<!--REF="http://adserver.ign.com/click-ng/network=ign&pagetype=channel&site=theforce&size=468x60" target="_top" !-- SRC="http://adserver.ign.com/image-ng/network=ign&&pagetype=channel&site=theforce&size=468x60" width=468 height=60 border-- -->
Jedi Council Forums
»
Star Wars Films
»
Attack of the Clones
»
Register
|
Login
|
Search
|
Help
|
New Boards
|
Harassment Policy
|
Rules of the JC
|
TOS
|
Markup Codes
Locked Topic
|
Read Only Topic
|
Previous Active Topic
|
Next Active Topic
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
»
-
Previous
|
Next
|
Reload
Author
Topic:
Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
Binary_Sunset
Registered:
Oct '00
Date Posted:
10/20/02 8:24pm
Subject:
Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
-
Date Edited:
10/23/02 2:03pm
(1 edits total)
Edited By:
DarthSapient
On September 20, 1963, J. R. R. Tolkien wrote the following in a letter to Colonel Worskett:
"Part of the attraction of The L. R. [Lord of the Rings] is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist.
To go there is to destroy the magic
, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed."
(Emphasis mine.)
In the OT we had "glimpses of a large history in the background": the Clone Wars, the Old Republic, the destruction of the Jedi, the rise of the Empire, the fall of Anakin Skywalker, etc. Our imaginations were enticed by these glimpses, and SW fans spent countless hours fantasizing about these things.
But prequels take us there and "destroy the magic". What was grand and mythic and only dimly glimpsed has become a mere series of facts. Poetry has been exchanged for prose.
Perhaps the main problem with the prequels isn't Jar Jar, or midichlorians, or bad acting, or sorry love stories, or any of the rest. Perhaps the main problem is that prequels,
by their very nature
, destroy the magic.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
Date Posted:
10/20/02 8:26pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
I'm of the opinion that no film can quite surpass a good imagination (though many come close). So in that sense, you may be right,
Binary.
-----signature-----
When George Lucas was in his early twenties, he was wrecking his health in the
burning Tunisian desert, risking a new and fragile career on a movie no one believed in.
When I was in my early twenties, I was complaining on the Internet about George Lucas.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi
Registered:
Jul '02
Date Posted:
10/20/02 8:31pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
Binary,
I think part of your definition, from JRR Tolkien, says it all. Unless new, unattainable vistas are revealed.
What new, unattainable vistas have we seen in the PT so far? None. We have seen the Jedi temple and gotten a tiny glimpse of life in that temple. We have seen tiny glimpses of Jedi training, but not enough to show us where they began.
I believe if pre-quels are handled properly, they can be good, but it is a very difficult thing to do.
Thank you for bringing this topic to our attention.
Lady Sami
-----signature-----
The path to the Dark Side isn't quick-it starts with "I Hate my hair" and ends with nuking Alderaan. Rm 204-The Ward. In support of Ambassador Cara Jade [face-hugs]
What's logical in a world where the sun appears to set
when it's the horizon rising?
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
Date Posted:
10/20/02 8:43pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
I've just thought about this a bit more...
One might compare the OT (ANH in particular) to a magic show, full of amazing tricks and backed by the rules that magicians abide by to keep the audience guessing.
Only let them see what you want them to see.
Always leave them wanting more.
Mystery is a powerful tool for a storyteller; few other elements, when handled properly, keep an audience so involved. The OT served up question after question, cleverly and selectively leaving choice questions open.
What were the Clone Wars?
How did Anakin come to be Vader?
What was the galaxy like "before the dark times?"
Who was Luke's mother?
And so on.
For years afterwards, fans speculated, told stories; swapped rumors that this time, this time
for sure,
Episodes I, II and III were underway; imagination abounded.
Perhaps releasing a definitive version of how these events came to pass is like a magician showing how he does his tricks; out goes the mystery, and while the trick may be technically impressive, the magic is gone.
Just a thought.
-----signature-----
When George Lucas was in his early twenties, he was wrecking his health in the
burning Tunisian desert, risking a new and fragile career on a movie no one believed in.
When I was in my early twenties, I was complaining on the Internet about George Lucas.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Otis_Frampton
Title:
LFL Artist
Mo derator Emeritus
Registered:
Jan '01
Date Posted:
10/20/02 8:44pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
-
Date Edited:
10/20/02 8:46pm
(1 edits total)
Edited By:
Otis_Frampton
If Tolkien really belived that, he should have stopped at "The Hobbit". He's wrong, of course, and he couldn't have really believed in it . . or he never would have continued the story.
"To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed."
As with "Lord of the Rings", there IS more to be revealed in the Star Wars universe. The PT, like the OT, does not show us everything, nor should it. If you feel the magic has been destroyed, perhaps you should never have travelled to these new worlds to begin with.
-Otis
-----signature-----
http://www.otisframpton.com/
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
bjbrickm
Registered:
Feb '02
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:08pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
"What new, unattainable vistas have we seen in the PT so far? None. We have seen the Jedi temple and gotten a tiny glimpse of life in that temple. We have seen tiny glimpses of Jedi training, but not enough to show us where they began."
Umm isn't that a contradiction? Basically you are asking for "unattainable vistas" and then you say we don't see enough of the Jedi life? Wouldn't that be an "unattainable vista"?
Nope, there are still many questions raised. Everything from the Jedi life to the ins and outs of podracing and all the worlds it is held on. Or what about the citizens of the Republic on various worlds, or the refugees, or those who would support the Separtists? What was Dooku like as Yoda's apprentice? How did things go wrong for Dooku for him to be seduced by the dark side? On a broader note: what was the Old Republic like before it started getting corrupted? How was the Republic in it's early days? How was the Jedi Order in its early days? And so on and so on.
There's still plenty of questions. And Lucas leaves some things for us to decide about the prequels. You think he's going to explain every last nitpick in Episode III? Guess again. But then people will whine and scream "plothole" like a 2 year old.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
You complain that Lucas doesn't leave enough mystery or you complain he leaves to much. In short, you complain for the sake of complaining
.
Not cool.
-----signature-----
BOYCOTT Bashers
Don't feed the trolls, read, or respond to their posts.
Besides they don't think highly of us all anyways.
They say we like the prequels because we're pretending.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:13pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
-
Date Edited:
10/20/02 9:14pm
(1 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Geist
The difference, Otis, is that there's more of a story to the PT than there would be to what came before. The OT, in its references to the past, alludes to a compelling drama in which friendships grow and fail, rulers fall and rise, and in the end the galaxy's last chance is hidden away, with only the faintest sliver of hope that the tide may turn in the far distant future.
Now that's interesting, and as we all know, it's fueled imaginations for years, and in some ways continues to do so.
When we reach back before TPM, however, what do we find? A galaxy at peace, an enemy beginning to stir but for the most part staying passive; on the whole, there's no story on the scale of the OT or PT left to tell--at least not one that would bear any likeness to what we've come to know.
When the PT is spent, that's it; minor details about this world or that political scheme aside, we essentially know the whole story. Now, there's something to be said for that, but there's inevitably a letdown too. Consider any horror movie where the monster stays offscreen until the showdown--and when it finally appears, it's suddenly lessened, as if giving it physical form took away what you'd imagined and feared, and replaced it with something else entirely. Likewise, try reading a good whodunit novel after you already know whodunit; once a mystery's solved, it's over.
It's a double-edged sword. Whether one would prefer to keep guessing and imagining what might have been, or whether one prefers to hear it from the source--I think that comes down to personal preference. For those who've seen the movies, and would have preferred them some other way--well, no one needs a license to imagine, not even from George.
-----signature-----
When George Lucas was in his early twenties, he was wrecking his health in the
burning Tunisian desert, risking a new and fragile career on a movie no one believed in.
When I was in my early twenties, I was complaining on the Internet about George Lucas.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
MobartZmuda
Registered:
Apr '02
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:15pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
GL claims he intended on making the PT back in the 70s when the first SW came out. It's not like he ran out of money and twenty years later decided to hit the cash cow again. The story has been sitting on the shelf waiting for technology to catch up. If the technology was good enough back in the late 70s, early 80s, would this even be a point of discussion right now? I think not.
And isn't there a series of LOTR books that take place after the original ones that Tolken started to write but his son finished up after he died? Practice what you preach man.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
The_Abstract
Registered:
Jul '02
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:17pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
-
Date Edited:
10/20/02 9:18pm
(2 edits total)
Edited By:
The_Abstract
So by this logic, people would rather look at a picture of a beach in Hawaii and imagine it, then go and visit it in person?
-----signature-----
Sometimes you have to take a break from being the kind of boss that's always trying to teach people things. Sometimes you just… have to be the boss of dancing.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:17pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
"And isn't there a series of LOTR books that take place after the original ones that Tolken started to write but his son finished up after he died?"
You're thinking of
The Silmarillon,
a collection of Tolkien's notes which tells bits and pieces of Middle Earth's history, and ends well before the events of Frodo's journey.
So to answer your question: No.
-----signature-----
When George Lucas was in his early twenties, he was wrecking his health in the
burning Tunisian desert, risking a new and fragile career on a movie no one believed in.
When I was in my early twenties, I was complaining on the Internet about George Lucas.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Peter_Jackson_Smells
Registered:
Oct '02
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:19pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
This is actually an interesting question. But by agreeing with this sentiment, bashers are actully sub-consciously admitting that their one true problem with the prequels is that they never wanted them filmed in the first place. In other words, all this "we really, really wanted to like these new star wars" clearly comes off as a load of hogwash. Of course this obviously wouldn't apply to every basher, just a huge-ass majority of them.
-----signature-----
Ross: Didn't you ever read Lord of the Rings in high school?
Joey: I had sex in high school.
"I released two different versions of LOTR because my fans are stupid suckers."- Peter Jackson
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Binary_Sunset
Registered:
Oct '00
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:20pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
Darth Geist
, you are expressing my own thoughts with your posts!
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:21pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
-
Date Edited:
10/20/02 9:35pm
(2 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Geist
While I stand by my statement,
P_J_S,
that film can never quite surpass a good imagination, that's a wholly separate issue from critiquing a film on its own merits, which is exactly what many here do, regardless of the way in which some others attempt to explain away detractors' disappointment.
Abstract:
I believe that Mr. Tolkien's point is that the unknown is always more intriguing than what's right in front of us.
In
Dance Macabre,
Stephen King discusses this concept in relation to the horror genre. He asks the reader to imagine an onscreen protagonist creeping toward a door, behind which we as an audience hear an unearthly, unidentifiable sound. If the film has done its job and hooked us, then at that point we as an audience are very, very interested in what's behind that door, and all kinds of images and emotions fly through our heads as we speculate on what it might be. Then the protagonist opens the door to reveal--say, a ten-foot-tall bug.
"Phew," says the audience, "I was worried it was going to be a hundred feet tall."
Making it a hundred feet tall wouldn't solve the problem either; the audience would simply respond, "Phew; I thought it was going to be a
thousand
feet tall."
Nothing can scare or thrill you like your own imagination can. Filmmakers are wise to play into that; when Spielberg made the original
Jaws,
he kept the shark off-camera primarily for budgetary reasons, but also to keep the audience guessing--to blind them, in a way, and thus scare them that much more. By
Jaws IV,
the shark is in your face every step of the way, and we as an audience are familiar enough with the threat that it doesn't scare us the way it used to (if at all).
Do you see what I'm saying, and how it relates to SW?
-----signature-----
When George Lucas was in his early twenties, he was wrecking his health in the
burning Tunisian desert, risking a new and fragile career on a movie no one believed in.
When I was in my early twenties, I was complaining on the Internet about George Lucas.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
guittarjedi
Registered:
May '02
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:23pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
The problem with the prequels is that they are not what we imagined them to be. Watching the OT and hearing little glimpses of what happened "before the dark times" none of us imagined buffoonish characters like JarJar running around stepping in poodoo or long boring senate hearings. We thought about cool stuff.
-----signature-----
In the REAL version of ESB when R2 is spit out of the mouth of the monster on
Dagobah Luke says "Are you alright? You're lucky you
don't taste very good". In the Stupid Editions Luke just says "You're
lucky you got out of there". -Why???
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
bjbrickm
Registered:
Feb '02
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:34pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
Long boring senate scenes?
Coutn em'.
There is ONE, count it, ONE senate scene in TPM.
There is ONE, count it, ONE senate scene in theatrical release of AOTC. There will be TWO.
Exageration.
I think the Senate is designed well. It could be a normal boring room. But the whole design, and the individual pods, all the aliens from all these different worlds that are "unattainable vistas". What would potentially be boring is far from.
-----signature-----
BOYCOTT Bashers
Don't feed the trolls, read, or respond to their posts.
Besides they don't think highly of us all anyways.
They say we like the prequels because we're pretending.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Darth Geist
Registered:
Oct '99
Date Posted:
10/20/02 9:38pm
Subject:
RE: Are SW prequels an inherently bad idea?
-
Date Edited:
10/20/02 9:39pm
(2 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Geist
bjbrickm,
in response to your first post in this thread:
The questions the PT raises don't compare to those raised by the OT. There's no film to be made from how many planets hold podracing, or who voted for Count Dooku. There's no story there--at least not one worth telling or imagining on this kind of scale.
There are minor details left unresolved, but they're just that--minor. The subject at hand is a whole different ballgame.
-----signature-----
When George Lucas was in his early twenties, he was wrecking his health in the
burning Tunisian desert, risking a new and fragile career on a movie no one believed in.
When I was in my early twenties, I was complaining on the Internet about George Lucas.
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
»
-
Previous
|
Next
|
Reload
Jedi Council Forums
»
Star Wars Films
»
Attack of the Clones
»
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, IGNPRDAPPW64213) 0.469
