kid and Living Dead into this category.

King Kong is the kind of true remake I'm talking about. It's about the same character in the same situation facing the same fate. It's not a shot for shot movie but is substantially the same. I thought it was a good, but not great, film. (Oh noes, I think it's good, my theory must crumble! JK.) So the question is what, if anything, makes it a worthwhile film when King Kong already existed? I'm truly curious about everyone's views on this question.

twooffour, you confuse two different points in this passage

In one sentence you say you wouldn't like something to be rewritten, or "told differently", the way you brought up, in another, you dislike the "pale imitation" that doesn't try to "interpret the source material".
Seriously, which is it now?

I never used the phrase "pale imitation" so I'm not sure which point you're referring to. Please stop making up quotes! I used the word "imitation" with regard to the Burton films - both of which are based on books - as a means of comparison. I suggested that - as an alternative theory from the one I'm pushing - that remakes may "pale in comparison," because only good movies are remade. So in either case, I was not talking directly about the merits of my theory.

You think there's a good gotcha quote in there that you raise again:

"I might want more stories about the characters, but not the same story told differently."
Well, that's the whole answer, isn't it? Some people take interest in seeing the same story told differently. In whatever medium.

Let me allow you to confuse yourself further for a moment: I enjoy the multiple cinematic tellings of a Christmas Carol (though the Alastair Sim version is probably my favorite). I would like to see a remake of Harvey. So I clearly don't have some broadly obstinate desire to not see different tellings of the same story. As the preceding sentence contextualized: "I don't think I've read a book that I'd like to see rewritten." Maybe you have. Maybe you finished reading LOTR, and thought it would be super cool to read it again with a bunch of arbitrary alterations. I can't account for the tastes of all consumers. But I would question the person's motivation in creating such an alternative telling.

I think what makes stories like A Christmas Carol and Harvey so amenable to multiple cinematic versions is that they are adapted. A future director doesn't just take what was already on the screen and dress it up or butcher it. He can go to the source and bring that source to life anew.

Some ways to convince me my theory is fundamentally flawed:

• Name movies (that were originally movies) that may be well-served by a remake.
• Name remakes of movies (that were originally movies) that are actually pretty good.
• Give good reasons for remaking movies (that were originally movies).

Some people argue that certain iconic movies should not be remade (eg Wizard of Oz, Godfather). Maybe you'd dismiss that argument out of hand as well. And certainly that is based on little more than sentimentality. My argument addresses the substantive nature of the works themselves.

If my alternate LOTR books were released, what would you say? Oh, that's interesting, an alternate telling of the story. I might not enjoy it, but isn't that interesting. Or as you say here, "what the hell?" My reaction would be the latter.

And I didn't say Frodo would be "completely unlikeable" just "very" - stop misquoting me!!! :p The changes I've described do not fundamentally alter the arc of the story, as radical as they might be. It's the same characters (at least in name) in the same world on the same mission.

My "beef" is a theory about why remaking media in the same original form may be a bad idea in principle. I concede I could be totally wrong and that's why I'm engaging in discussion with anyone who doesn't just dismiss the argument.

If I want to use the same characters in the same situation, that is the kind of remake I'm addressing as a bad idea. I think of a remake I enjoy, like Sabrina, and it is based on a play. I think of a remake I'd like to see, Harvey, and it is also based on a play. I can't think of a movie that was originally a movie that I'd like to see remade. I don't think I've read a book that I'd like to see rewritten. I might want more stories about the characters, but not the same story told differently.

I think that remakes of Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were so lousy because they looked like mere imitations of the older movies rather than better imaginings of the original books.

And when a movie is remade from a movie (rather than freshly interpreting the original source material), what are the chances it be as good as the original? The original is the standard.

But maybe the issue is that only 'good' movies are remade and thus are more likely to pale in comparison to the originals. We should be remaking the bad movies! We'll start with Gigli.

Postscript: It is fun the muse about which remakes we thought were good and which we thought were bad. But I'm curious about exactly why this might be. To this end, I am wondering if remakes of movies which were originally conceived as movies is bad in principle because you're translating less than you are xeroxing.

twooffour said:

So back on topic, doesn't anyone else find it preposterous and disrespectful how this hack here basically remakes Rebecca's song as... also a song?


Here's another awesome song remake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbwrU3QZsA#t=74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOosiyw7t00#t=77

But it's also a musical number, so I guess it sux. Oh well...

See my most recent response above, relating to your musings about disrespect and the nature of certain works as adaptable. Plays and songs are meant to be adapted. They are written to be performed by any number of persons. I'm saying books and movies are different in that they are the final work. A book is not written to be rewritten nor a movie filmed to be refilmed. It is technically possible to rewrite and refilm, but I'm saying it is a bad idea for a reason. Respond to my earlier post, please.

Also worth noting I'm a big fan of "remaking" the PT (see the rewriting forum). But this is not to build upon or remake those movies. It is to neglect those movies and imagine what should have been based on the OT. I see such efforts as making brand new stories, not remaking PT ones.

I never used the word "respectful." I did say remaking (in the limited manner I outline) can be demeaning of the original creation. But I don't mean this in the sense of respectful deference to a creator - that was clearly not the argument I was making. I mean demeaning of the work itself. Now it's probably not the best word choice to use to describe an object that can't feel anything but I clearly wasn't talking about "respect" in the way you raise it.

There are lots of movies with the same basic plot. And maybe you want to slap an old title on it for whatever reason (marketing, perhaps). Night of the Living Dead just came to mind.

But making substantially the same movie/book/play (originally conceived as such) does strike me as generally dumb. And I think there is a reason for this. That is what I'm getting at.

You "dismiss" this possibility out of hand but do not offer a concrete example where it has worked or been justified. Instead you offer Psycho, which may support my theory.

You talk about a "music arrangement" but that is an adaptation - which I take no issue with.

Imagine if I were going to rewrite Lord of the Rings. Still going to be about the hobbits, wizards, men, Sauron, etc. But Frodo is going to be very unlikeable. Gandalf will be tempted to join Saruman and will kill Peregrin but then realize his error and redeem himself, thereby becoming the White Wizard. Saruman will be stabbed atop his tower and fall. I'll obviously change the style, move scenes around, but it will basically be the same story. And for whatever crazy reason Tolkien's estate allows me to publish this as "Lord of the Rings: Modern Edition." To me, this kind of remake is stupid in principle, not just subjectively after we read it. Indeed, it may be thoroughly well-written and thoroughly enjoyable to those who have not read the original.

I'm saying that I think movies are like books. Do you disagree on this point? If so why? Else do you think such rewrites of books are good and justifiable?

I have a nascent theory I'd like to bounce off you all.

It is that media should not be remade in the same form that it was initially conceived. If something was originally made as movie, it should not be remade as a movie. If something was originally made as a book, it should not be rewritten as a book. I would differentiate plays from movies in that the script for a movie is solely a means to an end (and constantly open to revision) whereas a play is written and released in a single form to be interpreted on a stage multiple times. And TV shows are episodic and open to future 'continuation' or re-imagining that goes far beyond simply rewriting the original scripts.

My reasoning for this is that it is absurd, uncreative, and demeaning of the original creation. We could rewrite Shakespeare or Stephen King but why?

I've tried to think of examples where something has been remade in its original form. One suggestion I got was "Hairspray." And that was a movie, turned into a play, turned into a movie. I'm not sure if the translation into a play made it more amenable to remake as a movie. It does seem a generally bad idea to create the substantially same story in the same media. But what are your thoughts?

Hey guys

I'm trying to think of something else I liked in the PT to have at least one on-topic post on this page. The Utai are a good design.

Funding would be the biggest hurdle. Without the funding, problems with dedication and discipline arise. And you're right that agreeing on a story would be a major issue. Now if someone had a story that was well-liked and had a lot of money, that person would be the de facto director and would need to make it happen.

I don't think a purely collaborative effort would work because everyone would expect control roughly in proportion to those resources given.

There is a lot of talent to be tapped in terms of editing and effects on this site and others. There are impressive model makers on other sites. Any number of us know people who are actors or involved in movie making of some sort. But quality control would be a stumbling block even if we had the money. Even the best of fan films suffer from some poor acting and a lack of polish. Despite the level of talent we can probably find, it would take a lot to make sure the film satisfies our expectations for its quality. Maybe I underestimate the talent that could be found - I hope that is the case!

The elephant in the room is lack of authorization by Lucasfilm. GL has been great about letting people make fan films and edits as long as no money is made. One would hope the same standard would apply if fans wanted to create an alternative vision of the prequels.

Okay, putting my crawl where my mouth is (that sounds terrible):

The Galactic Republic is in turmoil. A growing number of planets threaten to secede as the Republic demands greater power in the name of peace and prosperity.

The mysterious Jedi warriors who have long protected the Republic are now viewed with suspicion by those who oppose the Republic's growing reach.

Jedi Knight Obi Wan Kenobi makes his way to the capitol planet of Coruscant in hopes of finding a solution that will save the Republic....

-------◊-------

I think I've respected most of the lessons I learned. My adjective use is weak and will probably try to work on that, though I think it reads well. What I need to address is the very vague last paragraph. I need to figure out what lone Jedi Obi Wan is doing (apparently even he has no idea). My story is developing (I wish I was better at outlining) and it centers on (as said in the crawl) attempts to control member planets. The focus

of the story is an attempt by the Republic to control galactic military power. I need to make Obi Wan's intention on that matter more clear....

DuracellEnergizer,

I like your crawl with many good adjectives! And sets up the first scene very well. I can't help but feel the first paragraph repeats itself a little but definitely captures the hyperbolic style.

Before I started writing any scenes, I tried to write an opening crawl. I think this is a good tactic since it forces me to have a clear idea of the main point of the story and to keep that purpose in mind. So I went back to analyze the crawls from the OT and the PT to see how they did it.

Feel free to skip my discussion if tl;dr and tell me if you agree with my lessons learned or have anything to add. Also feel free to post your crawls!

It is a period of civil war.
Rebel spaceships, striking
from a hidden base, have won
their first victory against
the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel
spies managed to steal secret
plans to the Empire's
ultimate weapon, the DEATH
STAR, an armored space
station with enough power
to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's
sinister agents, Princess
Leia races home aboard her
starship, custodian of the
stolen plans that can save her
people and restore
freedom to the galaxy....

So a total of four sentences, none of which really repeat the same idea (harder than it sounds!). Note the use of good simple adjectives (hidden, evil, secret, ultimate, sinister, stolen, entire) to reinforce the story.

It sets up the first scene, letting us jump into the action. And the whole course of the movie relates to using those Death Star plans in an effort to restore freedom to the galaxy.

There is the quirk/discrepancy that Leia is allegedly racing to Alderaan ("home") when in actuality Bail Organa sent her to recruit Obi Wan. Now perhaps it's because Tatooine is on the way to Alderaan and it was going to be a quick pit stop. Still worth noting she's not only headed home.

It is a dark time for the
Rebellion. Although the Death
Star has been destroyed,
Imperial troops have driven the
Rebel forces from their hidden
base and pursued them across
the galaxy.

Evading the dreaded Imperial
Starfleet, a group of freedom
fighters led by Luke Skywalker
has established a new secret
base on the remote ice world
of Hoth.

The evil lord Darth Vader,
obsessed with finding young
Skywalker, has dispatched
thousands of remote probes into
the far reaches of space....

More solid declarative sentences. Plenty of simple adjectives (hidden, dreaded, secret, remote, evil). But I see even more dissonance between the crawl and the movie. I never got the sense that the Rebellion was now led by Luke, though he obviously was an important figure after destroying the Death Star. It isn't until later in the movie that Vader and the Emperor discuss Luke's significance. But the movie is ultimately about capturing Luke and Luke was certainly a leader in the rebellion. It sets us up for the first scene of probes hurling through space.

Luke Skywalker has returned to
his home planet of Tatooine in
an attempt to rescue his
friend Han Solo from the
clutches of the vile gangster
Jabba the Hutt.

Little does Luke know that the
GALACTIC EMPIRE has secretly
begun construction on a new
armored space station even
more powerful than the first
dreaded Death Star.

When completed, this ultimate
weapon will spell certain doom
for the small band of rebels
struggling to restore freedom
to the galaxy...

This crawl is a bit different in that it doesn't directly set up the first scene. It lets us know the state of affairs and the challenges that must be confronted. Certainly it would have been better to state the need for Luke to confront his destiny, but we have a good grasp of the basics. Adjectives: home, vile, dreaded, ultimate, certain.

Turmoil has engulfed the
Galactic Republic. The taxation
of trade routes to outlying star
systems is in dispute.

Hoping to resolve the matter
with a blockade of deadly
battleships, the greedy Trade
Federation has stopped all
shipping to the small planet
of Naboo.

While the congress of the
Republic endlessly debates
this alarming chain of events,
the Supreme Chancellor has
secretly dispatched two Jedi
Knights, the guardians of
peace and justice in the
galaxy, to settle the conflict...

The first thing that stands out is the vagueness of the first sentence. It's certainly redeemable as long as the second sentence explains who/what/why (see ESB crawl). The second sentence stands out as the first passive sentence of any SW crawl (correct me if I'm wrong). It's not clear if the trade dispute is a reason or a symptom of the galaxy-wide turmoil and we still don't know who/why. There is the quirk that only Naboo is actually known to be dealing with a trade dispute in the film.

In the next paragraph, we learn the "who," though they're trying to resolve the matter. But they're not good guys, they're "greedy". The last paragraph does a decent job of setting up the first scene, even if we don't really understand the significance of it. There aren't as many good adjectives but does throw in some decent adverbs.

With EpIV we know its about the Rebellion against the Death Star, a weapon that can destroy planets. EpV is getting Luke Skywalker, a powerful threat to the Empire. EpVI another ultimate weapon needs to be defeated. EpI our heroes need to stop a trade dispute. I think this is an instructive exercise, if you see what I mean.

There is unrest in the Galactic
Senate. Several thousand solar
systems have declared their
intentions to leave the Republic.

This separatist movement,
under the leadership of the
mysterious Count Dooku, has
made it difficult for the limited
number of Jedi Knights to maintain 
peace and order in the galaxy.

Senator Amidala, the former
Queen of Naboo, is returning
to the Galactic Senate to vote
on the critical issue of creating
an ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC
to assist the overwhelmed
Jedi....

Unrest in a senate is not as exciting as unrest in the galaxy, but that is the basic point, so let's not be too critical just because it's the PT. There is a significant issue here with the Republic on the verge of falling apart.

I'm not sure who Dooku is but he's mysterious and the separatist movement is straining the Jedi. This is all fine in my view, I'm sure we'll get to know who Dooku is. And it ultimately sets up the first scene. The point of the movie is creating an army. Though that purpose is general peacekeeping apparently. Not to keep the Republic together.

There is again a lack of simple and reinforcing adjectives. But it's an acceptable premise with a clear goal, though peacekeeping is not as exciting as saving the Republic. I never got the sense that Dooku was leading a broad coalition of planets leaving the Republic, but rather a small number of merchant groups. But again, not every crawl exactly corresponded with what we saw on the screen.

War! The Republic is crumbling
under attacks by the ruthless
Sith Lord, Count Dooku.
There are heroes on both sides.
Evil is everywhere.

In a stunning move, the
fiendish droid leader, General
Grievous, has swept into the
Republic capital and kidnapped
Chancellor Palpatine, leader of
the Galactic Senate.

As the Separatist Droid Army
attempts to flee the besieged
capital with their valuable
hostage, two Jedi Knights lead a
desperate mission to rescue the
captive Chancellor....

As a finale, I don't mind the dramatic "War!" The crawls are meant to be a bit dramatic after all. Not sure I'd go that route, but such a stylistic exclamation can serve a purpose. The Republic is crumbling because of attacks. As we know it's because of the Sith, though we don't really know the motivation of the separatists.

The relativistic musing about heroes on both sides and pointless notation of evil everywhere detracts from the usual pithiness of the crawls. We are informed of the current crisis that sets up the first scene. As for the rest of the movie...not certain what it's about. Lots of war to save the Republic I gather. Some decent adjectives (ruthless, stunning, fiendish, besieged) though a bit more highbrow than the OT.

Comparisons:

The OT did a better job of identifying exciting objectives of the movies.

A New Hope concerned an epic struggle between two powers and the need to destroy a deadly weapon. Before watching the movie, we have an idea that the "new hope" is probably hope of defeating the Empire. And the movie basically bears this out.

The Empire Strikes Back concerned the hunt for Luke Skywalker. Obviously the Empire is striking back after its earlier defeat.

Return of the Jedi is more diffuse, needing to (1a) rescue Han Solo and (1b) defeat another great weapon. So it's the culmination of the struggle. And "Return of the Jedi" certainly refers to Luke's growth as a Jedi.

The Phantom Menace is about a trade dispute that is upsetting the galaxy. The phantom menace is most likely the reason for the dispute. Okay, so we figure out the Sith are the phantom menace and there is in fact a trade dispute for some reason.

Attack of the Clones is about maintaining peace in the galaxy by creating an army. What does it have to do with clones and who are they attacking? Guess we have to watch it. Would be nice to explain the title in the crawl.

Revenge of the Sith is about massive war and a crumbling Republic. Obviously the heroes are going to tackle this problem. And while we know the Sith are the evil force users, what are they getting revenge for?

What is absent in the PT crawls? Any mention of Anakin (it's not like this is the story of Darth Vader or anything) or Obi Wan.Well actually, they're charitably referred to as "two Jedi Knights" in the ROTS crawl.

The PT is a bunch of stuff happening for "mysterious" reasons. And I'm not criticizing the films per se (I do so elsewhere). I'm criticizing the lack of focus in the crawls. They aren't quite as pithy and simple as the OT crawls. I wonder if GL also writes his crawls first. The initial lack of focus could very well result in unfocused films.

Lessons:

1. Be concise. Do not repeat the same point in different ways. But do build upon preceding sentences.
2. Be precise. Don't be afraid of saying exactly who is doing what. Mystery need not be lost by identifying the real purpose of the movie - as long as you're not saying something like, "...and Luke discover Vader is his father".
3. Use simple adjectives to reinforce who is good, who is bad, and how serious the situation is.
4. The crawls haven't always neatly corresponded with what happened on screen and involve a little bit of dramatic overstatement or simplification.
5. Use the crawl to provide context for the first scene, not just a laundry list of events and characters.

I'm sure this has been seen by 99% of you but it's worth watching again. It inspires the optimistic view of Star Wars I think we all know:

Messersmith -  Tatooine

CWBorne said:

Again its likely a reflection of my own adulthood, and there's a good chance someone on here will explain that discussions and arguments could get just as embittered and nasty 15 years ago, but I don't know, just seems like there was a genuine sense of hopefulness to the whole franchise that's sorely lacking these days. 

We were in the denial stage back then and have only recently gone into the anger stage xD

It would not at all be surprising if people seemed more optimistic pre-PT. We were awaiting new films. Silly novels were easily compartmentalized as not really Star Wars since they weren't the movies. Granted we still do that. But back then it was all about possibility.

Then the PT changed everything. It professed to say, this is what happened, and yes it happened this stupidly. I think it made many of us take a more critical view. And if we could reject actual movies...why not reject any form of Star Wars media.

Of course that was about the time the Yuuzhan Vong appeared and proceeded to murder Chewbacca. Hm, shocking we became less optimistic! :p

Eh, maybe we're curmudgeons.

I think about how my own views have changed since 1999. I know that having time to digest the PT has changed many of my ideas.

May those that love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May He turn their ankles
So we will know them by their limping.
~Irish Blessing

I'm also optimistic that George Lucas will recognize the desire for the original Star Wars. I agree with Tyr, there's still good in him!

darth_ender said:

You know, I suspect that if these movies came out in sequential order rather than OT, then PT, people would see them as inferior but still decent films.

If Star Wars had no history and started with Episode I in the year 1999, then sure that's possible. I'm not thoroughly convinced, but it is a reasonable proposition. The excessive slapstick humor, terrible love scenes, poor acting, and intrusive CGI would be hallmarks of the Star Wars franchise. There would be critics of the PT, as there are of any movies, but it wouldn't be based on precise notions of what it could have been (like if we had alternative visions of the Star Wars universe from other films).

The passion on this board amuses me.

-_- Funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh?

I certainly don't like the PT nearly as much, but I can still watch and enjoy them.  In my mind, I can incorporate them into my personal Star Wars canon or disregard them, depending on my mood.

I don't completely fault people for this view. Especially younger people. I fault George Lucas for it :(

After seeing Avatar, my younger cousin who was a huge Star Wars fan announced that he thinks Avatar is even better than Star Wars. Can't really blame him seeing as he grew up with the PT.

Before you feel frustrated by yet another challenging reply, I'm saying you do have a point, but I think it's an unfortunate one. I certainly don't feel animosity toward you. What upsets so many is that we had hopes of what the PT could have been and those hopes are forever dashed. Just as if this had been ESB (still makes me jump a little xD). And some of us are honestly critical of the PT in its own right and can't enjoy it. Just as I appreciate the Holiday Special in its own right by not watching it.

And this is all relevant to liking elements of the prequels since many of us habitually contrast every element with the OT. My point is that this is justified!

As for what I liked: the water planet of Kamino and the battle between Jango and Obi Wan. I thought Watto was a good character. I liked Zam Wesell. I like the concept of a crisis leading up to a military creation act.

The Conspirator / The Lincoln Lawyer

Possibly two totally different kinds of movies (I've only seen the first) but quite confusing as they were both out at the same time. Seriously, didn't the marketers of the Lincoln Lawyer consider this confusion? Couldn't it have been The Mitsubishi Lawyer or something?

We could do the same exact kind of exercise to show Clinton was a Republican or Bush was a Democrat (yes, really). Most of your examples may just as well point to ineffective leadership - not ideology. And some stuff, like pretending Romney's health care plan is a Republican idea, is just specious. It's like saying Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell and DOMA are Democratic ideas since Clinton signed them.

Certainly Obama has not lived up to the hype and undefined and abstract hopes of his admirers. Also, Bush was not that partisan, but he did pursue unpopular policies. As evidence consider his attempt at immigration reform and his signing of Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind.

Bingowings said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Isn't Socialism lovely.

If by Socialism you mean postal workers exercising their democratic rights to protect their working conditions, it's a bloody pain.

Communism is much better, no workers rights there, people just work, make stuff, sell it cheap and undermine the regimes of Capitalist countries by flooding their evil markets with the sort of cheap goods you are typing on now.

Hee, hee, hee.

Just wait until their middle classes become too big to handle.

If I were to exercise my "democratic rights" by not working...I would be without a job.