SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Saturday August 15 2015, @09:58PM
from the does-it-go-'round-in-circles?-♩♫♫♪ dept.
from the does-it-go-'round-in-circles?-♩♫♫♪ dept.
This article provides an interesting take on Star Wars as a ring composition. It claims that all the movies, including the prequels, interact in a way to weave a complex pattern. This pattern is marked by repetition across a border, like an image against a mirror. It compares the composition of the movies to that of of a song, with lyrics which repeat themselves, similar but different. The article is long and full of references and well worth a read, even if you didn't like the prequel trilogy.
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you.
Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Justin Case on Saturday August 15 2015, @10:20PM
I'm sorry, I thought that was string theory. Because of course a species would have to master string theory before they could ever get hyperspace jumps, anti-gravity, and explosions that go boom in a vacuum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2015, @06:14AM
So, is there a Jar Jar Binks equation?
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday August 15 2015, @10:34PM
The article is long and full of references and well worth a read, even if you didn't like the prequel trilogy.
so basically, everyone that has the mental capacity to read. ;)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday August 16 2015, @12:05AM
Seems like the summary serves the purpose and the article would be a series of examples trying to prove the point. An exercise I fail to see the point of.
It's called continuity and authors, to say nothing about movie producers strive for it, and sometimes pay people to assure it.
Most authors throw stuff into their story that they fail to develop, because the story went somewhere else, and come back to it when they want to write a sequel. Don't assume this means a lot of advance planning. Because most of the time its just un-necessary complexity that they can take advantage of later.
Also when cranking out the sequel, re-use of constructs in the first book saves a lot of time, and impresses a lot of readers, but is often just lazyness, masquerading as good authorship.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday August 16 2015, @02:30AM
Possibly because I remember when Lucas said flat out that "making sequels is for losers who can't think up new stuff" ... I'm with HelloGreedo on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FGBGcvWkdM [youtube.com]
It's basically wanking on deja-recognition of imaginary patterns.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2015, @09:53AM
I for one like bad movies. They entertaining in their own way, if not in the intended way.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RedBear on Saturday August 15 2015, @11:09PM
I was so impressed that I made it all the way to the end of the really long page, only to see "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9".
Holy cow. This is more extensive than that guy on YouTube who tore apart the prequels with videos that ended up being longer than the actual movies. (I still laugh every time I remember those. Pro-ta-gon-ist.)
This is not exactly going to be a quick read. But the premise is already intriguing by the end of the first page. Could GL not actually be a total moron after all? This may be the only thing that will ever get me to rewatch Phantom Menace. We'll see.
Of course the extension of this is wondering how the new trilogy will continue to fit into the ring composition and mirror the overarching themes and events of all the previous films.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 5, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday August 15 2015, @11:44PM
Could GL not actually be a total moron after all?
Or can people simply find evidence to support their pet theory anywhere they look?
I suspect that if someone was so inclined they could write an article coming to the exact opposite conclusion with just as much conviction, and I'm by no means limiting my suspicion to only this article.
It's like that article I keep seeing on Facebook, about how the events of the Harry Potter series are actually the deluded imaginings of a mental patient, or something. Uh, no, actually it pretty much is about a kid who's a wizard.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Sunday August 16 2015, @12:10AM
Unless you want to offer up some evidence that the author's analysis is faulty and the Star Wars films were not actually put together in the form of a traditional ring composition, I don't see the point of your needlessly dismissive comments. Maybe you should actually read the article before commenting. Being dismissive is easy.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2015, @01:01AM
Perhaps it is you who needs to do some reading and not assume that the article is correct simply by virtue of existing.
Might I suggest starting with the Secret History of Star Wars [drbeat.li], which will lead you away from the oft-spoken of idea that Star Wars was born complete?
It's a story. It's not a work of art or genius - in fact, George Lucas' one true skill is managing extremely talented artists and film-makers. In short, he's simply a gifted manager and nothing more; even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and he happened to be in the right place at the right time with a simple story.
Think of it this way: if you want to know what his true contribution would have been without all those gifted people around him, look at the godawful prequel trilogy.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Sunday August 16 2015, @10:39AM
Don't worry. When I heard Mark Hamill in the "Making of Star Wars" production documentary _many_ years ago say that Lucas originally wanted to give C-3PO a "fast talking Brooklyn accent", I immediately knew that Lucas working alone would have produced an absolute crap movie. That was long before the prequels even existed. I'm under no illusions that he's the smartest man who ever lived or anything.
However, even the article doesn't say that Star Wars is a work of genius or sprang forth unbroken as a six or nine part series, just that it appears to have many complementary layers and scenes that link themes together both within each film and between each trilogy and the whole set overall. I have no trouble believing that GL has been making things up as he goes along from the very beginning and there never was a trilogy or even a six-part series originally intended, but the resulting ring composition is still rather clever and contributes to the films having a lasting effect on the industry and an ever-growing fan base. Regardless of whether or not the prequels are any good (they aren't). And even bad art is till art. You can't claim that it's not art just because you don't like it.
I still see nothing to show that the simple premise of the article is incorrect. The premise of the article is only that Star Wars is an ongoing ring composition with many obviously connecting layers and mirrored scenes based on various forms of symbolism about good vs. evil and such. By virtue of many different supporting examples, the premise seems pretty solid. The symbolism and repetition of themes is clearly there, and it has obviously been done very deliberately as time went on, even if it wasn't completely intended from the very beginning.
Unfortunately, just like with "Prometheus", making a movie chock full of multiple layers of symbolism doesn't necessarily mean that you made a great movie. It just means to managed to cram a lot of symbolism into a film.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday August 16 2015, @02:35AM
As I mention above, I take Lucas' own words as evidence. In an interview he said flat out that sequels were for losers, hence there would be none, period. Then the money really started rolling in, and then there were always going to be three. And then...
I'm reminded of a book-length treatise that was basically "Star Wars as evidence for the existence of Christ". People see the patterns they want to see.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2015, @03:33AM
How do you prove a negative?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Popeidol on Sunday August 16 2015, @03:44AM
I like David Malki's point of view [wondermark.com] (It's worth reading the whole thing):
What makes more sense to me is that, faced with the prospect of making prequel movies, and not wanting to screw it up, Lucas looked back at the original trilogy, and mined it.
...It’s kind of like a Rorchach test: it’s just a blob of ink, until you fold the paper in half. Once you mirror the pattern and start repeating things, every detail starts to look meaningful.
Most of the examples are pretty hard to dispute - but it assumes George Lucas wanted to take three existing movies, and around them create a 6-movie epic in an ancient poetry style...while not bothering to make them good movies.
While it's an interesting theory, I'm not sold on it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bugamn on Monday August 17 2015, @04:09AM
That's actually where I found this article. I thought it better to reference the article directly, so people could draw their own conclusions instead of being influenced by his opinion.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday August 15 2015, @11:12PM
...and if you watch The Wizard of Oz while playing Dark Side of the Moon it all syncs up.
Look at how the start of two of the movies are quite similar. Ooooh!
But also they are a bit different! Ahhhh!
Sometimes a bunch of space movies are just a bunch of space movies.
c.f. https://xkcd.com/451/ [xkcd.com]
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2015, @12:02AM
So he planned from the start that Jar Jar was only going to be a major feature of the first film and had nothing to do with the public reaction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @11:41PM
Big Sean - Dance (A$$) [songlyrics.com]
Ass, ass, ass, ass, ass
Ass, ass, ass, ass, ass
Ass, ass, ass, ass, ass
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Sunday August 16 2015, @03:00PM
I tend to disagree with this article's analysis. The prequels are similar to Return of the Jedi because George "Lack of Vision" Lucas had more input into these four films than the first two. If you study the developmental process such as through original draft scripts, the Dark Horse adaptation of "The Star Wars", various "making of" books, and "The Secret History of Star Wars" (all available from Amazon.com from their legal copyright holders, or you can just download them all in one big torrent), the franchise lurched from film to film with no plan at all. Return of the Jedi was largely a rehash of the first two films, except for the long (and pointless to the larger story) sequence with Jabba. Even the Ewok thing was taken from drafts of the first film. Both the second and third prequels had their stories changed to a significant degree after principle filming had ended, which made them even more confusing than they already were, as the film was edited together with parts of different stories from different times during shooting (not all scenes could be redone in pickups) left in the released film. Lucas had not even finished the stories of the second and third prequel by the time the filming had ended, so accusing him of having a master plan for the six films will not have a chance in court once the facts come out. Lucas didn't even have a master plan between the first film and Empire Strikes Back. The three prequels were made up on the spot, because all Lucas basically had was the idea that Anakin and Obi-Wan fought a duel near lava. The entire story with the clones and "the clone wars" is new, and contradicts the ideas for the clones that were around for ESB but never used.
Anyhow, my namesake and RedLetterMedia review the movies as movies, looking at the finished product, but if you legally purchase all the resources I mentioned above (or download a torrent) and study them, you'll see a developmental process that couldn't even produce one coherent prequel movie, let alone some sort of ring theory master plan for hooking all the movies together.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)