How is the story bad?

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by sdj, Mar 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    Well I do not agree, DG!

    Would you say that vague does equal mysterious?

    Let me tell you a little story about convolution versus complexity. When I was seventeen, I started writing a novel. It was more or less your typical college-students-in-fantasy world yarn, but to explain how they got there, I opted for a textbook's worth of fragmentary backstory, and to make things even less coherent, I piled on pages and pages of magical "rules" until even I couldn't explain things half the time. All that may make a story more complicated, but in no way does that equate to making the story better.

    As far as inconsistency, when characters change their minds about fundamental beliefs at the drop of a hat because the script requires it, we're not talking about multilayering; we're talking about a writer who jerks his characters around to make them do what he needs them to do.

    Wouldn't you agree?

    Unless Padme is well aware that the Seperatists aren't trying to leave the Republic, but to create a conflict which, as they have all the military power (they think), they will certainly win.

    First off, how could she possibly know that?

    Second, why would she then advocate leaving the Republic defenseless?

    Third, why does she never mention this, even when challenged to back up her accusation (which she never does)?
  2. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    Damn, too late to edit...

    What if we later learn that Dooku is truthfully tring to destroy the Sith from within, and much as knowing Palpatine's identity completely changes the way we see events in TPM to the extent that the good guys don't really win, the way we see the characters in AOTC is changed by Episode III?

    I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.
  3. Rebel Scumb Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 1999
    star 6
    "It's not uncommon to get a joke without laughing.

    As RS said above, vague does not equal mysterious. Convoluted does not equal complex. Inconsistent does not equal multilayered. "


    thanks Geist.

    I get AOTC just fine, I understand everything GL was going for, and infact I often find myself explaining what things mean to people who proport to love the film (see above)

    Its just that I think in most instances what GL was going for was either not a good idea, or was a great idea, but not executed well.

    "What if that's the way we're supposed to see it now- from Anakin's point of view? "

    We should be, but unfortunately the movie is not presented that way. At no time do I really feel like these movies are from ANakin's point of view. We are rarely if ever in ANakin's shoes.


    "hat if we later learn that Dooku is truthfully tring to destroy the Sith from within"

    I won;'t get into spoilers, but lets just say that is looking less and less likely with everyday. Dooku is ultimately just another Maul.

    "But the audience is supposed to relate to Anakin, who is on the path to the Dark Side. We are supposed to feel his frustration with Obi Wan and the Jedi order. We're supposed to think- as he does- that his powers are the important thing."

    I agree we are SUPPOSE to, but as it stands its not working.

    "Would you say that vague does equal mysterious?

    Let me tell you a little story about convolution versus complexity. When I was seventeen, I started writing a novel. It was more or less your typical college-students-in-fantasy world yarn, but to explain how they got there, I opted for a textbook's worth of fragmentary backstory, and to make things even less coherent, I piled on pages and pages of magical "rules" until even I couldn't explain things half the time. All that may make a story more complicated, but in no way does that equate to making the story better.

    As far as inconsistency, when characters change their minds about fundamental beliefs at the drop of a hat because the script requires it, we're not talking about multilayering; we're talking about a writer who jerks his characters around to make them do what he needs them to do.

    Wouldn't you agree?

    Unless Padme is well aware that the Seperatists aren't trying to leave the Republic, but to create a conflict which, as they have all the military power (they think), they will certainly win.

    First off, how could she possibly know that?

    Second, why would she then advocate leaving the Republic defenseless?

    Third, why does she never mention this, even when challenged to back up her accusation (which she never does)? "


    Exactly.
  4. Kranal Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2002
    star 1
    Explain Ewoks. I always see that same answer over and over.


    Small furry bears, I think you'll find. You'll usually get the same answer from everyone.

    =K=
  5. Ree Yees Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 6, 2000
    star 5
  6. Rebel Scumb Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 1999
    star 6
    "Ideally, once all six episodes are out, we should be able to sit down and watch them in order and get a complete story experience.

    The problem with such an assumption is that it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. When Yoda appears in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back it's so obviously the introduction of the character. The entire gag that the annoying little green alien turns out to be the great Jedi master really doesn't work if the audience has watched the first two episodes and seen him clomping around on his little cane. We know it's Yoda and when it's revealed that it's Yoda, it's no suprise. It could be argued that the gag still works somewhat because Luke Skywalker doesn't know it's Yoda, and that would be true, but the sequence works best when the disclosure of the little green alien's true identity is a revelation to both Luke and the audience."


    And this is why I reject the notion that these films are suppose to be watched 1 thru 6. Because what makes the SW trilogy work so well is that the audience and luke become one and the same.
  7. TheEliteFetus Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 1, 2003
    star 1
    I reject the notion that the PT offers any revelance to the OT (that which has not already been established by the OT) and thus the prequels are not needed. Lucas should have made the MATURE version of ROTJ and continued from there with a sequel trilogy to the OT. The relationship between the audience and Luke would have been stronger. All the surpirses are gone with the addition of a PT.
  8. Rebel Scumb Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 1999
    star 6
    thats the thing, IMHo everything we needed to know about the PT we learned in the OT, and we learned it through Luke, which made us identify with him even more, and added an extra layer to the story.
  9. TheEliteFetus Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 1, 2003
    star 1
    As someone noted on these boards somewhere, "put a stranger in a strange land". Luke and the audience are strangers and the SW universe sure is strange enough as is.
  10. Scott3eyez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2001
    star 4
    >>>thats the thing, IMHo everything we needed to know about the PT we learned in the OT

    How did the Jedi get wiped out?
    Why did Vader choose evil over good?
    Why did Obi Wan spend 20 years watching over Luke?
    How did the Empire rise so quickly, and why were the Jedi so quickly forgotten?
  11. Rebel Scumb Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 1999
    star 6
    "How did the Jedi get wiped out? "

    They were betrayed by Anakin, and hunted down by the empire.

    "Why did Vader choose evil over good?"

    Because he was seduced, it was quicker easier and more seductive.

    "Why did Obi Wan spend 20 years watching over Luke?"

    Last time i checked, it was Owen and beru who did that. Luke was hidden at birth to protect him from Vader and the emperor

    "How did the Empire rise so quickly, and why were the Jedi so quickly forgotten?"

    Niether of these is really important to the SW trilogy, the point is that the empire did take over, and the jedi are gone.

    Don't get me wrong, a lot of this stuff is interesting, but its not needed. We get what we need to know from Ben, Yoda and Vader, the vital info is all in there as it relates to Luke, which was the point of the back story to begin with. It works well as a backstory, its arguable if it works well as the front story.
  12. _Star_Wars_Girl_ Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2003
    star 2
    the couch scene is SO chessy...
  13. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    the couch scene is SO chessy....

    Queen is exposed to Knight's pawn :p



    g
  14. Scott3eyez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2001
    star 4
    I wouldn't call it porn...
  15. Scott3eyez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2001
    star 4
    "How did the Jedi get wiped out? "

    >>>>They were betrayed by Anakin, and hunted down by the empire.


    Yes, but you're not answering the question- how?

    We're talking about Jedi- hundreds, if not thousands of people who are at least as nails as Luke in ROTJ. How did they get wiped out? How is that even possible?

    "Why did Vader choose evil over good?"

    >>>>Because he was seduced, it was quicker easier and more seductive.


    Again, you're not answering the question- why did he make the conscious decision of evil over good, to join the Dark Side, to join the Emperor, and to betray the Jedi? "He was seduced" means nothing, and "because it was easy" is a terribly weak answer.

    "Why did Obi Wan spend 20 years watching over Luke?"

    >>>>Last time i checked, it was Owen and beru who did that. Luke was hidden at birth to protect him from Vader and the emperor


    Again, you're not addressing the question I'm asking. Obi Wan spent 20 years on tatooine watching over Luke. Why did he do that?

    "How did the Empire rise so quickly, and why were the Jedi so quickly forgotten?"

    >>>>Niether of these is really important to the SW trilogy, the point is that the empire did take over, and the jedi are gone.


    So in a story about the return of the Jedi and the fall of the Empire, the way that the Jedi got wiped out and the Empire rose isn't important? In the story of Vader choosing good over evil, the reason he chose evil over good int he first place isn't important?
    :confused:

    >>>>Don't get me wrong, a lot of this stuff is interesting, but its not needed. We get what we need to know from Ben, Yoda and Vader, the vital info is all in there as it relates to Luke, which was the point of the back story to begin with. It works well as a backstory, its arguable if it works well as the front story.

    The prequels are a part of the same story- not a "front story" or "back story." And it's essential to the story of the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, the rise and fall of the Empire, and the fall and resurrection of the Jedi.


    [EDIT- what you seem to be saying is kind of like saying that the LOTR trilogy is interesting but not needed, because Bilbo Baggins' story was told in full in the Hobbit- all the vital info is in that book, as it relates to Bilbo. Like LOTR does to the Hobbit, the Star Wars prequels are making the story bigger- it's not just about Luke/Bilbo, but now about their families, and how the small role they play has a huge influence on the significant events in the Galaxy/Middle Earth.]
  16. Rebel Scumb Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 1999
    star 6
    "Yes, but you're not answering the question- how?

    We're talking about Jedi- hundreds, if not thousands of people who are at least as nails as Luke in ROTJ. How did they get wiped out? How is that even possible? "


    the empire is big and powerful, the jedi are far from invincible, and they were betrayed from within. In the context of the SW trilogy, which at the time was the whole story and not half the story, the details of the purge are not important, the hows are not relevant. There were jedi, the empire and vader wiped them out.

    "Again, you're not answering the question- why did he make the conscious decision of evil over good, to join the Dark Side, to join the Emperor, and to betray the Jedi?"

    For the same reason Luke ALMOST did. The whole point is that Luke is exactly like his father, only in the end he took the high road. Everything we needed to know about Anakin is onscreen as Luke.

    "He was seduced" means nothing, and "because it was easy" is a terribly weak answer."

    The darkside and what it offered was more appealing to him, he gave into his hate. If it worked for Luke why is that not good enough for Anakin. Luke was one slash away from killing Vader and cementing his destiny.

    "Again, you're not addressing the question I'm asking. Obi Wan spent 20 years on tatooine watching over Luke. Why did he do that? "

    So he could hide from the empire and make sure Luke was safe.

    "So in a story about the return of the Jedi and the fall of the Empire, the way that the Jedi got wiped out and the Empire rose isn't important?"

    Well aparently not because they would of put that in the movies otherwise. We understand that there is an evil empire who have successfully conquered the galaxy, and that the once noble protectors of the republic have been wiped out. Thats what Luke knows, and thats all we need to know, its only important as it pertains to Luke, to his story. Ben tells Luke (and thus the audience) we he needs to know. Everything else is just details, interesting ones indeed, but they aren't related in the long run.

    "In the story of Vader choosing good over evil, the reason he chose evil over good int he first place isn't important?"

    Yes, but thats not really what the trilogy was about until the second half of the last movie, it was never presented as Vaders story, it was shown as Luke's search for his father, both figuratively and literally.

    Luke idolizes the father he's never met, he's obsessed with him. Through Ben he learns that his father (notice he's never given a name, he's just "my father" and idealized vision in Luke's head) was a great pilot, and a jedi. And that Vader killed him

    By the end of ANH, Luke is the greatest pilot in the galaxy, and on his way to becoming a jedi, he has become the man he admired.

    In the second film what we discover is everything Luke believed true by the end of ANH/start of ESB, was false.

    -Ben Lied
    -Vader was his father
    -his father was a traitor who chose the quick and easy path
    -Ben and his father were enemies
    -Ben is somewhat responisble for Vader
    -Yoda was not some great warrior, some big impressive Jedi, but a wise little toad
    -Leia winds up with Han not Luke
    -Luke could not save his friends

    etc, etc, etc

    Luke's hand is severed in cloud city, and he loses his fathers lightsaber, the most tangible connection he has to his father only moments before he learns the truth. I doubt that is a conicidence. The loss of the saber is in affect the death of "Luke's father". Not Anakin, but the idealized nameless version that Luke has been imagining of his dad. From that point forward, that illusion is dead. That offscreen character we have imagined is dead.

    In the third film, Luke has a new saber, a different colour from either his father, or Ben. Because Luke has begun to define himself as an individual instead of a clone of his father.

    What Luke eventually comes to understnad, and what is ultiamtely the point of the trilogy (IMHO) is that his father is not some ideal hero of no faults
  17. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    As i said above, that wasn't what the story was about, until the prequels came along, at which point "the story" became the second half of the story and much of the emphasis was shifted. Luke is no longer the main hero, vader is no longer the main villian. Yet IMHO the dynamic between the two of them remains what is ultimately most important in the saga. At its bare bones, this story can be told with just Vader, Luke and Ben. Everyone else is window dressing, which adds texture and flavour and dimension, but the core story is really just an ongoing battle between Luke and Vader, both physically and emotionally.

    The whole story is not about Luke, and Vader. The story is about Anakin/Vader, Padme, Luke, and Leia. It's about like scott said one small family that changes the whole galaxy. For the good and the bad.
  18. Formerly_Tukafo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 10, 2003
    star 1
    I agree with Rebel Scumb. These things are not needed. It's like saying we need ANOTHER prequel trilogy that takes place before TPM because we urgently need to know how Palpatine was born, how he became evil, whether he had a happy childhood, how the word "Jedi" was invented, how spaceships were invented in the GFFA and of course to answer the most important question - how can a gigantic blob that moves with the speed of a snail become the most feared gangster on Tattooine?

    Can I also suggest a prequel to E.T. that shows his birth and how they take off with their spaceship towards Earth and WHY they fly to Earth in the first place. All questions that need urgent answering.
  19. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    I agree with Rebel Scumb. These things are not needed. It's like saying we need ANOTHER prequel trilogy that takes place before TPM because we urgently need to know how Palpatine was born, how he became evil, whether he had a happy childhood, how the word "Jedi" was invented, how spaceships were invented in the GFFA and of course to answer the most important question - how can a gigantic blob that moves with the speed of a snail become the most feared gangster on Tattooine?

    Oh yeah sure. The fact is you need that with Anakin. Palpaitne has always been evil. Anakin was not always evil.
  20. Formerly_Tukafo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 10, 2003
    star 1
    "The fact is you need that with Anakin. "

    no, you don't need it. You know why? For 20 years audiences anywhere in the world only knew the OT and yet they loved the films, understood the films just fine and never needed TPM or AOTC to appreciate the three OT films. They stand on their own, everything is explained, everything fits, the story makes sense, the characters make sense, people loved it. And now you are trying to tell us that we always NEEDED the PT and cannot live without it? Sorry, but we don't
  21. Scott3eyez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2001
    star 4
    Rebel Scumb

    Your point seems to centre around the idea that "at the time", Star Wars was a trilogy, not a 6-part saga, so anything outside the trilogy is irrelevant and unnecessary because the trilogy made sense as a story on it's own.

    However, apply the same logic to the 1977 stand-alone film called "Star Wars" (which didn't have an episode number at the time...), and you see that it's not a story about Luke and Vader at all- they never even meet each other, and there's no conflict between them. (In fact, Luke never even finds out that the man in black is Darth Vader...) It's a story about Luke, the Rebellion and the Empire. Following you logic, all this stuff about Luke's father, the Dark Side etc. has nothing to do with the story of the original Star Wars. Which makes it "interesting, but not needed"...

    So no, we don't NEED TPM, AOTC and AVBE. But neither did we NEED ESB or ROTJ for the original film to make sense- they expand the story, they widen it's scope, they bring in new elements and change the way we look at existing ones. They turn the original story into a part of something bigger. (And did we really need the original film, when everything was explained perfectly well in the novelisation? 8-})

    "So in a story about the return of the Jedi and the fall of the Empire, the way that the Jedi got wiped out and the Empire rose isn't important?"

    >>>>Well aparently not because they would of put that in the movies otherwise.


    But they did! There were going to be 3 prequels since at least 1979- what else were they ever going to be about other than the rise of the Empire and fall of the Jedi? It's not like the PT is an idea that only came about after the OT was finished.


    >>>>As i said above, that wasn't what the story was about, until the prequels came along, at which point "the story" became the second half of the story and much of the emphasis was shifted. Luke is no longer the main hero, vader is no longer the main villian.

    There was no way Luke was going to be a character in the prequels- but he's still the main hero of the saga (if he isn't, then who is?)

    Vader was arguably not the main villain in ANH (taking orders from Tarkin), and definitely wasn't the main villain from the moment he called the Emperor "master" in ESB.

    >>>>The darkside and what it offered was more appealing to him, he gave into his hate. If it worked for Luke why is that not good enough for Anakin. Luke was one slash away from killing Vader and cementing his destiny.

    Well, this is something that's simply never worked for me. I don't see killing Vader as choosing to serve the Emperor and join the Dark Side.

    An analogy I've used in the past (I can't remember where it originally came from) is that the Dark Side is like smoking. In the OT, it's perfectly clear that the Dark Side is bad, because we're shown the consequences of it; like seeing the cancer-ridden wheezing guy with a hole in his trachea in an anti-smoking film. But that doesn't give any clue as to why someone would turn to the dark side/start smoking. Indeed, if all you knew about smoking was from anti-smoking information, you wouldn't believe that anyone would ever want to light a cigarette. To understand why someone would light up in the first place, you'd have to look at the "here and now" realities of some kid trying his first cigarette for whatever reason he choses to try it...

    >>>No, because LOTR is a sequel to the hobbit, that just takes place in the same world. What would be unnessesary is a whole book about Smoog taking over the misty mountain and driving out the dwarves.

    Ah- so prequels are unnecessary, but sequels aren't?

    So a whole book about how the dwarves came to exist, how Sauron turned to evil and forged the ring, how he lost it at the end of the second age and Gollum came to acquire it, why the Elves days are coming to an end etc. etc. would be unnecessary?

    #Throws away copy of the Silmarillion#

    Actually, I agree. It's a boring book.
  22. ShaakRider Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 14, 2002
    star 2
    That was a great post, Rebel Scumb :)

    As for LOTR, I think the crucial difference is that LOTR, while isn't necessary for understanding the Hobbit, it doesn't affect that much (isn't even a real sequel of it). The two stories take place at so much different scales and are told for so different points of view that they work almost as two totally independent stories.
    I think tha problem with the PT isn't really that it's unnecessary, but that it damages the OT a lot (from my point of view, of course).
  23. Rebel Scumb Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 1999
    star 6
    "Rebel Scumb

    Your point seems to centre around the idea that "at the time", Star Wars was a trilogy, not a 6-part saga, so anything outside the trilogy is irrelevant and unnecessary because the trilogy made sense as a story on it's own."


    Its not essiential is what I mean. having the PT shifts the importance of certain things, and while the inclusion of the PT is not irrelevant, the OT existed first, and thus is the roots of the saga. You can have the OT without the PT (as it was for 20 years) but you can't have the PT without the OT, it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

    "However, apply the same logic to the 1977 stand-alone film called "Star Wars" (which didn't have an episode number at the time...), and you see that it's not a story about Luke and Vader at all- they never even meet each other, and there's no conflict between them."

    Well that is true, to an extent. ESB does change the context of the saga from ANH because it expands what was established. But to say Luke and Vader have no conflict is not true either. Vader killed Luke's father. Killed Ben, and indirectly killed Owen and Beru. He is also holding Leia captive. More importantly Luke is the ultimate personification of the rebels, while Vader is the ultimate personification of the empire, which are at war with each other. And in the end they do have a confrontation of sorts in the space battle. But in that film Lukes journery is more of an internal one, its not about beating vader, its about becoming the man, the hero that his father was.

    I agree with your point to extent like I said, but ESB is a sequel branching out from ANH, it is in no way contradicting ANH nor ruining any surprises from ANH (how could it?) and is basically just taking the established characters and conflicts and expanding upon them, fleshing them out. Sequels and prequels follow different rules.

    "It's a story about Luke, the Rebellion and the Empire. Following you logic, all this stuff about Luke's father, the Dark Side etc. has nothing to do with the story of the original Star Wars. Which makes it "interesting, but not needed"..."

    Your right, it doesn't.

    "So no, we don't NEED TPM, AOTC and AVBE. But neither did we NEED ESB or ROTJ for the original film to make sense- they expand the story, they widen it's scope, they bring in new elements and change the way we look at existing ones. They turn the original story into a part of something bigger."

    Again your correct, but a prequel (a true prequel anyways) is not a continuation of the story, it goes before the story. People are suggesting that we NEEDED to prequels to be made for the OT to make sense, which we don't, because all of the important information from that time period is related to us in the OT. While other interesting and important things may have happened in that time period, we don't need to know about them to justify or explain what happens in the OT films. If however there was an ep7, and the daughter of Mace windu showed up and became Luke's girlfriend, well then obviously we might need some insight into how that came to be, etc.

    "But they did! There were going to be 3 prequels since at least 1979- what else were they ever going to be about other than the rise of the Empire and fall of the Jedi? It's not like the PT is an idea that only came about after the OT was finished."

    I've read several interviews with GL, the most recent being in the june 2002 issue of cinescape where he says very clearly that he never had any intention of making the prequels until the early 90s. The episode numbers where there as an homage to the old serials, and were meant to give the sense that this story was part of a bigger story, one so big you could never see all of it. In the same way that the indiana Jones films open at the climax of Indy's last adventure (there is no need nor intention to make prequels to explain how those invents came about)

    GL said that over time, he decided he wanted to make the prequels because he liked the idea of doing a story about Anakin's fall.
  24. Rebel Scumb Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 1999
    star 6
    I should probably clarify my remarks above otherwise are remarks are just going to get longer and longer.

    Is it your contention that the PT is in place to answer many of the questions of the OT?

    that is does OT=Question and PT=answer?

    Its fine if you do, as I'm pretty sure thats how GL is looking at it. But I think its fair to say if that is the case, then it makes little sense for a new viewer to watch the the series 1,2,3,4,5,6 and much more sense to see them 4,5,6,1,2,3. After all why would you want to know the answer before reading the question?

    And I can see why GL would find this route more appealing. He knows how famous SW is and that everyone has seen it already, so keeping the secrets at the expense of developing out and explaining Anakin's turn seems an unessesary burden to place on the story telling. After all if your not going to reveal that Anakin is Vader, there's a lot of stuff you can't really show. Likewise, we couldn't see Yoda at all in the PT, nor could we know about Leia. A lot would be happening offscreen.

    So to decide that its more important to show Anakins decline head on and not hide these things since anyone who is going to see them in the theatres has already seen the SW trilogy a million times anyways, is a logical choice.

    But IMHO that means these are not really prequels, they are flashback sequels. Watching the films in the order they were made is much more satisfying because not only are our questions answered in turn, but also we get to see how GL evolved as a filmmaker in a straightforward linear fashion.


    Now,

    I'm off a different school of thought. I think that the OT is the answers, and the PT should be the questions. IE: who is darth Vader beneath his mask? Who is this powerful Yoda we keep hearing about? etc etc.

    In this way the films would have to be made assuming that the people who will watch them have never seen the OT, and will only see it after the PT. You are setting up questions and mysteries that will not be answered until you watch the OT. That many of us have seen the OT already is beside the point, and there will be more then enough wizbang action to keep us happy anyways. Watching ep2 or ep3 after seeing ESB and ROTJ would be no different then my own expirence of seeing ANH after ESB and ROTJ.


    The PT would not exist to shed light on the OT, but infact the other way around.


    Does that make any sense?

    It really just comes down to how GL choose to do it, and like I said, I see his logic on the matter very clearly.

    Infact, he could of gone an even different route, he could of just shot certain scenes of the PT, the ones specifically spoken of in the OT, and inserted them as flashbacks, thus combining the PT and OT SE into one endeavour.

    how well that would of worked I'm not sure, but he could of easily have done it that way.

    Anyways, my point is not that the PT is bad, jus that the OT does not need it to make sense. The essiential info of the backstory is all available to us in the OT, and when Gl talks about his 12 pages of notes of which the PT is based, this is what he means. Most writers will make notes of the backstories for their characters because thats good writing. All I'm saying is that recieving this info in the form of a story related to Luke (who is our surrogate in the movies) worked well. We had to picture it in our heads just as he was doing, making assumptions and drawing conclusions of our own, with no hard facts to go on.

    We have the hard facts to go on now. So there is no point in imagining anything in our heads except what happened in the real PT. Thus we no longer see things from Luke's perspective and instead get more of a gods eye view of the GFFA.

    our perspective is different. Our role in the story is different. The signifigants of events are reduced in some instances (Han is now just another character amidst many) while others are greatly deepened (the backstory of the clones, the emperor, the importance and origins of many things)
  25. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    no, you don't need it. You know why? For 20 years audiences anywhere in the world only knew the OT and yet they loved the films, understood the films just fine and never needed TPM or AOTC to appreciate the three OT films. They stand on their own, everything is explained, everything fits, the story makes sense, the characters make sense, people loved it. And now you are trying to tell us that we always NEEDED the PT and cannot live without it? Sorry, but we don't

    So you don't think any one ever thought about what happened before the OT? There are many people who thought about it.

    Edit what is this we. Please don't talk for me.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.