Tolkein Vs. Galactic History

Tolkien also gave us a visual history, by describing the surroundings in his books.

 

But that doesn't work well in SW. Even the OT hasn't (yet) shown us anything that resembles what we are seeing in the PT (other than early SD's).

What we require is the suggestion of history. We need to know about the past activities of the Trade Federation. We need to have hints of King Veruna's sudden departure and Queen Amidala's quick ascension, we need to know a little about the Jedi's changing role in the galaxy.

 

I don't post here a lot, but I've gotta jump in here:

"When did Vs. mean 'comparison?' "

From Dictionary.com:

ver·sus ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vûrss, -sz)
prep.
Abbr. v. or vs. Against: the plaintiff versus the defendant; Army versus Navy.
As the alternative to or in contrast with: ?freedom of information versus invasion of privacy? (Ian Hamilton).

OR

\Ver"sus\, prep. [L., toward, turned in the direction of, from vertere, versum, to turn. See Verse.] Against; as, John Doe versus Richard Roe; -- chiefly used in legal language, and abbreviated to v. or vs.

I would think that the VS in the title of this thread is used as a preposition, meaning "Against; as, John Doe versus Richard Roe". So the title of this thread means "Tolkien AGAINST Galactic History". This usually implies a comparison or competition, IE Dallas VS Houston. In other words, VS means "which one is right" or "which one is better". Comparision seems to be implied here.


"If I want I wanted a comparison, I would have asked for one. This is putting Tolkien's theory up against what has been seen in the Saga. I think my inital post is extremely clear on this."

I think you did ask for a comparision, just by the title of the thread.

In your original post, you said "Does the PT suffer from a lack of glimpses of a "large history" as described by Tolkein? "

Although this may seem like a simple question, you are INDEED asking how the PT COMPARES to Tolkein, at least in one aspect, the larger history.

And by using "VS" in the title of the thread, you imply comparison (IMHO).

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

[EDIT]
Oh, and to stay on topic:
I think that the PT IS the deeper history in the SW saga. Unless you bring the EU into things. Then many of the issues brought up here have, I believe, at least been explored. The "Tales of the Jedi" series explored the beginnings of the Jedi vs Sith (I think, it's been a while).
[End edit]

 

Obi-Wan = Gandalf
Yoda = Elrond
Han Solo = Aragorn
Leia = Arwen
Luke = Frodo
Vader = The Ring
Palpatine = Sauron
Dooku = Sarumon
Chewie = Gimli
Biggs = Boromir
Tarkin = Boromir's Father
Master Windu = Bilbo
R2-D2 = Sam
C-3PO = Pippin
Jabba = Smaug
Admiral Fish Head = Faramir
Lando = Legolas
Kit Fisto = Beorn
The Trade Federation = Goblins
Storm Troopers = Orcs
Cloners = Eagles
Millenion Falcon = Tree Guys
Padme = Galadriel
Jango = Isildur
Boba Fett = Worm Tongue

 

Now, that's just silly.

I think the problem is we are talking about what can be done in a book as opposed to what can be done in a movie.
All the LOTR movies can do is offer hints to the history Tolkien wrote about it. THere isn't time to get into it in a movie. I think Lucas and Jackson know if they took the time dwell on that stuff they are going ot lose much of the audience who aren't into it as much as we all are.

As far as Star Wars history goes, it is there if we want it and we aren't worrying about canon.

 

Hehe I like this game

Gandalf = Jesus
Frodo = Carl
Sam = Odyssyes
Tom Bombadil = Zeus (hell yeah he is )
Boromir = Loke
Merry = Butters from South Park
Pippin = The Dell Dude
Arwen = Hera
Sauron = Satan
Shelob = Cattaterfish
Gollum = Rumplestilskin
Aragorn = Arthur (because they both begin with the letter A)
Galadriel = Gwenyvere
Saruman = Merlins evil twin


Um I'm drawing a blank here...

 

From the Oxford Concise Dictionary:

Versus: as opposed to; in contrast to.

May be also used in Legal or Sporting terms as "against." Since we are not in a court of Law, nor playing sport, "against" has no meaning here.

Compare: estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.

I think you did ask for a comparision, just by the title of the thread.

Sorry, you're wrong. My original post looks at Tolkein's take on history in CONTRAST to GL's provided Galactic history in the PT.

Although this may seem like a simple question, you are INDEED asking how the PT COMPARES to Tolkein, at least in one aspect, the larger history.

No. I am asking if the PT lacks a history as Tolkein describes in the quote provided.

I strongly suggest you read the complete opening post.

 

scuiggefest & Glockenspiel: Please stay on topic and do not try to derail this thread. If I need to warn either of you again, you'll be banned for 48hrs.

 

Hey, I was merely pointing out the stupidity of his post.

 

"I strongly suggest you read the complete opening post. "

Umm...I did, 3 times. And I read this entire thread. And it seems to me as though several people are COMPARING the fact that Tolkien hinted at a larger history to whether or not the PT and/or OT hint at one.

Maybe it's just me, but that's what it seems like.

Oh well, sometimes there's no winning.

My question is this: Why are we contrasting/comparing/analyzing/etc a book VS. a movie (or set of). I've seen LOTR, and it seems like most of the larger history is in the books, not the films anyway. You can't fairly put a screenplay up against a novel (not compare, right?). LOTR (according to amazon.com) is 1216 pages. The original trilogy novelizations are 1248 pages. About the same. Now, if you read the novelizations, there's a bunch in there that's not in the film, some of it hinting at a larger history.

If you want to discuss if SW has the same type content/history/lore/whathaveyou as LOTR, at least use the novelizations and not just cut-down-to-just-over-2-hours-so-kids-don't-get-bored-or-to-please-studio-execs films.

But why is it always LOTR anymore? As Oscar said, there are a lot of other book series that were written BEFORE LOTR that have the same kinds of story ideas in them.

So, tell me: Contrasting is finding the differences, comparing is finding the similarities. Which do you wish to do in this thread? Find the similar larger histories, or contrast showing that LOTR has one and SW does not?

 

Tolkien wrote books, not movies. It is very hard to get history in movies while it is very easy to do so in books. The only way we can compare is going by the movies. Since I haven't seen them, I can't compare.

In Saving Private Ryan, I don't remember any explanation of WW2 or of recent history. It just gave enought to understand what was going on. The PT does that.

 

That's very true. Much of the history of the PT has to be fleshed out in the books there simply isn't time in the movies. If we want to learn about the political climate of the galaxy as TPM opens we should read Cloak of Deception, it explains some of the history of the Trade Federation and why it is penalized with heacy taxation. The casual movie goer doesn't want to know about that stuff. The separatist crisis is spelled out in much more detail in The Approaching Storm. For the Clone Wars there will be a lot of reading material between now and Episode III. The films offer hints but can't flesh out, Such as comments about the alleged extinction of the Sith in TPM. Other sources go into much more depth about the battle of Ruusan.
The same goes for Lord of the Rings. If Jackson was to get into that stuff each film would be 20 hours.

 

jedi5150, my opening post couldn't be any more clearer. Nowhere in do I ask for LotR to be compared to SW, nor do I ask if LotR is anymore complicated than SW.

The question is:

Does the PT suffer from a lack of glimpses of a "large history" as described by Tolkein?

And the description by Tolkein is:

"Part of the attraction of the L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist."

I think too many people are eagar to jump on the LotR Vs. SW bandwagon. My post, in no way, addresses this.

 

I'm sorry but I think if I started a thread where I wanted to talk about hints at a larger galactic history I wouldn't want to run the risk of having it derailed by calling it "Tolkien vs. Galactic History." In fact I'd leave Tolkien completly out of it. It just isn't worth it. Anyone who calls a thread that at the Jedi Council Forums is asking for it. By even mentioning it it is going to make people compare and contrast. It is to be expected.

 

End of subject, Oscar. I have outlined what this thread is about. If you still have problems, PM me.

 

Han Solo = Aragorn.

Now, that is the funniest thing I've ever read on this site.

Han Solo is closer to Bill Ferny than Aragorn.
Well, Boromir fits better.

Dooku = Saruman?
Why?
Because Christopher Lee plays both guys in the movies?
Well, maybe they're a little similar.....

>>>>>There are many clues all over Naboo, like the giant stone heads and the ruins in the Gungan sacred place. None of that stuff looks like it was built by Gungans

Middle Earth doesn't have clues.
Just facts, facts & more facts.
As JRR Tolkien said in Unfinished Tales, in the foreward, I think (and I paraphrase), 'In my recollection, the only 2 things alluded to that are not explained are The Cats Of Queen Beruthiel & The 2 other Wizards (out of 5).'

Come to think of it, it's not in the forward, but in 'The Essay On The Istari'.

 

I think we need to remember that Star Wars is still a work in a progress. It hasn't been finished yet and it might not be for a while. After Episode III, we will have the archival editions and then whatever bridge novels come out before and after that so who knows what will be explained in those.

 

Here is a good essay comparing JRRT and GL, and the two sagas.

Keys for an understanding of Tolkien´s Poetics

There are several notions supporting Tolkien´s Poetics, necessary to his mind in order to make up a consistent tale, a good story: Sub-creation, Primary World and secondary worlds, Fantasy, Escape, Recovery, Consolation and Eucatastrophe. It is my intention to offer a useful guide of these terms, so I will briefly explain each one of them.

Sub-creation means for Tolkien the main job of any artist: the construction of feasible worlds where a story can be developed ?that is, told. They must be likely and consistent, to avoid magic ?inherent to any aesthetic experience? from breaking, and preserving Art from failing (see On Fairy Stories, pages 36-44). This state of secondary belief is a shared experience in both Cinema and Literature, and it is so interesting in order to make an analysis of similarities and differences between the worlds we are studying.

The Primary World is the real one, our world. We could consider it as the reference for the reader-spectator to place his own perspective, and understand what he contemplates and experiences as a work of art. Secondary worlds are the universes of fiction, as varied as the different arts ?the possibilities of creating beauty.

For Tolkien, Fantasy is not only the primary task of the artist, but also the art of giving a story ?the inner consistency of reality, which commands or introduces Secondary Belief? . The making of feasible worlds needs Art, and not only imagination. In fact, the ability of Lucas and Tolkien is obvious when elaborating deeply consistent worlds, where internal laws of logic are always fulfilled. So it is easy to identify in them the Primary World ?they are true? and the story renders the experience of aesthetic pleasure ?they are desireable.

The next notion used by Tolkien is Escape. He defines it as the legitimate runaway towards true reality, which goes beyond the flat vision of everyday life. This flee is not the one of the desertor, but the legitimate runaway of the prisoner, who cannot be blamed if, ?finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home. Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? . Close to this notion is Consolation: the trascending of countless limitations experienced by human beings along the way. Good fairy tales offer, according to Tolkien, the great consolation: the chance to escape from Death. He calls this the Great Escape. In fairy tales we find an explanation of the deep aspirations of the human soul, fulfilled by good stories contained in books. For we must never forget that, after all, fairy tales have been written by human beings.

Finally, Tolkien analyzes the notion of eucatastrophe: the ?Consolation of the Happy Ending (...). The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function? . We will see later that, in Tolkien´s mind, the happy end has nothing to do with the blunt, unreal ?perfect? ending. It must, above all, lead to a final conclussion according to the requirements of the plot to that point in the story. The joyous turn of events, which occurs when all hope seems to have withered, is capable of causing the reader´s sympathy when our intimate experience of life is met by a deeply moving tale. In real life (the Primary Morld) events do not occur the way we had planned. Much on the contrary: they are woven like the threads of a tapestry crafted by providence and personal freedom. As Professor Odero has pointed out in his essay, ?those fairy-tales are not nursery rhymes. They are tales filled with fantasy, but they contain a poetic recovery of so many elementary, both human and cosmic realities, intimately connected with deep human desires? . We will deal later with this.

Summing up, I will approach in the first place the narrative methods proper to both Cinema and Literature, and explain how each one condition

 

I'm not sure that it was actually the PT era, as much as it was just the opportunity for stories outside what you saw. There are an infinite amount of stories that Tolkien could tell in the Lord of the Rings, and there are infinite amount of stories that you could tell in the Star Wars universe, and that it's those stories, which we find interest in that's the attraction.

~Rogue

 

But does the PT lack the 'idea' of larger history?

 

Anyone interested should check out the visual dictionaries. what is interesting to me about those is David West Reynolds, who writes all the text in the books, is an archealogist and he uses those skills to come up with all sorts of history behind the props, costumes, vehicles and locations. He puts those items through the same scrutiny as if he was investigating items found at a dig site. Granted this isn't the same as if Lucas wrote a history of the galaxy, it does give us little bits of facts to fill in the gaps a bit. Those books have answered a lot of questions I had while watching the films. I don't know if this helps with the questions people are having, but I recommend those books alot.

 

Man, that 'essay' was longer than the letter JRR Tolkien wrote to his publisher on an overview The Silmarillion in the 1950's.

Maybe when my kids go back to school, I'll sit here & read it.

The thing that dawned on me is that we don't need to know about Darth Bane to enjoy Star Wars PT & OT anymore than we need to know that Arnor split into Arthedain, Cardolan & Rhudar to enjoy The Lord Of The Rings.

We just dig each epic story so much, we want more. We want the whole picture.

BTW, Tolkien spoiled me & set my standards for all future fantasy works too high to enjoy anything else in book form.....