Saga Star Wars, Lucas and TMIS

only one kenobi and The_Phantom_Calamari:


I'd like to continue the discussion left off from the other thread...I think it's very relevant to the "TMIS" issue.

Thoughts?

 

My thoughts on it go something like this; when Lucas says "..when he throws his sword down and says, "I'm not going to fight this"--that he makes a more conscious, rational decision. And he does it at the risk of his life because the Emperor is going to kill him. It's only that way that he is able to redeem his father. "

it seems to me that he is talking of Luke's raison d'etre being the redemption of his father...both in terms of what those scenes, and the story the OT tells is about, and also in terms of what Luke is thinking of in those scenes. To me Lucas defines those scenes in that way, in terms of the son redeeming the father - obliterating the distance between Luke's earlier reified idolisation of his father and his new realisation that Vader exists in us all (ie what The_Phantom_Calamari described earlier)


But he also emphasises that aspect of the story by re-defining the dark-side of the Force as a magical entity ( an actual thing) and by doing so re-defines the Emperor (Palpatine) as a binding agent, sort of setting the glue and holding the Empire in thrall by these magical properties - so that these scenes become more important than they were with regards to the battle the rebels are engaged in with the Empire. To put that in context, in the OT alone the Emperor is simply a representation of spiritual death/emptiness that lies at the heart of Vader's persona, and at the heart of the Empire - he is only as real as the hatred that Luke feels for Vader, or the coldness of Vader.

In this the prophecy becomes all important, and redeeming Anakin becomes all important, so that Lucas has re-defined the scenes in those terms.

 

Of course Luke's motivation is to redeem his father. The question is, how does Luke do that? He does it by sparing Vader's life without expecting anything from Vader in return. Luke doesn't really expect Vader to be his father anymore. He doesn't expect Vader to have compassion for him. As far as Luke is concerned, when he throws his lightsaber away, he's forfeiting his life. But he's doing it because Anakin Skywalker was a good man at one point, and that's all that matters. Luke has the freedom to choose to follow in the footsteps of the good father, even though the bad father seems to be all that's left in reality. Luke redeems his his father by invoking his memory while showing compassion to a Sith Lord. The fact that this Sith Lord happens to share a physical body with Luke's dead father is actually fairly irrelevant at this point.

And I'm still not sure where you're getting the notion that Kasdan and Marquand were actively trying to downplay this aspect of the story.

The Ring Structure indicates that the six-film saga is a cycle which repeats itself endlessly, so that after Episode VI the status quo swings back around to that of Episode I. The Prophecy never promises that the Force will stay balanced forever. It just says that it will happen. Maybe it will be up to someone else next time. There's not really any tangible darkness which causes society to become unhinged. It's just the way societies tend to behave.

Sidious takes advantage of the situation, certainly, but he's not the be-all, end-all cause of it. If the society wasn't already fundamentally sick, Sidious never would have been able to gain a foothold. All it would have taken is for Nute Gunray to choose not to be greedy, and Sidious's entire plot would have unraveled. If the Senate had chosen not to repeatedly sacrifice liberty for security, then Sidious would never have been able to take over the government. If the Jedi had chosen not to lead an army of vat-grown clones in a morally-grey war, then Sidious wouldn't have been able to exterminate their order. The story of the prequels is very deliberately constructed so that the Sith plot could have been very easily derailed at several points if individuals had simply made better choices and thought about the long-term consequences of their actions. And until people learn to do so, the same thing will probably keep happening, over and over and over again. The cycle will repeat endlessly until galaxy-wide enlightenment is finally achieved. At that time, the people will no longer need a savior, and the Chosen One will become obsolete.

The Emperor isn't a "binding agent." He's not the only thing wrong with the galaxy. He's just a symbol of what's wrong with the galaxy. When Vader destroys the Emperor, he destroys a symbol. It's a mostly symbolic action. That's an important thing in its own right, but he didn't literally eradicate evil from the universe for all time. Evil will certainly return, so long as society fails to evolve to a sufficiently higher level.

 

??

You'll forgive me, I hope, for seeing a slight contradiction in what you are saying. It appears here as if you are saying that Luke's intention throughout is to redeem his father...but that isn't what you appeared to say when you wrote

"Well, if you notice, Lucas intentionally undercuts this aspect in ROTJ....Luke steps back from the abyss at this point not because Vader is his father, but because he realizes that his own hatred is turning him into Vader....to choose the path of non-violence on its own merits"

So...could you clarify whether you see that Luke is acting to redeem his father or whether Luke is acting because of what he sees in himself?

This is based upon what you said earlier, and particularly the notion that "Lucas undercuts this aspect in ROTJ...", my argument being that it is not Lucas who, whenever he references these scenes, emphasises the father-son relationship as being paramount. But now you seem to be arguing against that premise at all... so that I'm not sure whether you are arguing against any downplaying or whether you are arguing that it is not Marquand and Kasdan who do so.

Eh?! What "Ring Structure"? You mean the fan invention 'The Ring Structure'. First of all...what sense does that make? The Jedi served and protected the Republic for a thousand generations according to Obi-Wan, a thousand years according to Palpatine. Lucas said that the fulfillment of the prophecy ended evil in the galaxy (far-fetched I know, but...take that up with Lucas). So..Lucas doesn't seem to implementing any kind of 'Ring Structure' to his story. And.....if that is the case then...would they need a new prophecy for the next cycle? Or will they just re-use the old one?

The 'chosen one' already was obsolete prior to the PT...there wasn't one.

...then how would destroying him end evil in the galaxy? The story you are describing is not the story Lucas is telling, nor is it what is generally argued here (as a post-PT revisionism) ...which is that the Empire could only be destroyed by he destruction of Palpatine/The Emperor, ie that it is the Emperor/Palpatine that is ALL important, and thus that Anakin fulfilling the prophecy is paramount (which is as Lucas descibes it...ending evil in the galaxy).

 

Someone once told me that "true evil can never be destroyed completely." And indeed, as a great man once said, "Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again." Anakin's restoration of the "balance of the Force" was likely not meant to be permanent in nature.

I mean, if that were true, where does the Sequel Trilogy come from?

 

It comes from someone who will try to unbalance the Force and fail. As I've said before, the situation which caused the Force to go out of balance was a unique set of circumstances. That's why there was never a Chosen One before, when the Jedi and Sith last clashed. Both sides were on equal footing and the lines between good and evil, light and dark, right and wrong were clear and well defined. That changed with the rise of Darth Sidious, who manipulated events into gaining control by having it given to him and who blurred the lines between the light and the dark. And going by what is known, the Force is and has been in balance regardless of the state of affairs in the galaxy and the presence of the dark side threat that's in the ST.

 

Wait, how do you know there was never a Chosen One before?

 

To follow up ATMachine 's question....you make these claims as facts regarding the story. As viewers of the movies how are these conceptions (that this is a peculiar situation in terms of 'balance of the force', that 'the l;ast time the Jedi fought they were on a more equal footing)? These are ideas that have no basis or anchor within the story as it is told in the movies.

What this has highlighted, for me, is the paucity of the idea of a) imbalance in the Force as a driver of the narrative and b) the same for the ages old conflict between Sith and Jedi. It seems to me that a much better (greater?) story could have been told had the conceptions just mentioned, and the concommitant ideas 'the prophecy' and 'The Chosen One'. None of those ideas have any place in the OT.

Or..if those ideas are to be introduced, a great deal more meat needs to go onto their bones.

 

It would have been brought up by the Jedi Council, not to mention that Lucas himself would have said something about it.

The whole notion of such a story is that a situation is unique enough to warrant a special hero to do what cannot be done otherwise. That's how these mythological stories go. Beowulf was the only one who was capable of slaying Grendel, when King Hrothgar and his men couldn't. Arthur Pendragon is the only one who can remove Excalibur and thus be King of England. In the PT, the story establishes that the Jedi and Sith are at war and have been for years. The Jedi are the ones who are the targets of revenge against the Sith, not a particular Jedi who is long gone now. The Jedi had vanquished the Sith and now the situation has changed which results in the Chosen One.

 

As a fan of George Lucas' work, you of all people ought to know that Lucas is notoriously reticent about the underlying ideas behind his stories.

 

But it is likely there have been other prophecies. All Jedi have the ability to see into the future but such visions are uncertain and always changing. The prophecy in TPM seemed different or at least the Jedi treated it as different. If there had never been any other prophecies in the past, how would they know this for what it was?
If there had been other prophecies then there could have been other chosen ones.
Qui-Gon is able to make the leap to Anakin being conceived by the Midis rather quickly.

But the situation isn't shown like the examples you give. Palpatine is just a Sith, powerful yes but Yoda is able to go toe to toe with him and Mace beats him. Palpatine isn't un-killable or immune to weapons or anything like that. Had Anakin taken five minutes longer to get to the Senate then Mace would have balanced the Force. Had a clone trooper aimed a little differently in the battle in RotS, then he would have balanced the Force.
Mace, Yoda and Obi-Wan, if they fought Palpatine together, they would probably have beaten him.
Anakin is able to kill Palpatine, not so much due to power but because he surprised him and was able to endure pain long enough to toss him down a shaft.
Anakin in the PT isn't shown as being all that more powerful than other Jedi.
Neo in the Matrix is shown to be very much stronger.

If the Jedi and the Sith have fought each other time and again over the millennia's. At times the Sith have the upper hand, other times the Jedi do. Then nothing has changed in the PT except that the Sith are being more stealthy about their plans and the Jedi are being more clueless.

Also if "God", in this case the Force, wants Palpatine dead, why bother with Anakin?
The Force could just tell the midis in Palpatine's body to die and Palpatine would weaken and die.
Or it could give him terminal cancer or some such.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Really? Considering how much he's come out and said things over the years, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I never said that there weren't other visions of the future. This one stood out because it was far more grave than the others, as the consequences were dire and the situation was far more unique than what has been recorded.

Actually, it is. The chain of events leading to Palpatine's death was dependent on Anakin being the one to bring balance to the Force. Not a random Jedi, or a Clonetrooper. Palpatine could cheat death because none of the Jedi were powerful enough to stop him and he managed to turn the Chosen One to his side, thus ensuring his continued survival. That's why it comes down to Anakin being the one to do so.

And Neo wasn't more powerful because he couldn't beat Smith in battle, only by surrendering his life so that Smith could assimilate him and thus be purged from the Matrix by the Architect, which also cost Neo his life. Neo's power was only to survive the Agents and then return to the Source. It was never meant for someone like Smith.

What has also changed is that Palpatine did what the Sith hadn't done, which was give up all control to him willingly. Rather than the Sith just taking it outright.

Or the Midichlorians didn't do anything that the Sith didn't want them to do in making Anakin.

 

Have you ever listened to Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle? The libretto for Götterdämmerung in particular might tell you some things about SW which few people as yet know.

 

There's no contradiction. Luke correctly realizes that his father's redemption is about more than just their own personal relationship with each other--it's representative of larger moral issues. The only way to redeem his father is by being a good person for its own sake. The key point here is that Luke isn't expecting his father to literally convert back to the light side and rescue him from the Emperor. As far as Luke is concerned, Anakin Skywalker isn't coming back, at least not in the form of flesh and blood.This is important, because if Luke's actions were only about Vader being his father, then it would be a binary choice between either sparing Anakin or destroying Vader: If Vader repents of evil and becomes Anakin again, Luke must spare him; if Vader refuses to repent and remains Vader, Luke must destroy him.

But that's a false choice. That's what Luke realizes. There's a third option: compassion based on universal principles. Whereas before Luke was only willing to spare Anakin, he is now also willing to spare Vader. He redeems his father in the process of having this epiphany, but that's not his sole or even his primary motivation. Or, to put it another way, it is his motivation, but only because his father's redemption is inextricably tied up with the moral arc of the universe itself.

Wait wait wait, back up. You've actually read the Ring Theory essay, right? How can you say that's just a fan invention? Klimo makes a very solid case, and goes to some lengths to do so. If you're going to dismiss his entire thesis just like that, I'm afraid you're going to have to do a bit better.

Chiasmus is a well-known literary technique used in works ranging from the Holy Bible to Shakespeare. For a man as well-read as Lucas, it would be the height of absurdity to propose that he was completely unaware of such a concept, given that it's undeniably evident in the structure of the Star Wars films starting with The Empire Strikes Back itself back in 1980. Lucas had apparently been interested in chiastic storytelling structures for a very long time, and he had a long time to think about how to consciously incorporate them into his future films.

 

You misunderstand, all Jedi can have visions of the future, we are told this. But we are also told that these visions are uncertain and always changing. The Prophecy was treated as something quite different from this. First of, the name, calling it a Prophecy.
Prophecy can mean;
1) an inspired utterance of a prophet
2) the function or vocation of a prophet; specifically : the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose

So this was clearly something different from the normal Jedi ability. If this was the ONLY such occurrence, how would the Jedi know what it was?
It instead makes more sense that there had been other prophecies in the past, prophecies that had come true and this is why the Jedi put so much stock in this one.

Also how do you know the circumstances in the prophecy were more dire/different than other visions?
As far as we know the Prophecy just mentioned "Bring balance to the Force." That doesn't sound like something horrible as happened. Imbalance can be too much light or too much dark. The Jedi however interpreted this to mean "Kill all Sith."

Which becomes a bit odd when one considers that the Jedi prior to TPM thought the Sith were all dead and had been for a millennia. If this prophecy was more than a millennia old, then the Jedi would have assumed that it had already come to pass. If it is newer, then the Jedi would not be surprised that the Sith are back because the prophecy makes no sense if the chosen one must kill the Sith if there are no Sith to kill.

Logical fallacy, you take the end result, Anakin killing Palpatine, to mean he was the only who could kill Palpatine. I could do the same with Jabba and Leia. Leia killed Jabba and so she was the only one powerful enough to kill Jabba, no one else could. Doesn't make sense does it?

Mace beat Palpatine and Yoda fought him quite well. Both together could have killed him.
Also this reasoning makes Palpatine immortal if he kills Anakin. With Anakin dead, no one exists to kill him and so he becomes un-killable. Even more logical fallacies.
The prophecy could simply mean, "Anakin is the one who will kill Palpatine because he is the one who will do so." Whoever made the prophecy could simply have "seen" the bit in RotJ where Vader throws Palpatine down a shaft, killing him.

So the films don't show Palpatine as some un-killable monster like Grendel or someone that no one could beat. He is a Sith and we see two Sith be killed by Jedi. Palpatine is no different.
He is just clever enough to not have all the Jedi come at him at once

You misunderstand yet again.
Neo was a lot more powerful than the other humans in the Matrix films. Anakin isn't shown to be any more powerful than other Jedi. Palpatine says something about it but we don't see it.

????
Did the Sith give up control to Palpatine, what?

[/QUOTE]

Either the Force/God wants Palpatine dead and created Anakin to do that. Which begs the question why it didn't kill Palpatine directly since it could have done that at any time.
OR
The Force doesn't care if Palpatine is alive or dead and didn't create Anakin which makes the whole prophecy thing totally irrelevant.
Which is a pretty good way to describe it. It serves no purpose, makes little sense, doesn't add to the story or the characters and the films would be better served by removing the whole thing.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Except we all know that it was kill the Sith. This branch of the Sith.

The Jedi didn't believe in it anymore because the Force didn't go out of balance last time, the Chosen One never emerged and the Sith were thought extinct. This is why they are skeptical when Qui-gon claims that the Sith are back and that Anakin is the Chosen One. It is only after the confirmation that the Sith were indeed back and that the boy's skills were extraordinary, that the Council began to wonder if it was indeed accurate. But they're still not certain which is why
Mace always says, "If the prophecy is true." because he has doubts it. Even Qui-gon isn't sure which he tells Obi-wan on Mortis.

QUI-GON: "Three are here who seek Skywalker. They, like me, believe him to be the Chosen One."

OBI-WAN: "You were right. The Force within him is stronger than any known Jedi. I have trained him as well as I could, but he is still willful and balance eludes him."

QUI-GON: "If he is the Chosen One, he will discover it here."

OBI-WAN: "And if not?"

QUI-GON: "Then you must realize with his power, this is a very dangerous place for him to be."

Well, not all of the Jedi could beat him which we saw. He was too powerful for any normal Jedi, which Lucas set up long ago in 81. He stated that no Jedi could beat him in battle, not even Yoda. It's like the JLA fighting Superman or the Avengers fighting the Hulk. A very futile gesture. Palpatine held his own against Mace and Yoda and neither was able to beat him. It isn't a case of he is the one because he does, but he is the only one because it was his destiny to do so. He was the only one strong enough to battle him, if they had it out and win. And he was the only one who could withstand his power.

Anakin took on several Jedi in the Temple, including Masters and killed them with ease. That puts him in the same category as Palpatine.

He got the Senate to give him all the power and control that he desired.

The point of the prophecy is that someone saw the Force go out of balance due to the Sith and Anakin was the one who restores it by destroying them. Anakin is the Chosen One regardless of whether or not the Sith created Anakin or the Force did.

 

Hmmmm...so let me get this straight. The first three movies are made (ANH, TESB, ROTJ) with no mention of an imbalance in the Force, a 'Chosen One' and its attendant prophecy and...somehow, still, that is what the story was about? (excuse me while I cough to cover bi-syllabic expletive.. Mod Edit: Unfortunately, you do have to star out the whole word. Sorry.)

Somehow, with no mention or exposition..that's what the story to that point was? And...you are very much back-tracking on what you originally said. Let me remind you of the most pertinent aspect with regard to this response

".Luke steps back from the abyss at this point not because Vader is his father, but because he realizes that his own hatred is turning him into Vader....to choose the path of non-violence on its own merits"


Not because Vader is his father, and not because of some notion of universal moral exceptional-ism but "on its own merits"

Again I will ask, are you reversing away also from the idea that "Lucas intentionally undercuts this aspect (the father-son relationship) in ROTJ" ?

First of all, apropos and thank you for expressing an idea at the heart of this thread, by which I mean the idea that if a literary form exists and Lucas knows about it then there is a high chance it has been incorporated into the Star Wars saga...the very essence of TMIS.

Secondly, I would question how much 'chiasmus' is a "well-known literary technique", especially in its more convoluted expressions; as with so much comparative narrative it seems there is a great deal of tenuous 'stretching' to be found. I questioned how much sense it would make for the saga to result in an 'offspring' saga beginning at the point of TPM...the backstory as developed (vague though it is) does not appear to support such a notion.

I would agree that tales beginning and ending with similar (reflective) motifs is a reasonable claim to make but...the most powerful (arguably) reflected motif of the saga is the setting twin sons of Tatooine, which would suggest a saga which begins at 4 and ends at 3...which isn't, as far as I can tell, what Lucas suggests is the order of the saga.

I don't really have to go too far to pour scorn on an idea that has not been proposed by the 'author'. The claim of it being designed around a ring structure is the extraordinary claim which requires evidence - especially when there seems not to have been much design per sé within the creation of the first three movies.

Indeed...destroying the Sith seems to be a strong aspect of the prophecy, and Lucas has confirmed that is what the prophecy entails and is, indeed, fulfilled by the actions of Anakin in ROTJ in destroying Palpatine (and in the process himself)

You're making this stuff up. Sorry, but you are. You keeping stating 'facts' like "because the Force didn't go out of balance last time" when there is absolutely nothing, as in no thing, not one jot or grain of information within the storyline to evince this; this is entirely invented by you.

What is a normal Jedi? As was pointed out Mace had him defeated, Yoda had him seriously concerned...there is no evidence in the movies that he was 'set apart', so overwhelmingly powerful that he was beyond defeat...and, what are you talking about with Lucas setting him up that way in "81"? But, as for Anakin being the only one who can.....I will return to that in a moment.

Indeed...in the same category as Palpatine and...Anakin was defeated by Obi-Wan. So, not unbeatable, not a 'set apart'.

...so, to 'the only one who can'. The concept of Anakin being the only one who can is based upon the idea that he has been created for that purpose, especially given the notion of his 'miraculous birth' and the prophecy which foretells of his coming, as the 'Chosen One'. The language involved expresses design and divine intervention.....and without divine intervention, what value is faith in the Force, in terms of its guidance of characters to their 'chosen' paths? Without design all these terms become meaningless, as does the idea of the only one who can. You appear to want your cake and to eat it. So, in this final missive you refer to the prophecy as simply foresight of the one who does (obliquely it is true, but that is the underlying conception you use here) and side-step the notion of his having been the only one who can. This is pretty much the issue that Samuel Vimes is addressing...the story 'wanders' and never settles on being one thing or the other. It is in a sense both these stories and, through the lack of any narrative clarity becomes, instead and actually, neither of the stories. To offer a simily...a friend to all is a friend to none.

 

Lucas wasn't undercutting anything. The father and son aspect is still very much at the heart of ROTJ, but there is also a much larger stake in the story. That of ending the war and bringing balance to the Force. There are multiple stories going on here, not just the father and son dynamic, but Anakin's own story from the PT coming back into play. This is the symphony aspect that Lucas talked about during the making of ROTS.

The two Star Wars trilogies share many characters but have different structures. Instead of telling another heroic coming-of-age story, Lucas has crafted the prequels a historical drama, at whose center is Anakin Skywalker. His story is tragic; that of the Republic-turned-Empire, uncomfortably familiar. Anakin begins as a nine-year-old boy who is physically enslaved. He ends the prequel saga a spiritual and mental slave to the Emperor, who is his metaphorical if not biological father....

But the end of Revenge of the Sith is not the end of Anakin, whose story really closes when it merges with those of his children, Luke and Leia, in Return of the Jedi.

....

Anakin Skywalker's final confrontation with the Emperor occurs during Luke's final confrontation with the Emperor, which compliments his father's dealings with the same man many years earlier. Indeed the life of the father and the life of the son are commentaries on each other.

"The Star Wars saga is like a symphony, which has recurring themes," he adds, "You have one theme orchestrated in a particular way and place, which then comes back orchestrated as a minor theme somewhere else. There are these little threads running through things that are constantly turning events on their head. You see two people confronting the same things, with different ends. It's a rhythm. I like the idea of seeing something from a different perspective. An advantage I have in this particular situation is that I have literally twelve hours to tell a story. It has the epic quality of following one person from the time he's nine years old to the time he dies. It's Anakin's story, but obviously there are many other characters in that story- his children, his best friend- and their stories carry through. So this isn't just a tune- it's a symphony. When you do it as a symphony, I think it actually becomes beautiful."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 221

As well as the two trilogies, one saga aspect.

"It's a downer, the saving grace is that if you watch the other three movies, then you know everything ends happily ever after. Nevertheless, I now have to make a movie that works by itself but which also works with this six-hour movie and this overall twelve-hour movie. I'll have two six-hour trilogies, and the two will beat against each other: One's the fall, one's the redemption. They have different tonalities but it's meant to be one experience of twelve hours."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith, page 62

So in this, Lucas has the storyline from the PT continuing into the OT, and when you watch starting with TPM and end with ROTJ, you see the dots connect to each other. It's not too different from the "X-Men" films which change viewpoints with each film that came out, but when viewed in an order based on the in-universe storyline, you see that there are multiple storylines, but the largest of which is the Wolverine and Professor X storyline which carries over multiple films. Both characters have their own arcs, with Logan being used as a weapon for much of his life before losing his memories and then wandering for years before joining the X-Men. There's Xavier's arc with his relationship with Magneto and Mystique and how it went from one of camaraderie to antagonism. Xavier's story seemingly stops with his apparent demise in "The Last Stand", while Logan goes off on his own after killing Jean Grey. At the end of "The Wolverine", the stories begin to merge again leading into "Days Of Future Past", where everything comes together. We get resolution with Logan's relationship with his teammates, while we see Charles come to and understanding with Raven which changes history and sets up a new and different future. Along the way we see a variety of other characters who play parts in each story and part of the larger, overall narrative.

So, too, we see Anakin's story of a slave turned Jedi who made many mistakes and became evil, while we see Luke who starts out life as a farm boy and see his journey towards becoming a Jedi. The crux of their lives intertwine as they both need to destroy the Sith, while also needing to deal with the other. Anakin has a greater destiny to bring balance, while he also has to decide where his destiny lays. Either on the path of the righteousness, or the path of the sinner who is forever damned. While Luke has to confront his father, whom he wants to save, while also battling himself to avoid becoming like his father. Along the way, we see a variety of characters who play parts in each story and part of the larger, overall narrative.

Ah, but there is. Again, the Jedi never speak of the Force having been out of balance before. Only in this time period is it mentioned as happening. Lucas himself speaks of the Jedi defeating the Sith in the past and not a Chosen One.

"The Sith are the archenemies of the Jedi," George Lucas explained, "and for a long time, they ruled the universe until the Jedi came along and got rid of them."

--George Lucas, Star Wars Insider, issue 78; page 80

The Sith are the natural enemy of the Jedi. As George Lucas describes it, the Sith were once in control of the galaxy 1000 years in the past. Unfortunately, the Sith's hunger for conquest got the better of them-so many Sith Lords were vying for ultimate control that it led to infighting among their ranks. Such internecine struggles were exploited by the Jedi Knights of the era, and they were able to turn the tide and defeat the Sith.

--Star Wars Insider, issue 78; page 60

Likewise, given what is known about the ST storyline, the Force appears to still be in balance.

 

So.....they don't mention that it happened in the past and that is the evidence that it didn't happen in the past? That's it
?!!

They don't mention spacecraft or lightsabres from the past either, does that mean that they didn't exist back then? They don't mention any names from the past does that mean no-one had names? It is a nonsense of an 'argument'.

If someone had said "this (the Force going out of balance) has never happened before" then......then there would be a notion of what you claim but...nobody does. There is no indication that the Force going out of balance is a case of exceptionalism within this period of time. You are making this up. You are inventing this.

 

The Force going out of balance a thousand years ago and requiring a Chosen One before would be more important to bring up than a ship from a thousand years ago. The idea is that this is a unique situation requiring a unique individual to fix things.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.


Another example of the aforementioned "exceptionalism" - one might also call it "Last Thursday-ism" - is the notion that the Jedi have been around for ages but only figured out how to become immortal during the time-frame of the PT and OT....(Qui-Gon "after" his death, anObi-Wan on Tatooine). Not buyin' it...

 

It is a well-known literary technique, actually. I'm not sure that's something that can really be disputed. You can just Google the phrase and find all sorts of references to it from a variety of sources, many of them academic. This is something that has been talked about by scholars since the 1600s.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what point you're making here.

The claim is about more than the saga beginning and ending with similar motifs. The claim is that the saga follows a clearly-defined, inverted parallel structure arranged around a central narrative point. Specifically, this structure is ABCC'B'A'. Klimo's essay goes to exhaustive lengths to point out that the six-part Star Wars saga fulfills all these criteria exactly. If that's just a coincidence, then it's an amazing coincidence. But regardless of questions of intentionality on the part of the author, the Star Wars saga is indeed a chiasmus. At this point, that can hardly be disputed. Again, I'd like to see you try to dispute it, but so far you haven't actually done so in anything more than a vague, insubstantive way.

Once again, I have no idea what point you're trying to get at with that last part. Yes, the twin setting suns are a powerful recurring motif. What does that, specifically, have to do with what we are presently talking about? That doesn't at all suggest a saga that begins at 4 and ends at 3. It's just a recurring motif. If you can lay out a full argumentative schema proving that such a structure recognizably exists, then that's great. I'm all ears, it sounds fascinating. But so far all you've done is point out that a motif occurs in two places in a story. That's not exactly mind-blowing stuff.

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/

Seriously, I think you should read it, then get back to me. If you already have read it (I'm starting to have my doubts about that), then I think you should read it again, or else demonstrate somehow that you actually read and understood its thesis. It specifically addresses all of your concerns. For one thing, there most certainly was design within the creation of the first three movies. A New Hope and Return of the Jedi are themselves two ends of a smaller ring structure. The Empire Strikes Back is at the center of this ring structure and is itself a perfect chiasmus. Again, this was pointed out independently by a completely different person who just happened to be stumble upon the same thing Klimo did:

http://dejareviewer.com/2014/05/20/...strikes-back-is-a-perfectly-symmetrical-film/

What seems fairly clear at this point is that Lucas decided to do the same thing with the prequel trilogy that he did with the original trilogy, and furthermore to construct the prequels in such a way so that the six-part whole would become its own chiasmus.

I don't care that Lucas has never come out and explicitly confirmed it. I really don't. It would be nice if he did, but it's not necessary. The chiastic structure is either there or it's not. Biblical scholars don't need to travel through time and talk to the original writers to conclude that the Bible contains chiastic structures.

 

I THINK that only one kenobi is alluding to the fact that the OT doesn't seem to point toward a prequel trilogy that begins where TPM specifically does (????).

"Amazing coincidence".....or:

1. Lucas designed the PT to have these parallel structures with the OT, but largely after the fact . That is, this structure you speak wasn't part of the backstory as he and the other OT writers had hashed out in the 70's and 80's while the originals were being made.

2. People can read almost anything into these films that weren't there before.

It's equally plausible as the ring-theory....that's the point.

But when one considers the fact that the OT - was made pretty piece-meal (the PT as well, to some extent), then in what sense can one say that Lucas had 'designed' this structure into the films? The best, imho, one could say is that Lucas constructed the six-part saga this way, after-the-fact .

 

It shows that the Jedi don't know everything. That Palpatine was right in that there are things out there that the Jedi don't know about, or don't wish to know, because it scares them to death to know these things. This is supported in season six when Yoda realizes that he has great hubris. That he believes that he knows all that there is to know.

YODA: "A Jedi Master I am. Know all that dwells within I do. Mastered my weaknesses and conquered my fears I have."

SERENITY: "Have you?"

After fighting his dark side self.

YODA: "Powerful the creature was."

SERENITY: "What you faced was a reflection of your hubris and the shadow of your soul."

YODA: "And yet clear I thought I was."

SERENITY: "The beast is you, and you are the beast. To deny it simply gives it power."

YODA: "Now I see. Simple the answer was."

SERENITY: "Deep in your core, you felt that we had nothing to teach you, but you must trust in our teachings if you are to succeed."


The Jedi should always be seeking out more knowledge of the Force and how to pass it on, but they became so wrapped up in the affairs of people, that they neglected to learn and grow further. There is always more to learn. There is a hint of it in AOTC, when Dooku sees Yoda deflect his attack and then absorb the lightning.

YODA: "Much to learn, you still have."

 

They don't have to be omniscient. It's just that in a fictional universe it comes across a bit odd that something so important wouldn't be known about until late in the game. It's an extreme form of exceptionalism*, bordering on last-Thursday-ism. It's THAT disturbing trend in SW, where things of import to that whole fictional universe only happened within the scope of those six films, and only during those time periods (largely), that contribute to the 'shrinking universe' factor of the franchise, even more so than characters being (needlessly imho) roped into the Skywalker family who weren't previously family related....

*like in a fictional universe where events of great import seem to always happen to the same small group of characters, again and again.....something the EU didn't manage to avoid, I'm afraid.