Official Star Wars Thread

Marvel will be publishing their new Star Wars #1 on January 14, sold exclusively through comic book shops (Marvel discontinued all other distribution a couple years ago).

star-wars-1-joe-quesada-cover-108102.jpg


It is set between A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back - the first time in a decade that Lucasfilm has allowed a comic with the characters from the original trilogy. It's also expected to be the first million-selling comic book in over 20 years.

Full story
 
Maturin said:
If anyone has some time on their hands, and wants their minds to be blown, I suggest reading this:

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ring-composition-chiasmus-hidden-artistry-star-wars-prequels/
Click to expand...

Updating: You need to read this.

The two Star Wars trilogies were made around a chiastic structure, and they could well be the most experimental narrative ever attempted in cinematic history. Is George Lucas a genius? Up to you to decide, but all the while people have gone around bashing the prequel trilogy, Lucas was up to something else entirely.

The article shows in a clear and simple way how anything from the opening shots corresponds between the films in the two trilogies, to pieces of dialogue, the three act structures and in some cases even exact running time of the films - to quote the article:

"Precisely nine minutes into each film, there is a scene that takes place inside a palace throne room with a group of characters watching a holographic message." (Comparing Episode I to Episode VI).

The prequel trilogy is constructed, almost scene by scene, to rhyme in a certain way with a corresponding part in the original trilogy. The Star Wars saga is a symphony, a long poem - on screen.

What this is not NOT: A page/article that defends the quality of the dialogue/directing/storyline etc. of the prequel trilogy in any usual meaning of those words - it simply shows that everything has a reason behind it. Everything. It doesn't try to convince they're good films, just show how complex the narrative is. Contains very reasoned and well based findings, while still being accessible and easy to read.
 
Maturin said:
What this is not NOT: A page/article that defends the quality of the dialogue/directing/storyline etc. of the prequel trilogy in any usual meaning of those words - it simply shows that everything has a reason behind it. Everything. It doesn't try to convince they're good films, just show how complex the narrative is. Contains very reasoned and well based findings, while still being accessible and easy to read.
Click to expand...
I thought the same upon reading it. It shows that Lucas is a very good story PLANNER but not necessarily a good story TELLER. A masterful writer and a great director could have taken a lot of what he had in mind and found ways to make them work without containing a cartoon rabbit that stepped in the poopy.
 
I think all the planning was his downfall. Once Lucas went on his Joseph Campbell trip, he relied too much on pursuing those forms. The result was a marvelous structure, lacking soul.

The old epic forms, such as this "ring" form, didn't become standard because they were planned. They were a result of telling a good story first, and became common because they worked. Lucas has a great story structure, but it has always felt like the large-scale form was selected first, and the story forced to fit.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
I think all the planning was his downfall. Once Lucas went on his Joseph Campbell trip, he relied too much on pursuing those forms. The result was a marvelous structure, lacking soul.

The old epic forms, such as this "ring" form, didn't become standard because they were planned. They were a result of telling a good story first, and became common because they worked. Lucas has a great story structure, but it has always felt like the large-scale form was selected first, and the story forced to fit.
Click to expand...

Good points, both of you - and I am really putting thought effort into those things. I don't know how familiar you are with myths? Beowulf is written upon the same structure chiastic structure. I guess what I want to say is that I do really think his prequel stories are good. Amazing, even. I have since I first saw them, and every literature professor I ever had told me to trust that feeling - and hold on to it. My reason for bringing up Beowulf is that it does not adhere to what we value in storytelling today - have you ever tried reading a translation of the real poem? I want to make a point concerning the need for example... naturalistic dialogue?

I now am completely certain of that we were never supposed to judge Star Wars on the basis of naturalistic/realistic drama when it comes to matters such as dialogue. What is this thing? A modern myth? We have heard that before, but maybe we never truly understood the implications of such a statement. Do I have to compare the dialogue with dialogue from the Illiad? The Holy Bible? What will I find then, that it is still badly written – or something else entirely? That it is carefully crafted to mimic something those critical of the films hadn’t even considered?

Maybe Lucas can't write dialogue for shit, but do you believe somebody capable of constructing the most intricate piece of cinematic narrative in the history of filmmaking failed so miserably on these other parts? Without questioning it just a little?

Here's a quote for you:

"I don't use, you know, 'reality acting.' That's not what these movies are." - George Lucas
 
Maturin said:
My reason for bringing up Beowulf is that it does not adhere to what we value in storytelling today - have you ever tried reading a translation of the real poem? I want to make a point concerning the need for example... naturalistic dialogue?
Click to expand...

Ancient epics were often built on repeated formulas, to help the bard memorize a book-length epic. Beowulf, Homer and the like are sometimes ritualistic for this reason.

I've heard "ring" or "chiastic" structure called several things, and my favorite is "arch". Up from the base to keystone, then mirror down the other side to the base. It's actually quite common in all sorts of forms. I pointed it out in Aces High a long time ago.
 
Maturin said:
Updating: You need to read this.

The two Star Wars trilogies were made around a chiastic structure, and they could well be the most experimental narrative ever attempted in cinematic history. Is George Lucas a genius? Up to you to decide, but all the while people have gone around bashing the prequel trilogy, Lucas was up to something else entirely.

The article shows in a clear and simple way how anything from the opening shots corresponds between the films in the two trilogies, to pieces of dialogue, the three act structures and in some cases even exact running time of the films - to quote the article:

"Precisely nine minutes into each film, there is a scene that takes place inside a palace throne room with a group of characters watching a holographic message." (Comparing Episode I to Episode VI).

The prequel trilogy is constructed, almost scene by scene, to rhyme in a certain way with a corresponding part in the original trilogy. The Star Wars saga is a symphony, a long poem - on screen.

What this is not NOT: A page/article that defends the quality of the dialogue/directing/storyline etc. of the prequel trilogy in any usual meaning of those words - it simply shows that everything has a reason behind it. Everything. It doesn't try to convince they're good films, just show how complex the narrative is. Contains very reasoned and well based findings, while still being accessible and easy to read.
Click to expand...
I guess that a lot of people will see these films (especially the prequels) in a different way now. Thanks for the link.
 
Of course it's a common poetic device. But a cycle spanning 6 movies is about 4,7 billion times as complicated as a short poem or a piece of rock lyric.

SinisterMinisterX said:
Ancient epics were often built on repeated formulas, to help the bard memorize a book-length epic. Beowulf, Homer and the like are sometimes ritualistic for this reason.

I've heard "ring" or "chiastic" structure called several things, and my favorite is "arch". Up from the base to keystone, then mirror down the other side to the base. It's actually quite common in all sorts of forms. I pointed it out in Aces High a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of it, I have taken literature courses at university level. It doesn't really change anything in discussing Star Wars though, as I believe that apart from some stand-alone films like Robo-Cop, I know nothing of any attempt to incorporate a chiastic structure in cinema at this level. Lucas is obviously obsessed with turning his creation into a myth - so much that he inserted that "NOOOO!" at the end of Return of the Jedi to achieve even more of that symmetry between the two trilogies discussed at length in the article I posted. (That example isn't there, it's my own.)

Based on this - Lucas being so obsessed with getting it right, and going to great lengths to fix discrepancies in the old films (while risking the rage of the fans) - do you really think that the "bad" dialogue could have been anything but a very conscious stylistic choice? I don't know what he is really mimicing, but he has repeatedly said it isn't something we are used to call "realistic", as evident by the quote above among many other. I think the Star Wars saga turned out almost exactly like Lucas wanted. If people understand it for what that is, that's another question entirely - one that I'm trying discuss.
 
Maturin said:
I think the Star Wars saga turned out almost exactly like Lucas wanted. If people understand it for what that is, that's another question entirely - one that I'm trying discuss.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt it turned out like what Lucas wanted. He had the power and the money to make that happen, especially regarding the prequel trilogy. But, and maybe I am spoiled by living in the modern era, I think the fans get to say what is, and isn't good. And I think the fans have overwhelmingly voted in one direction here. Why?

Because Lucas's attempts at symmetry came at the expense of what was known. I'm sorry, the alterations to the original Star Wars movies go from mildly annoying to egregiously offensive. Maybe it makes it more symmetrical to have Darth Vader scream "Noooooooooo!" at the end of both trilogies, but know what? It sucks in both places. It's fine if Lucas is trying to create a myth, but that doesn't mean his intentions are good.

I think the dialogue choices are inept, but more than anything else, it is the visual departure of the prequel trilogy that I find annoying. Shot. Countershot. Camera one. Camera two. Run to the end of the green screen, then stop. Intense, over-arching visual assaults on my senses that are then followed by long, boring discussion and motionlessness.

Finally, where is the symmetry for a character like Jar-Jar? What about for foolish notions like the kiddy lightsabers, or Yoda's ridiculous need to fight with a tiny little laser sword? I see what these articles are saying, and I get that this is probably what George Lucas was trying to create. But the details feel wrong to me. The execution is poor. The prequel trilogies might have important backstories, and some people might love the details, but let's see them for what they are: the Silmarillion of space. Long, boring, filled with stuff that should be cool and epic and is somehow not, but you need it to really understand the franchise.
 
I guess I'm just more interested to look at a work that was done by the original author's intent to the end, rather than some mash-up and polluted ideas that most franchises have become these days. This you can look at as one whole - how many series of 6 movies can you say that about?

LooseCannon said:
Finally, where is the symmetry for a character like Jar-Jar?
Click to expand...

He is a perfect mirroring of the ewok Leia meets on Endor (Wicket?). The second trilogy is literally the first going backwards, so some of the mirroring elements end up at the other end.
 
The Silmarillion is loved by many Tolkien fans. :)

EDIT:
from wiki:
At the time of release, reviews of The Silmarillion were generally negative. The Silmarillion was criticized for being too serious, lacking the light-hearted moments that were found in The Lord of the Rings and especially The Hobbit.[34][35][36] TIME lamented that there was "no single, unifying quest and, above all, no band of brothers for the reader to identify with".[34] Other criticisms included difficult-to-read archaic language[37][38][39] and many difficult and hard-to-remember names.[37][40]

Despite these shortcomings, a few reviewers praised the scope of Tolkien's creation. The New York Times Book Review acknowledged that "what is finally most moving is … the eccentric heroism of Tolkien's attempt"


I am beginning to see a comparison here (with Maturin's appreciation). :)
 
Last edited:
Maturin said:
He is a perfect mirroring of the ewok Leia meets on Endor (Wicket?)
Click to expand...
Ugh. Really? There may have been some mirroring aspects, but again, let's talk about execution. Wicket and the Ewoks at the time were criticized, but that was nothing compared to Jar-Jar and the Gungans. Again, smart planning (because it's absolutely true that they're very similar and have similar roles in the movie) but absolutely terrible execution.
 
I'm still in the process of reading it - it's one of the most interesting things I've read in quite a while. I have to point out that this struck me as remarkably clever: On a musical note, the joyful parade music at the conclusion of Menace is actually a light, upbeat version of the exceptionally dark Emperor’s theme from Jedi, eerily foreshadowing the terrible events to come.
 
One of the things that the author of that piece constantly hearkens back to is the Red Letter Media Mr Plinkett reviews. I think he wrote this, partially, to highlight some of Mike Stolkasa's arguments as "mistakes" I think both men are correct, I just think Lucas did a bad job with the particulars.
 
He only does that in the introduction, though. I still stand by my opinion of the prequel trilogy, but if anything, this is a really interesting read.
 
Most of the connections in the article strike me as being too trivial to be worth mentioning. Who cares if the openings of Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace are similar on a shot-by-shot basis? One shows us Darth Vader arriving to the Death Star. The other shows us somebody arriving somewere. There is no emotional connection between the two scenes. The same goes for, say, Luke leaving Leia on Endor and Anakin leaving his mother on Tatooine. Sure, they're both leaving a loved one to "become a Jedi", but again the emotional undertones are completely different. If anything, Anakin's departure resonates with Luke leaving Tatooine after his family is killed.

I hate to sound anti-intellectual, but I think these in-depth analyses of Star Wars are mostly pointless. The original movies were one of those rare miracles that ended up being much better than it had any right to be. There are so many intangibles involved; the cast found chemistry with one another, it hit the right comedic-adventurous tone, the musical score was perfect, James Earl Jones made a ridiculous-looking villain menacing (just watch this). And so on. You can tear it into as many pieces as you like and analyze them with a magnifying-glass, but you still won't find the magic. It's like how people still fawn over Casablanca - and it is great, isn't it? - even though on an intellectual level you couldn't really say how it's any better than many other silly movie romances.

That's why I can't get too excited about new Star Wars movies. I'm not saying they can't be good - I really hope they will be - but lightning rarely strikes twice in the same place.
 
Shadow said:
Most of the connections in the article strike me as being too trivial to be worth mentioning. Who cares if the openings of Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace are similar on a shot-by-shot basis? One shows us Darth Vader arriving to the Death Star. The other shows us somebody arriving somewere. There is no emotional connection between the two scenes. The same goes for, say, Luke leaving Leia on Endor and Anakin leaving his mother on Tatooine. Sure, they're both leaving a loved one to "become a Jedi", but again the emotional undertones are completely different. If anything, Anakin's departure resonates with Luke leaving Tatooine after his family is killed.
Click to expand...

I believe there's a chance that these point actually strengthens the argument for. What the article argues for isn't that the two trilogies are exact mirror-images, but quite the opposite - that while some things are mirroring, you also have to look at Episode IV to find a responding emotional connection to the two protagonists of the stories - and you just gave that connection.

Mike Klimo argues that Anakin and Luke goes through exactly the same journey's through the two trilogies. One to hell, the other one to heaven. They even both literally end up in those places - Anakin in the volcanic landscape of fire on Mustafar, and Luke in space in the throne room of the second Death Star. That Luke is up there when the rest is on Endor is no coincidence, because for them he is literally in the direction of the sky - heaven/heaven.

He points out how the cave scene on Dagobah in Empire mirrors the scene where Anakin finds his mother in the sand people village on Tatooine in Clones.

Even down to the shot composition, both Luke and Anakin enter the cave/hut through a circular opening, from the right and from the left - respectively, one of the scenes is in blue tint, the other one in red. Is this too trivial?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top