Do we read too much into Star Wars?

I absolutely agree that these movies can and are enjoyed for many reasons, philosophy being one of them(not that my agreement is required).

We would do well to actually attribute credit through the proper channels. Very little, if any of the wonderous philosophical rhetoric in the saga, is actually rooted in the saga.

Perhaps instead of the initial post, a better question would be...Does Star Wars at times recieve undue credit?

There is nothing wrong with bringing nifty ideas to the masses through any means available, but lets not deify the messanger eh.

 

Does it really matter whether we read too much into STAR WARS or not? People do the same with the LORD OF THE RINGS saga, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, STAR TREK and God knows how many other stories.

 

Do you mean that Romeo and Juliet was one of the original stories or a variation of a story?

Because Romeo and Juliet (which, if memory serves, wasn't an original shakespeare play, but an adaptation of a story by another author) certainly isn't the first story with teh starcrossed lovers theme...you can find that in The Illiad with Paris and Helen for example.


Do we read too much into Star Wars? Well this site would be dead if we didn't

 

Guess that makes me a Loser/Geek . People have called me those names and never knew I liked Star Wars, but then I don't really advertise that well Anyways I do keep most of the star wars symbolism and messages to myself though. I don't go around trying to convince others to believe or see things my way.
It's a personal choice I feel, if you want to look into the meanings in Star Wars though mythology or another source that's cool but if you don't that's cool too...(I'm not going to call it deeper cause I dunno it just doesn't sound right. There is no deeper meanings IMO just meanings that have always been there just most people don't realize it.)

 

True, there will always be the buffs as long as entertainment and sci fi is around. I'm just glad I fell into the best out of all of them. I love me my star wars.

 

Hear hear!

 

I think we definitely read to much into it. I mean if we're really honest with ourselves, every time we watch it, it's to relive that thrill and excitement we had the first time we saw it. But even SW can get pretty stale if we keep watching it with the same mind set we had before. So we look for ways to keep it new and fresh by looking for deeper connections and after a thousand or more viewings, we have to get pretty creative to keep it up

 

Oh boy, do I think we read too much into it, yes. Yeah, Ramred is right that it's not isolated to SW, and while there are things that can be read in beyond surface details, the over analysis of fiction (in terms of meaning) has always bugged me a bit. I think you actually loose, not gain, meaning and risk distorting the art if you try to go deeper than the artist intended.

 

You can't know what the artist intended, so you MUST go as deep as the work permits. It is IMPOSSIBLE to over-analyze. Analysis has NOTHING to do with adding content that isn't there--it's all about taking all of the work's parts into consideration and how these parts interact with each other. So, NO. We don't read too much into Star Wars.

 

Nah, I agree with Stryphe. And yes you CAN know what the artist intended when he tells you so in a book or interview and yes you most certainly can over analyze.

 

Nope. That's called "the intentional fallacy."

Analyze: examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, esp. information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation.

You can't over-analyze a film because all of your evidence comes from the film itself. An explanation or interpretation is only poor if it lacks evidence. If it's in the film, it's fair game.

 

Sure and by that same methodology, people turn blank pieces of paper and toilets bowls into works of art in their minds. But in reality, they're still blank pieces of paper and toilet bowls that people write on and crap in. Again, no matter how many times you play the film the same things will be seen. It's up to the viewer to read into it what they will. But at the same time, when you start looking for connections in the myopic details that clearly are not focused upon given the context of the scene or basic story, and then drawing connections from that which clearly move away from the context, then you have entered the realm of over thinking as far as I'm concerned. But there's nothing wrong with that. Whatever floats your boat.

 

You can't know what the artist intended, so you MUST go as deep as the work permits.

In the modern age, the artist can, and often does, state his intent. The idea that there are other things he wants you to read in to is assumption, at the very best. If the artist really wants you to know something, he'll make it plan in the work and/or use the interviews (and what-not) to make sure we get it.


Analysis has NOTHING to do with adding content that isn't there--it's all about taking all of the work's parts into consideration and how these parts interact with each other. So, NO. We don't read too much into Star Wars.

When you've got people saying things like "Since R5-D4 is orange instead of yellow, that means that the Force is really about [x]", then, yeah, you've gone too far. Admittedly, I made that example up, but it isn't far off the mark from where I've seen some people go. Maybe GL liked orange, or maybe one of the set designers picked it at random and he went with it. If GL's intention or method has nothing to do with [x] and you start saying it does, you're corrupting his intent. If you want to wonder and play around with the idea it had signifance, sure, nothing wrong with that, but to assume it means something as fact, that's erroneous.

Let me put this a way maybe you can appreciate more. If you create some art (movie, story, painting, whichever) and make it available and people start telling everyone that you meant something that you, in fact, did not mean with the art, and they start stating it as fact, then they are crediting you for ideas you did not state or intent, perhaps even as far as ideas you are even oppose to. Do you really want that? If not, we shouldn't push that on others.

 

Intentional fallacy.

You can't know GL's intention or method. What if he lies in the interviews? What if he doesn't know his own work as well as we do? You're judging his words instead of his art. If he intended something, but that was not objectively conveyed in the art, then I'm all for corrupting his intent. If so, I'm still not corrupting the film. An example would be GL saying "Chewbacca is actually a Gungan." No, he's a Wookiee. It says so in the movie. It isn't true just because Lucas says so. It's true if that's what's in the film.

Let's see some clear examples. It's still the intentional fallacy if you trust Lucas over his work.

 

Except he never said that.

 

You can't know GL's intention or method. What if he lies in the interviews? What if he doesn't know his own work as well as we do?

Do you think we know it better and if so, why? And as to lying, from what I can tell from zombie's thread the prevailing believe with Saga fans is that GL isn't lying about SW. What makes you think he does, or that he might be?


You're judging his words instead of his art.

If the artist makes his intention known, the only thing to judge is whether or not he was effective in commicating his intent. GL may intend the story to say one thing, and when watching it the message may come across completely different. That doesn't change GL's intent, that just means he did a poor job of communicating it, or, as you said, if he was lying about the intent. But we can't establish the latter simply because we disagree with his statements.


If he intended something, but that was not objectively conveyed in the art, then I'm all for corrupting his intent. If so, I'm still not corrupting the film. An example would be GL saying "Chewbacca is actually a Gungan." No, he's a Wookiee.

Granted... althought it could be argued that since GL created it all, he could redefine what a Gungan and a wookie are, such that Chewie and JJB could be of the same race even though they look entirely different. It could be argued, but I would tend to agree with your assessment that if he says JJB is a wookie, he'd be wrong. However, as it was pointed out, he's not saying anything of the kind.

 

Do we read too much into Star Wars?

No. We don't read enough into it.

 

If the artist makes his intention known, the only thing to judge is whether or not he was effective in commicating his intent. GL may intend the story to say one thing, and when watching it the message may come across completely different. That doesn't change GL's intent, that just means he did a poor job of communicating it, or, as you said, if he was lying about the intent.


I disagree. For me, it doesn't matter how Lucas had communicated the messages in his stories. Fans are either going to agree with him, or create their own interpretation of the stories. It's going to happen regardless of the quality of the stories.

 

It's going to happen, but that doesn't mean they are right. And quality of story vs. effectiveness aren't the same thing. If GL wants Maul to seem like a bad guy, but has him rescuing people all the time, is that an effective way of making him look like an evil person? (hypothetical example, obviously Maul never did this).

 

Good discussion; I'm hopping into it late.

The initial question is a bit deceptive as there's no yes/no answer. Yes, we're reading too much into it if we're inventing things that weren't in there or ever intended. No, we're not reading too much into it if we're looking at the themes, influences and ideas that informed Lucas' storytelling and mythmaking. Yes, you can enjoy it without acknowledging the depth, and yes you can enjoy it (perhaps more) if you realize there is a greater reason for telling these stories than showing nifty laser weapons and spaceships.

I saw the first film when I was a child, and enjoyed it with a child's eyes and imagination. If the stories didn't have the depth - "journey of a hero", "redemption of a fallen hero" and the many smaller lessons all woven in - I don't think they'd have the same great cultural impact. Without such a cultural impact, it's doubtful they'd carry the weight they still do today. Rather, they'd have come and gone along with the many other films I enjoyed as a child and no longer have any taste for.

Great design only carries a story so far. Great stories carry great design much further. Those who have studied film or theatre know the importance of having design that completely supports your storytelling. The design of Lucas' universe is incredibly strong - each rusted box tells a story, each dented ship has a history. To follow up on an already discussed point: the Death Star was designed as a cavernous grey, lifeless planet. Yes, the budget was small, but it would have been cheaper to omit chasms and the high angles needed to shoot them. The emptiness was by design, regardless of the limited budget - the design supports the idea of showing a lifeless technology world, lacking in color. Yes, it would have been shot differently today - more moving camera work, more moving technology, perhaps even deeper chasms - but the idea of the lifeless technology world would still inform the design decisions. Similarly, there are no trees on Coruscant - this wasn't an oversight or lack of budget, but a choice to show how technological might and sprawl tends to overrun the world and pave over nature. I don't think looking at the idea inherent in the design is reading too much into it, particularly when it's backed up with interviews in which Lucas has discussed the themes he was interested in conveying.

Another point I wanted to touch on that's been raised already: Jar Jar Binks has often been dismissed as an appeal to children - this is a baseless, even cynical suggestion. The story of Jar Jar Binks (which is really only in episode 1 since he becomes a background character after that) is one of the thick fool who makes good in the end - he brings two unfriendly groups together. Perhaps this isn't a common story today, or particularly welcome, but there are plenty of fairy tale examples of the fool making good. That, and he was a comic foil to Qui-Gon's serious character (Lucas has talked much about his pairing of opposites - such as the idealistic Luke and the skeptical Han). He might be an unpopular character, but let's not accuse the storyteller of making a grasping appeal to children - as if children didn't like Star Wars (ep IV) when it came out because there was no such childish character involved.

But again, you can enjoy these films on the surface level, or you can mine the depths. Films without the depths tend not to stick around though, so I'm glad the depths are present. Sorry for writing so much, great topic though...

 

Most of this website wouldn't exist if we didn't read deeply or too much into Star Wars.

 

Of course we do..just like every other movie..at least i do..and we wouldnt have this board if we didnt..is right.

 

Very true.

 

i think you're coming from a perspective of art functioning outside of the psyche whereas mr vader is assuming precisely the opposite. personally i susbscribe to any work of art only working with me rather than being isolated without me.

the artist's intention is derived from that model of thinking, methinks, the artist has limited capability to state their intentions as they will not personally know them. think about it this way, if art is the expression of an inner process (which many people believe) whatever this process is can only be expressed in the art and it's unknown to the creator of that art otherwise it would not be art. it's not to do with the (not-so) mundane reality or anything, it has to do with your inner workings. lucas expresses himself through his particular films. now you can argue that he doesn't do that well, or you could say he should have chosen victorian period drama instead of space opera or whatever, but you cannot argue with his intentions, except as they are being laid out in front of you in the movie.

the work of art, however cheaply or amateurishly done, will resonate with you, it cannot live without a receiver. thus whatever we read in it, whatever we derive from it as a tale will also resonate with our inner workings, not with our rational mind so much, as i think you are arguing. it is fine to assume lucas states whatever he wants us to get out of it, and he's fine doing that and we are all fine listening to him, but none of that will spare us the effort of relating to the work on our individual level.

 

Yes You Do