[Madam Corvax]

Helena, you have a great point here. All these changes are logical, you do not need a lot of "creativity" here. They have worked before (Luke was a pilot, Leia was a princess). Did GL have a problem with that or what?

[Just your average movie goer]

Ah, but Sagacity's point was that there is more than one way of doing things - more than one possible story, which many prequel lovers fail to recognise.

And I second what Helena said. Jariten, skim through the pages of this forum. Somewhere there's a thread called "The Prequels According To Us" where a few of us posted alternative suggestions. Have a look.

You may not think our ideas are much but we may not care.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 27 August 2004 - 05:41 AM

[Helena]

MC, I think the point of 'jigsaw' analogy was to refute the idea that the question of how to make the prequels is like a maths problem, with only one possible solution.

Edit: Ah, JYAMG beat me to it.

This post has been edited by Helena: 27 August 2004 - 05:43 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

All taken care of.

[Madam Corvax]

MC, I think the point of 'jigsaw' analogy was to refute the idea that the question of how to make the prequels is like a maths problem, with only one possible solution.

Ok., perhaps I have misunderstood you, but to me some issues in Prequels have only one possible and plausible solution. Consider:

Leia to Obi-Wan: “General Kenobi, you fought for my father in Clone Wars”
The only one possible implication: Obi-Wan Kenobi was a general who fought for Leia’s father, therefore Bail Organa should have been a great warrior himself, someone who commanded an army maybe. Instead, we got a guy who spoke one line and was played by Jimmy Smits “to diversify the cast” (Sorry, Mike, I meant no disrespect)

Obi-Wan to Yoda, concerning Luke : “Was I any different when you taught me?“
The only one possible implication: Yoda taught Obi-Wan, not Qui-Gon Jin, and Obi-Wan was reckless, impatient and whining, just like Luke. Instead, one of the first lines Obi-Wan speaks is “But Master Yoda said we should be mindful of the future” spoken in a tone of an insufferable know-it-all jerk.

And considering Qui-Gon Jin as a character. I have an example to you. A tells a story to B:

A: “I met once this terrific person, we fell in love and we had such a great relationship. And the sex that we had! It just rocked!”
B: “And?”
A:” And what?”
B: “And what happened next?”
A: “Nothing, we just went our separate ways and never saw each other again.”

Exciting story, isn’t it?(especially when we take the sex bit out, which was quite unnecessary). If you enjoyed it, then perhaps the story as follows is also appealing to you:

“There was once a great Jedi called Qui-Gon Jin. He was a very decet guy, very skilled in the way of the force, fought with enemy bravely and was a friend with great many people.”
“And?”
“And what?”
“And what happened next?”
“Nothing, he was just killed in a duel and was never mentioned or remembered by anyone”.

There was such a style of writing novels, in 19th century, I believe. It was called naturalism, when the main hero suddenly drops dead in the middle of the book, and nobody minds. These were hugely unpopular, so no small wonder nobody writes like that anymore, save very, very bad writers.

[Helena]

Yes, I agree. But there are many things that could easily have been done differently - like our introduction to Anakin, for example.

[Sagacity]

Some issues have only one solution. What we've been treated to, I think, is that choosing a particular story path did lead to issues that could be solved only one way, but those solutions were inelegant, unimaginative, and downright awful. Painting-Yourself-In-A-Corner Syndrome.

This post has been edited by Sagacity: 27 August 2004 - 10:11 PM

[Just your average movie goer]

I agree absolutely with what you said, Madam Corvax. We all do - we're not arguing against the backstory that was laid out in the original trilogy.

We were just trying to remind our friend Jariten that there are many other possibilities (and infinitely far better ones) for the prequels than the crap that Lucas handed us.

[jariten]

of course its really easy to sit back and say such things knowing that youre in an invincible position because you can basically say "blah blah idea is better than what lucas gave us" because, considering your idea will never see the light of day, we'll never have a concrete basis to debate the actual quality of yours vs. his.

while TPM is flawed, there are just too many things I like about it.

[Sagacity]

They have seen the light of day. Or, more appropriately, the light of a computer screen.

[Commoner]

Yes, Jariten, we are saying TPM and AOTC are flawed, just as the OT is flawed, but we want to gauge the 'flawness', the level of it, versus the 'good' portion of it, and if it starts to tip away from what is deemed Star Wars, then it's irrevelent (and irreverent).

Now, the stickler is trying to convince gushers what is Star Wars. Too many accept too many things as "Star Wars" and that ruins the meter by which we wish to measure this.

Example. Yoda silliness (in OT) vs. Jar Jar Silliness. Which is too much, what is an unacceptable level silliness before it throws Star Wars off kilter. ESB had just the right balance of what and who Yoda is and how much silliness can be tolerated. Plus, Yoda's acting silly was part of the plot, his character, to test look. While Jar Jar's silliness is... what? To appeal to a younger audience? Sigh. I think that tips into not-so-good Star Wars.

[Just your average movie goer]

Very true, Commoner. You see, Jariten, for some of us here (myself included) the prequels are against everything that is Star Wars. That's why many of us see them as travesties.

of course its really easy to sit back and say such things knowing that youre in an invincible position because you can basically say "blah blah idea is better than what lucas gave us" because, considering your idea will never see the light of day, we'll never have a concrete basis to debate the actual quality of yours vs. his.

Okay, you are pushing my patience here. What an extremely condescending and insulting comment. I've told you before, go to...

The Prequels According To Us

Have a look before you decide to flippantly dismiss all of our ideas.

[jariten]

JYAMG- forgive me, i didnt mean to cause offense. i didnt say anyone elses idea was bad, just that its difficult to find a base for argument through comparison because your ideas will (presumably) never be made into a feature film.

Example. Yoda silliness (in OT) vs. Jar Jar Silliness. Which is too much, what is an unacceptable level silliness before it throws Star Wars off kilter.

and i agree to this to an extent, as i mentioned in another thread there were times when JJ went too far and it damaged the reality of the film. but what Lucas did with him in AotC really redeemed the character a lot in my eyes.

ah, i see the "blah blah" bit of my earlier post comes across as quite dismissive and condecending. again, i didnt mean it, and i apologise.

This post has been edited by jariten: 29 August 2004 - 12:52 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

Okay. Fair enough, mate. I probably shouldn't have jumped on you either. It must be hard being the only prequel lover on this forum.

[Helena]

and i agree to this to an extent, as i mentioned in another thread there were times when JJ went too far and it damaged the reality of the film. but what Lucas did with him in AotC really redeemed the character a lot in my eyes.

You mean the bit where he calls for Palpatine to be given emergency powers, thus helping to set up the conditions the fall of the Republic?

Sorry. I'll stop now.