Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday August 15 2015, @09:58PM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by RedBear on Saturday August 15 2015, @11:09PM

    by RedBear (1734) on Saturday August 15 2015, @11:09PM (#223385)

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday August 15 2015, @11:44PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday August 15 2015, @11:44PM (#223390) Homepage

    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

      by RedBear (1734) on Sunday August 16 2015, @12:10AM (#223395)

      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.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2015, @01:01AM (#223413)

        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...

        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

          by RedBear (1734) on Sunday August 16 2015, @10:39AM (#223492)

          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, 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.

          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

        by Reziac (2489) on Sunday August 16 2015, @02:35AM (#223434) Homepage

        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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2015, @03:33AM (#223442)

        Unless you want to offer up some evidence that [the films] ... were not actually put together in the form of a traditional ring composition

        How do you prove a negative?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Popeidol on Sunday August 16 2015, @03:44AM

      by Popeidol (35) on Sunday August 16 2015, @03:44AM (#223444) Journal

      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

        by bugamn (1017) on Monday August 17 2015, @04:09AM (#223759)

        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.