Saga OT or PT?

Why don't you read what you quoted rather than copy and paste it down--particularly the bit in parentheses? Perhaps you should also read the following line (which you took the pleasure of not posting) that narrowed this sentiment to the RLM crowd. The fact that you have been "hardly disavowed" indicates that you prefer to inject yourself with assumptions rather than follow what I have outright stated i.e., the fact that you're dead wrong on all counts regarding the previous batch of assumptions.

This is a clever way of phrasing the short work I made of all your simply incorrect points. You can't be bothered with the rest because all of your points have run their course to a dead end as I showed in my last post. So I'll take your concession in stride.

More false equalization and a continuation of a point that has been consistently grounded into the ground for what it is: an opinion and a vastly unsupported one at that.
The democracy in the PT is hardly "good," and in fact in conflict with the intention of the institution. Coming from the Greek root, demos(meaning the people), the democracy in the PT is a sham, failing to act for the intents of the people. The fact that you framed the PT as a binary opposition between democracy and a "evil, dictator man" again shows a negligence of the movies' portrayal of the democracy intrinsically opposed with itself as much opposed to Palpatine. And again you fall over your own sword: suggesting that the PT is not as complex on the surface is an argument on the complexity of the PT...

More irrelevant inclusions that have never been disputed. The terminology of the government was never in question, but that the Roman Republic and Late Empire mirrors the collapse of the Republic in the PT.

Another demonstration of the failure to read carefully--I have never stated that imperium strictly abode by denotation and not connotation. Your second sentence is a fact that yet again complements the politics of the PT by striking a similarity between the legitimacy of the inheritance of such powers. There isn't even an argument here... nothing has been disputed.

The coffin had already been sealed in the last post and this last bit you wrote is the only constructive bit in your incessant reply, which is composed of backtracking, red herring fallacies, and footprint shuffling. Even sarcastically, there is more truth in your concession than in your flood of smokescreens and comments that I have addressed in this post. A dropped point is an acknowledged point and, with your post littered of them, your admittance would be the rightful and inevitable end result.

 

I don't even know who is arguing what anymore.

 

Both trilogies are great. Its kind of immature to assume people only like the OT for nostalgia.

The visuals of the PT, particularly Rots, are so rich. It really makes for a rewarding experience on repeated viewings. But the trilogy would be nothing without the OT. Take Vader for example. If all we saw of him in the suit was the brief moments at the end of the PT he wouldn't be nearly as interesting. Don't get me wrong, Rots Vader is actually quite complex when you think about it, but he would be diminished without out seeing the cold and calculated Vader we get for most of the OT.

The dialogue in the OT outshines the prequels for the most part. You only have to look at Yoda in Aotc and ESB to see this. He says so much wise stuff in ESB, In Aotc he sounds more like cop. You can't tell me the ep2 incarnation is a better character. Also, Luke Skywalker is a simpler but better executed character than Anakin.

The prequels are complex. There is so much symbolism and metaphor, and a lot is put into the galaxy moving with Anakin's character arc. The movies have more heart than they are given credit for, and particularly ROTS retains some of the charm of the OT.

The Phantom Menace represents an age of innocence, and feels the most "Jedi like" of the prequels. Aotc is dreamlike. Rots is operatic.

 

I agree -- both trilogies have their strengths and weaknesses and I think they're both stronger together than they are separately. But I would disagree with you in stating that the Yoda in ESB is a better character -- he's wiser, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean better. His incarnation in AOTC is arrogant (and the film rather interestingly has Yoda himself imply this by stating that arrogance is a trait more and more common among the Jedi, even the older and more experienced ones), but this is necessary to show his development as a character. No one is born wise, and his position in ESB is made more meaningful by the PT, in my opinion, because we see how hard-earned his wisdom is -- the loss and sacrifice that accompanied it.

And he does have some great lines in AOTC. I particularly like, "Victory? Victory, you say? Master Obi-Wan, not a victory. The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun the Clone War has."

Much as I like Luke, I wouldn't say he's a better executed character than Anakin. I thought Lucas did a better job of incorporating the major events in Anakin's life into his arc than he did for Luke. Anakin's separation from his mother, her death, his relationship with Palpatine, the strain between Obi-Wan and the Council, his attachment to Padmé -- all of these are very important factors that drive his character. With Luke, Owen, Beru, and even Biggs' deaths don't seem to matter to him much. We know that Luke is fascinated with his father, but this is never really explored very deeply (nor is it explained why he does not share a similar fascination for his mother). Most importantly, I felt as though Luke's determination to save his father from the Dark Side was a bit rushed. There could have been a better transition between the traumatized Luke at the end of ESB and the more zen-like, hopeful Luke of ROTJ, in my opinion.

That said, the Luke-Anakin relationship is still my favorite of the Saga. Probably because it involves my two favorite characters.

 

You certainly argue vigorously and eruditely, Komodo9Joe! And I may have misrepresented your position earlier. I very much agree with you about the depiction of a democratic structure "intrinsically opposed with itself". The PT is chock-full of irony and contradiction on this level.

A better word than "realistic" -- which got thrown around earlier -- might be "resonant". The PT contains a lot of very resonant imagery and themes. Though, again, this kind of language I'm using slightly can leave us trapped in the "surface" morality of archetypal storytelling when there is a lot more happening within and between the frames of the movies.

I agree with you, in part, but the OT is a pretty nostalgic trilogy by itself, and I think it's clear nostalgia plays a big part in people's firm preference for it, more often than not.

I concur. But the visuals of all three films are about equally rich, for me.

The fact that a lot happens -- narratively-speaking -- between the start and end of each movie surely contributes to their perceived richness on a visual level, too.

It's all about the contrasts, HD. For example, note how in ANH, nature-coloured objects and settings are under extreme threat (a reprise of TPM's storyline, but even more starkly, this time), like Greedo (violently blown up), Alderaan (same), and the homestead (it seems to be the only place on Tatooine with plants). At the end, the Empire is coming for Yavin, but the Rebels finally manage to win a victory, of sorts, for nature, and have their little ceremony to round out the film's poignant visual struggle. And all that grey in the ship designs, for instance, might as well be ash from Mustafar: a sort of cross-contamination of the adjacent films' visual environments (kinda like how there's rain on Naboo the morning of Anakin's nightmare as Obi-Wan is about to battle Jango in the stormy environment of Kamino). There are also, for example, many statues and figurines in TPM, but next to none in ANH; almost as if engraving has become idolatrous and been outlawed. Vader, after the villainous gallery of Maul, Dooku, and Grievous, kinda hogs the limelight in the OT: another thematic contrast rich in meaning. There are so many amazing storylines and consequences of Lucas' grand structuring all going on at once.

He's like an ailing pragmatist in AOTC and a kind of motivational speaker in TESB. It reflects the two eras quite nicely, I think.

Well, I'd dispute that. Luke is very well-played by Mark Hamill. And the films give a pleasing centrality to his character.

But is Luke better-executed than Anakin? Y'know, I think they're about the same. I might personally put Anakin higher.

Part of the "problem" here -- "problem" because it's not really a "problem" for me -- as has been said to create enough vomit from here to Neptune with sheer boredom of repetition, is that Luke is played by one actor for three movies, while Anakin changes actors after the first movie, denying the viewer a smooth transition; or at least the opportunity to get comfortable with and feel connected to a single performer. Not really an issue for me, though. I quite like how the PT breaks with the linearity of the OT on this level. It suggests an epic chronicle; and that, for me, is what it pulls off (especially when the OT is included with it).

"Always on the move!" There is definitely a huge sweep to the PT's tone, look, and feel, in my opinion; and I agree that it is commensurate, in quite a deep way, with the growth of Anakin.

I don't know about ROTS having the "charm" of the OT, though. We're obviously dealing with a highly imprecise word. I'd say it has an OT-esque brio, but charm? For me, TPM is the one with charm.

Another way to crudely describe the basic allure of each:

TPM = Heart
AOTC = Mind
ROTS = Gut

But that is an extremely primitive way of looking at them.

There is *something* to it, though, in my view.

What happens, in a way, is that the bright, bold, "National Geographic" fairy-tale feel of TPM rapidly decays to comic strips, noir fantasy, weird Sci-Fi tones, Indiana Jones shenanigans, and, ultimately, tragic montage.

But you can feel the influence of TPM in the other two. Like the central metaphor of podracing. There are clear, if diminishing, visual and other reprises of podracing in both AOTC and ROTS. Yet as we move further away from TPM, the more distant -- and, in a way, anachronistic -- its innocence feels. By the time we arrive at ANH, the bucolic fun of TPM seems buried and gone.

I guess I just love all this stuff.

 

Thanks Cryo, praise from a scholarly buff like you is high praise indeed. Noted the eye-catching post you made earlier too but alas, I'm afraid I'm the one in need for some slumber this time.

Quickly, I would like to state how you do a great job bringing up the often overlooked imagery side of the saga. Admittedly, I haven't tread those waters yet but the symbolism and discussion(which you always care to bring) is undoubtedly there.

 

The OT is a more solid trilogy, but there are elements in the Prequels that were done masterfully. (e.g. Palpatine's rise to power).

Overall, though, it's one Saga. I enjoy all six (and counting!) parts as a whole, even if I like some parts more than others.

 

To keep it short. I was responding to a particular point (more "grounded" storyline). If you read my first response you will see that I simply prefer the OT. You are reading too much into a particular point, a response to a particular proposition. T re-iterate; I don't dislike the PT. I don't think they work as well as movies and, much as I might be able to find reasons for that, it simply comes down to a personal perspective. That in itself was a reply to the idea that the PT are in some way objectively better.

As for your points regarding democracy. I was addressing it on the basis of the argument that the PT is more complex (which is not necessarily an ingredient for a better movie anyway), whereas in fact the proposition, at its heart, is as simplistic as the OT.

But, to address your points; why put a line like "The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it." if it has no meaning except to highlight the "only true conscience" of Anakin (say WHAT?!. The only character with a conscience is the murderer of children, the slayer of tribes, the wife beater?If that's true, way to go George).

The rise to power of Palpatine is based upon the handing over of democratic oversight of the Senate into the hands of Palpatine. I don't want to get into a great political debate here but... how is it proposed that a 'fair' society is built without representation of the people (demos)? Perhaps a strong leader can make sure things work well, eh? Just like the "only true conscience" suggests?

Democracy, as a concept, is central to any proposition that opposes centralised, autocratic authority (Empire). SoI don't agree that it is simply a "battering ram"

 

What was I responding to? Do you remember? You said that I had assumed that you only accused OT -ers of nostalgia. But here you are suggesting only that OT- ers are guilty of nostalgia. You know, as opposed to PT - ers as well. That you said 'not all' is not at all relevant. Just pointing out I wasn't assuming anything, just taking your views as written. Your claim is that those who prefer the OT are guilty of nostalgia.

No...I can't be bothered because it seems you are determined to 'prove your mettle' rather than enter a debate (as I should have realised from your first post here re; " I wish I was there when that idiot professor(talk about unprofessional) was trying to denigrate TPM. I'd have mopped the floor with him, then have taken him outside, asked him "Now what was that about TPM?" and if he started pulling more crap, would pull him back and mentally tear him apart again. Rinse and repeat. That whole RLM garbage and their crowd don't have anything on me. Grown men aren't backed down by a group of idiots.")

Simply put. I don't think your points stand up to any kind of inspection. I did not argue that the OT was better because of those refutations - simply suggested that there isn't actually an objective truth as to which is the better 'trilogy', simply pointed out that I prefer the OT movies, they work better as movies in themselves for me.

Just before I leave you to ....whatever it is you are after here;

Cursus Honorum; as a legal concept was a late development introduced by Sulla. It was often ignored anyway. The Cursus Honorum regulated the Magistracies, not Senate seats.

Once a Senator, unless the Censor removed you (for moral abrogation....) you remained a Senator.

It was illegal to raise an army in the Roman Republic without the consent of the Senate. Only the Consul (and then later Praetors, and those with pro-Consular or Pro-Praetorian Imperium) could lead an army. There were no private armies.

Much as the film Gladiator might suggest a caring, democratically minded Senate, that could not be further from the truth. The Roman Senate was nothing like a democratic institution. The Roman people did not lose their freedoms and powers; they didn't have them in the first place. The institution of the Principate simply reduced the competitive nature of Senatorial power and as such curtailed the increasingly unstable military and political state of Rome.

The alleged 'realistic' historical similarities are greatly misunderstood.

 

I do agree that the change in character was partially intentional, he has learned from his past failures (such as the irony of Yoda leading a clone army into war IMO). Obi-Wan also develops as a character between trilogies, and I know it is a different time and all. But unlike in AOTC Yoda talks in ESB a lot, and most of what he says puts him above other Jedi we view in terms of wisdom. I have a hard time connecting the two incarnations of the character, a problem I found I don't even have with Yoda in TPM and ROTS - those seem more like the real Yoda to me. He has a few meaningful moments in AOTC, like "Blind we are, if creation of this army we could not see." But generally I think they could have done more to make him match the OT. A small example of a weak line is "Only a Jedi could have erased those files. But who, or why, harder to answer." It seems a little obvious that "who or why" would be the question to ask. I love Yoda's introduction in ESB, his mischievous nature being a test for Luke really adds to the warmth of the character for me.

Interesting points. Well, on Luke's lack of reaction to loved one's deaths, it wasn't really as important a factor for the character because he never turns. I do agree that Anakin's arc can go unappreciated, the movies (particularly ROTS) really flow with his character development. You also may have something on the lack of detail in Luke's progression between ESB and ROTJ, but I kind of like the mystery here, Luke has obviously grown so much by facing Vader and reflecting on this offscreen.

Probably my favourite characters as well. The reason I say luke was better executed is just that he feels more like a real person to me than Anakin. Particularly in ESB the subtle quirks and personality traits are great, such as during his interactions with R2 and Yoda. I just get more of a feel for who Luke is, than from Anakin in AOTC. ROTS is different for me though. We really see that stuff through Anakin's eyes.

Probably. I guess it helps that I saw the OT only two years before TPM, when the SE was released.

True. The prequels seem to demand more from the viewer I think. While the rushed pacing of ROTS can be seen as a detriment to the movie, it does make you feel how fast things are spiralling out of control for Anakin. And the concentrated aspect of it does make it seem designed more for repeat viewings, like has been said.

Great stuff, I don't know what to add.

I guess. I still strongly prefer him in ESB though

Yeah, I don't have much problem with the change in actors between TPM and ROTS, but do have some issues with Hayden in Ep2. Anakin/Vader had always been played by several actors in the OT, so it isn't as self-serving a method as some OT fans may claim.

You've got me there, I agree that TPM has more charm, particularly characters like Qui-Gon. It's just ROTS feels more human to me than the previous film, something I generally associate with the OT.

Interesting.

Well put. You really paint the progression of the films beautifully here. All I have previously said that could possible match here is that the fire truely dies out over the progression of the prequels, as Tarkin puts it in ANH.

 

...Read to me where I say only OT-ers are guilty of pure nostalgia. And the fact that I said not all is highly relevant... it neatly disapproves this type of misrepresentation. No, you're not taking my posts as written; you're doing the complete opposite, trying to condense thin air into something it is not. In that post you kindly quoted above, neither do I group nostalgia solely with the OT crowd alone nor do I cast aspersions on the aggregate group that favors the OT: again, in that portion you took the pleasure of omitting, I narrowed those particular symptoms to the RLM crowd. Or the part where I agree that the OT is also good. So more negligent reading.

Since you bring up debate, I must ask, have you ever participated in debate? Parliamentary debate? Lincoln-Douglas Debates? Any sort of actual debate? In formal debate, a dropped point is an acknowledged point and throughout your posts, you have been continuously dropping and then reintroducing points in later replies. That type of cyclical rehash ad infinitum is evidence of a series of defeated and overstated points.

And as for that part you quoted, do you remember that was before you came along? Did you notice how I addressed that to SlashMan, not you? So again more dishonest points; that statement was before any such debate occurred, before you came into reply to my post, and yet you bring up my discussion with SlashMan as part of my discussion with you.... Proving mettle doesn't even make sense here: I'd be disproving my mettle by allowing you to twist my position unhindered. This type of misrepresentation doesn't fly with me.

Right...after a series of attempts to inspect my post, thereby, proving that my points stand up to a form of inspection. Don't think that I missed the whitewashing you did here; I've never objected to your opinion, which is perfectly yours to affirm, but your refutations which are comprised of self-contradictory, presumptive, and wrong statements. And all of my posts have reiterated the aforementioned flaws.

More lines that have never been disputed and are in fact in accordance of the reasons I brought them up.

They are greatly understood and easily recognized, having been used as a basis for the political events in the PT by George Lucas(Source: ROTS documentary, I believe). Even your inclusion of Roman historical fact supports this: Palpatine had to granted approval of the Senate before he could raise an army i.e, the Military Creation Act. And Julius Caesar's army, although appointed by the Senate, would, with the exception of the 10th legion, strictly obey Caesar and not the Senate that commissioned it. Much as the clones' ultimate loyalties lie with the Chancellor and not the Senate.

That's my line. I leave you to whatever you were doing before you replied to my post, which was by the way, perfectly fine. But the string of misrepresentation, false assumptions(and the admittance of such), and dropped points yet the effort to maintain a sense of adherence to debate, is what is not fine.

 

Why not both?

 

Such a hard question for me to answer. But honestly I like them both the same!

 

I don't know about putting Yoda, although certainly wise, ahead of other Jedi's wisdom in the Saga; I think a strong case could be made for a more Mace-like wisdom being needed in the prequels. I would actually say Qui-Gon would be a great contender for the title of wisest Jedi; if I recall correctly, PiettsHat had this really laid-back , stoic image of Qui-Gon before in his profile image; why did you change it?

But yeah, that "who, or why" line is a bit weak if taken from the in-universe perspective.

I would think that Luke's loss of his adopted parents is a very important factor and should not be brushed aside simply because he doesn't 'turn' due to it. Really, Luke hardly showed much emotion at losing his parents whereas Anakin clearly showed the realistic and traumatic experience of losing a parent. This made Anakin's loss more striking, meaningful, and understandable. Hayden did an outstanding job portraying Anakin's look of disbelief as Shmi dies in his arms, as he turns the other way, the meaning slowly sinking in as John William's music plays a syncopated re-surging piece that parallels the dawning of understanding on Anakin as he understands the reality of what transpired and ignites his lightsaber to personally mete out justice...

I think AOTC really cements and solidifies Anakin, more so than ROTS which is the denouement to Anakin's psychology. The climax, the bundle of emotions that defines and arguably scars Anakin, really takes place in AOTC as he is reunited with a childhood love, a mission that separates him from the conservative lifestyle of the Jedi, and the loss of losing a loved one. This is a doubly tragic loss for Anakin who, as we saw in TPM, is driven by a sense to protect the ones he love from harm and to help those in need. A quite messiah outlook which again complements such a messiah figure.

 

Quite a deluge to get through...

I'm not really scholarly. I'm just a humble fan with a keen interest in this saga. Thanks, KJ. I also noted your post in that thread which was shut down the other day. After some busy days at work, I returned here, with every intention of crafting a response, only to find the thread locked.

Thank you. I try. There are a couple of sources I recommend you consult to bring you into this "larger world" of symbolism and visual patterning:

http://starwarsverses.tumblr.com/

Mr. Verses has an account here and both me and him have been, in turn, inspired by this guy:

http://mstrmnd.com/log/1241

The writer of that analysis has also posted here under a couple of names.

They also have a pretty adroit breakdown of TPM on their site; though that one is a little harder to find. PM me if you like.

BONUS LINK

This is a quite brilliant look at the original, again, through the lens of modernism:

http://canopycanopycanopy.com/4/star_wars__a_new_heap

All three of those links are distinguished by their move away from literary commentary / criticism and their adherence to a strict focus on the films as visual works of art. They commendably steer the mind to a higher conception of Star Wars.

After those, I think you can go off in your own direction, and find confidence in developing your own vision of the series and how best it makes sense, to you (or thee).

Speaking of "thee" -- drat!

I almost forgot this wonderfully experimental examination / celebration of "Revenge Of The Sith":

http://www.noneinc.com/tBSWM/tBSWM_Video.html

Sheer genius. Some fans are clearly moved to create incredible art about art.

Coming back down to a purely "literary" interpretation of SW is tedium itself after those amazing links, IMO.

There are wonders that go beyond words.

You may be correct about my earlier reading, I dunno. You did seem to be coming down hard on the PT, but as you suggest, maybe what you said was purely in illustration of the fatuity of saying one trilogy is "objectively" better than the other.

Well, I do personally think that the PT is much more intricate and ruminative, in a way -- and on some intrinsic level, is the much more interesting of the two trilogies. Overall, though, I wouldn't quite say that one is superior to the other. The PT, however, definitely gets my mind whirring in ways the OT, generally, in and of itself, does not.

I didn't say or mean to imply that that is the line's only meaning. It can -- and perhaps, should -- have a million meanings and none. Anakin having the only true conscience is, clearly, a subjective reading of mine, but the reason I said it was because I see him as the only character truly balking at the existing social order and struggling to abide its dictats. Symbolically, too, he is the only character shown having dreams / nightmares / visions. It is like the other characters, from a certain POV, are dead inside. Him being a child-slayer or wife-beater (I've never noticed him physically beating Padme, though, I must confess) do not preclude him from having a conscience; in some sense, I would contend that his darker acts derive from him having a conscience. Many aspects of the PT films are deeply ironic.

Democracy is "central" to opposition to centrality? Do you see the contradiction?

You've just proven my point that many people inculcated with the democratic norm are obsessed with democracy as an ideal without really understanding what it is they're in favour of.

The term, in and of itself, doesn't have any one meaning, but when people attempt to imply one by deploying it, it's normally to argue for centralized governance -- a soft tyranny.

Anakin suggests strong central leadership to Padme, yes. Lucas himself has said the ideal form of government, in his opinion, is one built around benign dictatorship, and it's essentially how he ran Lucasfilm for its complete history.

But Lucas is also aware of the dangers of dictatorship -- and how difficult it is to engender and maintain benignity with pyramidal power structures. Which most democracies are.

We, ourselves, basically live in societies that are essentially built around the paradigm of industrial feudalism. We pay taxes and are compelled to respect the laws of the land under threat of violence and loss of livelihood, to cite two clear examples, and if things were truly democratic, war would already be abolished, as would capitalist slavery, people would have the right to marry whom they choose, and so on.

This current political infrastructure is useful for and protective of, first and foremost, politicians and the very rich, and the other 99% - including the planet and its diverse ecosystems -- a distant second. The allegory of mid-chlorians and symbiosis that Lucas wove elegantly into TPM is more a lament for our present-day circumstance and a lucid dream for a near (potential) future. We're not there yet.

Tellingly, I only became familiar with the OT around the same time (maybe a year or two before).

I like the way that ROTS hurtles to a finish line -- it makes for a salient commentary on the nature of these characters' choices (not just Anakin's turn) all by itself.

Oh, he's a richer character in TESB, I agree. In fact, Yoda is clearly something of a being who jars with the landscape in the prequels, just as we Stone Age humans somewhat jar with the modern industrial world we have created. He and, well, Jar Jar, are clearly close cousins from this POV, having both been displaced from swamp-like environs that suit their frog-like constitutions better (one displacement having already happened, the other designed to happen in reverse). See how both are banished from the fancy city-states that were, for a large part of their existence, their home? See how Lucas has both Jar Jar and Yoda crouching low / crawling away at key moments in cross-cut climactic battle sequences at the end of TPM and ROTS? See how they are also linked within TPM in the film's artful Coruscant passage (at its artful peak): "I sense much fear in you" / "Yousa tinkin yousa people gonna die?" ? << Almost like Jar Jar is commenting on the true cause of Yoda's spoken opposition to Anakin, in fact.

Good point. Vader is, himself, a Frankenstein monster of disparate performers and performance elements: voice actors, stuntmen, art direction, sound design, etc. That is one more meaning to the "birth" scene in ROTS.

I think Hayden in AOTC is excellent, myself. In fact, I think I prefer him there to ROTS, where he is still very good. Mainly, to me, he sells the furtive, brash side of Anakin -- these being both complementary / contradictory aspects of the Anakin character -- very, very well, in my opinion, and he only really gets to show these, properly, in AOTC.

Okay, yeah, I see that. ROTS is the most emotional of the three, I think -- by design. It has a lot more gravitas and maintains a dire mood from one scene to the next. You feel the tragedy building. TPM and AOTC are a little more free-form and open-ended.

Thanks. They're a triptych of mood and landscape.

I swear that a lot of people don't get this: how we go from a lush, innocent, "Garden Of Eden" feel to the mouth of Hell.

And that the films are deliberately segmented -- very, very episodic -- in this manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg

NOTE: You can download an ultra-high-res (30,000-pixel-wide) version here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg

PANELS (in "PT terms"):

1) Fairy-tale phantasma
2) Galactic party
3) Phallic disintegration

Thank you. Your metaphor is excellent, too. It makes a LOT of good, poetic sense. I wish to thank you for it -- and for many of your other insights, too. Once again, it's been a pleasure talking, HD.

That is beautifully-put. I just wanted to quote it. Thank you.

 

There is no contradiction.The concept of democracy (rule by the people, demos) is central to any proposition that oppose centralised, autocratic authority. The use of the word central does not provide for a contradiction.

How so? When I have clearly defined what I mean (ie that the concept of rule by the people - in other words self-determination - as characterised within the word democracy, from the Greek Demos (people) Kratos (government/rule)

It does have one single meaning, at heart - rule/government by the people. As you say it is often misused to cover up markedly undemocratic institutions. Indeed, when you say;

..that is precisely what I was talking about when I said that our normalised view of democracy (our 'representative', centralising authorities) already contain within them the mechanisms of Empire. It was, in fact, this very inculcated, normalised representation of 'democracy' by the behemoth, central Senate as a very narrow and simple story-telling framework. The declaration of Empire is another aspect of that; as if Empire rests upon the title one holds, rather than the powers one wields.

I was very aware of what I was saying. I am under no illusion that what passes for 'democracy' in my own country is anything of the sort.

 

I think at least a slight contradiction is implied.

Technically, "kratos" means "strength" or "power", so "demos" (people) plus "kratos" (power) = "people power".

Rule by "the people" -- as a basic definition, at least -- is fraught with its own peculiar contradictions.

Yes, most certainly. If we simply imagine a collective will getting its way, I think some of the things I outlined would come to pass. In that sense, we both tangentially grasp what democracy is, and how far our current political systems fall short of it.

Indeed.

But I'm still trying to work out your main objection here...

Are you saying that Lucas simply set up a lazy strawman of democracy in the PT?

Since that is the kind of "democracy" we face in our present-day situation, and Lucas has said that Star Wars is about *our* time and place -- the "here and now" -- I consider it cogent of him.

The films, on a basic level, sound out your (or, at least, my) basic contention that every democracy, or those that have been attempted to date, are part-Republic, part-Empire.

If you're trying to say that it would have been much bolder and braver of Lucas to have attempted to depict an enlightened, de-centralized democratic system, then ya, sure -- but where would the story have been?

I think one thing people need to remember where the prequels are concerned: they are not showing the polar opposite of everything in the OT. They're more about expanding the canvas and even exposing and deconstructing it. Imperialism is already part and parcel of the SW galaxy in its most agrarian state in TPM.

 

If you're trying to argue the PT's superiority in some objective sense, then your psychological assessment of people's reasons for preferring the OT is neither here nor there. It's like arguing that salad is better for you than cheeseburgers by saying lots of people eat cheeseburgers because they grew up on it. It doesn't add or subtract from the argument that salad is actually better for you than cheeseburgers.

The OT is a simple set of movies and the PT is more complex. I agree. The PT may be dealing with issues that are more relevant to "real life" than the OT. I waver on this. But in both cases, what has that got to do with quality? Movies are meant to tell stories. Some stories are simple, and some are more complex. Some mirror "real life" more than others. If a simple and less "real life" story is interesting and told well, it's a good movie, no better or worse than a complex and more "real life" story that is also interesting and told well.

I think many people prefer the OT because they feel the story is told well, whereas they feel the PT did not tell it's story all that well. I think that's really the ultimate standard when comparing the quality of movies. Did it tell the story well or did it not? That's about as objective as you can get when talking about overall movie quality. If you can say how the PT told it's story better than the OT, then I think you have a worthwhile argument for it's superiority over the OT.

This! As I mentioned before, this ought to be the whole engine of your argument for the PT being better than the OT, rather than some final unsupported point. Why do you think the Prequels's execution was superb and, if not better than, on par with the OT's execution? Because if the execution of the prequel trilogy falls below the execution of the OT, then you can throw in as much research, time, effort, worldly parallels, and psychological complexity as you like into it, and it won't make it a better movie. Because what a movie needs to do, first and foremost, is be executed well, which is to say again, tell it's story well.

 

Well, I consider the prequels told it's story much better than the originals. They're structured as a trilogy from the start, each movie builds on it's predecessor, continuity is present (in AOTC Anakin mentions it's been ten years since TPM, he revisits Watto and his mother, in ROTS Palpatine mentions Anakin's actions with the Sand people), we have some notion of events between the movies (border dispute on Ansion, aggressive negotiations, Outer rim sieges), the characters evolve and grow in each movie, they show their faults (Anakin's fears and dilemmas, Obi-Wan admitting failure with Anakin), there is no repetition (for example, another Death star), there is overall sense of mystery of not knowing what's exactly going on in the galaxy etc.
The originals have very simple plot, good guys vs. the bad guys, but there are some issues with it. For example, plot holes in the movies (why are they going to Yavin if they know they're being tracked, Falcon arrival to Bespin without the hyperdrive), the trilogy was made as they went along (Vader was real name, not Sith name, Luke and Leia kissing), character issues (character development ended in ANH, with the possible exception of Luke, Leia turned to Han's love interest and sidekick, they show no personality by themselves, all is shown through interaction with others) and there is that Han paying Jabba parallel story that's not connected with the main one along with Han's and Leia's love story with no apparent purpose.

 

This is the biggest fallacy of the OT is that its a simple story of good vs bad. Yes, the Original SW in 1977 was structured that way because it was a standalone movie, but the sequels made it more of a story then just good vs evil.

I would ask anyone who thinks the OT is a simple story, name me one story in the history of movies where the son must fight the evil father, but decides to turn him back to the good side? Most movies that deal with a father/son aspect (Braveheart, Conan The Barbarian, Batman, etc.) have the son avenging his parents death to kill the bad guy. But Lucas put a different spin on the OT, whereas Luke decides to try to redeem the father, and its puts a whole new twist on the story.

There are alot of grey areas to the OT within each character. The Emperor is the only truly bad guy, but Vader is a grey guy even before he is explored in the PT. He chops his son's hand off on Cloud City and then tries to kill him again at the end of ROTJ, so it wasnt so black and white that Luke was doing the right thing. Yoda and Obiwan tell Luke to ignore his visions of his friends in trouble on Dagobah, while Luke ignores them, yet you can make an argument for Yoda/Obiwan or Luke. In some ways he shouldn't have went to Cloud City because he was not ready to face Vader, but on the other hand his friends were in trouble and his first thought was to save them. Luke also goes to the cave and faiils because he does not trust himself by taking his weapon in and sees a vision of Darth Vader, and eventually himself when Vader's helmet explodes. That scene went right over my head as a kid, as I just didn't understand at the time, but as I got older I understood the symbolism of it, and it made ESB and ROTJ ALOT better.

I could go on and on but the OT is far from just good vs evil, as that is what it appears on the surface, but like the PT, it goes much deeper then that. That is why the SW franchise is one of the few blockbusters that I enjoy because it isn't just about action and effects like most of them that come out every summer. It's a shame you think of the OT as just good vs bad, because there is alot of mythology that delves deeper then what many casual fans think.

 

While I agree with the majority of what Visivious Drakarn has said, I also have to deny the view that the OT has a simple plot. Maybe a simpler one than the PT, but still. I've always said that if it would really be that simple, the SW wouldn't survive as long as it has. Just some special effects and characters all on their own don't create such a cult.
Pretty much what Carbon 1985 said, so I don't have anything more to add.

 

And I have pretty much the reverse opinion.
I think that the OT is told very well and the PT less well. Yes the PT was made to be three films but in some ways they feel less connected than the OT films.

Take Anakin, he is played by two different actors and changes a lot between films. So much so that in AotC he felt like a totally different character. You mention character growth but sometimes that seemed to happen between films, Anakin is again an example of that. He is very nice and giving in TPM and then suddenly he is angry, sullen, arrogant and self centered in the next film.
Luke's growth feels more consistent and natural, Anakin jumps around too much. At the start of RotS he came across as a better person than in AotC, despite him being closer to the Dark side.

The PT has got as many if not more plot issues and unresolved questions as the OT, like why was Shmi left to rot by Padme/Anakin/The Jedi? Who really ordered the clone army, was it Sifo-Dyas or someone else? Who made the prophecy and what makes it different to the Jedi's normal ability to see the future? Who deleted the Kamino file? Why did Dooku turn to the dark side?

And speaking about plot, sometimes the plot moves along by a series of plot points that have to happen in order to get us to the next one and not always what flows naturally from a story or character perspective. The plot sometimes comes across as contrived.

The PT, I think, doesn't take full advantage of it's three films. Take Dooku, he comes pretty much out of nowhere in AotC and we don't even see him until half way through the film but what the character does is quite important. That character, to me, would have benefitted to have been introduced in TPM and then AotC could have built on that. Same thing with the separatists, they are nowhere to be seen in TPM and then they are a huge problem. Again this could have been set up in the first film.
Lucas wrote each film by itself. I am sure he had some plot points set up over tree films but a lot of details he had not planned out and dealt with in each film.

Another area where I find the PT lacking is the villains, Sidious works well but he is behind the scenes and he should be. But the up front bad guys are lacking. Maul lacked character, Dooku had potential but was under used and killed of too soon. Griev was a total waste of time.
In TPM, you have the TF as enemies, in AotC and RotS you have the seps. Neither have much of an independent motivation. The seps have demands but we never learn what they are. Why the TF is working with the Sith or what they hope to gain is not made clear either.

The OT builds up some of it's villains, Jabba is mentioned in ANH, (NOTE original version), mentioned again in ESB and finally we see him in RotJ. Same thing with the emperor, we hear about him, see his image and then finally we meet him for real.
Vader is established in the first film and given a back story that connects with two of the main characters.

About the main characters, overall I found the OT characters more interesting and engaging that the PT ones and I cared more about what happened to them. Often it seemed to me that the PT characters didn't seem to care about what happened or each other and thus my involvement was reduced.

In closing, I like the PT but find the OT to be better in most regards. I can certainly agree that the PT tries to tell a more complex story with more complicated characters. The OT is a simple story with more straight forward characters. But simple =/= poor and complex =/= good. As others have said, it is mostly about the execution. And there, to me, the OT has the edge.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

This is a good point, as there is no way I would even care about an Episode 7,8,9 if the SW story was so simple. Most movie franchises like Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, or even many superhero franchises stall out because there really isn't that much more to tell. Now I am not a big EU fan, but the fact that there are loads of books that continue to tell the story of a galaxy far far away tells me there is more there then just a simple good vs evil tale.

If Abrams ST movies don't delve deeper into the SW mythology and tell a broad story of 1-9, then I won't be much interested in that trilogy.

 

About simple vs complex and what makes a better film.

To me, there is no correlation. A film with a simple plot can be very good and a film with a very complex plot can be very bad.

What is more relevant is to ask is, what does a film set out to achieve and how well does it do it's job?
If a film is made to be a comedy and the audience laughs a lot throughout the film then it has done it's job well.
If a film is meant to be a tragedy but the audience laughs throughout the film, then it has done it's job poorly.

Also, if a film touches upon a lot of current things, in politics or world events then yes that can create more depth but it can also date a film compared with one that has a more simple and yet timeless story.
Ex. ST VI, that is essentially "The wall coming down in outer space." To those that lived through the time before and after the wall, they can see a many metaphors in that film. However if you were born years after the wall fell, those same things might not mean much to you. Note, I really like the film but I lived during the times when the wall fell and I can see why others might not notice all the little nods and winks.
A timeless story is one that can appeal to many different people over many years.

Also, if a film deals with current issues and the darker sides of humanity and issues we face today, does that in of itself make that film better?
Silly example, compare "The Wizard of Oz" with "Mississippi burning." the latter deals with many real issues like racism, bigotry and the civil rights movement. But is that alone enough to say this makes it a better film than "The Wizard of Oz."?
I don't think you can compare these two films like that, because they are so different. I like both of them but would have real problems with saying which one is the better one as they try to achieve different things.
I do think that "The Wizard of Oz" is more timeless and is more ingrained in our culture than "Mississippi burning."
"Mississippi burning." on the other hand might be seen as a more "important" film and has things we should not forget.

In closing, a couple of other film comparisons, take Star Trek:TMP vs ST2: TWoK. The former has probably more depth in it's concept and more ambitious visuals. But is it a better film? If you were to ask those that have seen it then I would say a majority prefers ST2.
Or compare The Matrix with The Matrix: Reloaded. The latter is more complex and complicated, but is it a better film?
Opinions will probably differ but again I would say that a majority prefers the first film.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Yes. I was tremendously intrigued by The Motion Picture's more subtle, alien brand of conflict, whereas the fist-shaking "submarine fight in space" nature of Star Trek 2 has not aged all that well to me. So yes, I definitely prefer the original film, and for me a reason why is that the original does indeed feel like the deeper work.