1. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

WHAT ONE ELEMENT WOULD YOU CHANGE OF THE ORIGINALS?

Discussion in 'Original Trilogy' started by CTrent29, Dec 17, 2016.

  1. Messi

    Messi Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Posts:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    3,920
    Trophy Points:
    11,817
    Credits:
    6,118
    Ratings:
    +5,116 / 161 / -23
    Twi'leks are cool, it would have been interesting.

    One thing that I found very interesting is the fact that David Lynch was one of the choices to direct ROTJ, if he would accepted to direct it....will the final word of GL had prevailed? I meant: would the ewoks be in the movie?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. eeprom

    eeprom Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Posts:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    3,039
    Trophy Points:
    10,717
    Credits:
    3,054
    Ratings:
    +4,612 / 25 / -9
    I certainly respect the intention of this thread. It’s opinion based editorializing. There is no wrong answer. It’s based on personal experience, taste, and preference. That’s not what I was responding to in your post. My issue isn’t with your specific partiality for a particular motif and mild disaffection over its absence or how maybe the thematic structure might have been improved with its inclusion. It’s how you arrived there. I find your assessment of the plot to be inaccurate and the conclusions you came to, based on those inaccuracies, erroneous.
    I feel your appraisal of the narrative’s content is unfounded and provably false. The Luke character does have growth, he does make a choice, he does accept his role, and his decisive climactic contribution is entirely in keeping with the presented story. You seem to have made declarative statements of valuation based on personal opinion and not actual criticality. My intention was to present evidence to the contrary, not disparage your perspective.

    I’m not saying a proposed alternate arc for Luke is invalid. I’m not saying the arc we got was pristine and immutable. I’m just saying that there is indeed a pronounced arc for the character and one that works soundly in conjunction with the elements found in the story. Having an opinion is one thing. Misrepresenting the situation in order to validate that opinion, is something else. Make sense? :)
     
  3. cawatrooper

    cawatrooper Jedi Commander

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Posts:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    10,665
    Trophy Points:
    89,367
    Credits:
    11,034
    Ratings:
    +13,805 / 50 / -33
    On the subject of Luke's arc, I'd agree with @Jayson that it's really bland in A New Hope.

    But over the entirety of the trilogy, I think his arc is brilliant, if not fully realized.
     
  4. Jayson

    Jayson Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Posts:
    727
    Likes Received:
    1,413
    Trophy Points:
    5,817
    Credits:
    1,914
    Ratings:
    +2,603 / 20 / -12
    I absolutely agree that Luke has an arc; I never intended to claim otherwise.
    It is, however, that to me his arc is effectively meaningless and trivial compared to the motifs that are sitting right there and available for use.

    Regardless of the reasons revolving why that arc is as it is, it is the situation that the arc in place, to me, is a very weak arc that does not employ as much for Luke as I would rather see considering the motifs that are available, and the mystically grand stature of the elements surrounding the story.

    Again, I'm not claiming that Luke doesn't have an arc, or that it's an invalid arc.
    It is simply that I find it rather flat and uninteresting by comparison to what could have been with a few tiny tweaks here and there.

    Cheers,
    Jayson
    --- Double Post Merged, Sep 13, 2018, Original Post Date: Sep 13, 2018 ---
    Right, absolutely it is fully realized over the trilogy. Lucas definitely made it a focal point to refocus the arc for Luke back on the Arthurian track and refrain the motifs as he had originally intended to do in ANH.

    Cheers,
    Jayson
    --- Double Post Merged, Sep 13, 2018 ---
    To further explain my views, I'll try this approach.

    In story telling, there's the event story and usually we explore that event narrative through following a character who has a character narrative that isn't directly related to the event narrative.
    Luke has a character narrative that is fully employed, but the fully employed character narrative is a superfluous, or top-layer narrative relating to his ideal views and being a whiny kid who grows up a bit along his path to becoming the heroic pilot that he always dreamed of becoming.
    This narrative allows for Luke to reasonably move from point A to point B in the story, and doesn't have any problems in supporting the relationship of Luke to the event narrative.

    What we don't have is a character narrative defined by personal character struggles that aren't directly related to the event narrative.
    Or, rather, we don't have a full narrative.
    We have the beginnings of one, but then it's dropped until the subsequent films where it's picked back up and explored again, but in Act 3 of ANH (and arguably the second half of Act 2), it's effectively put on pause.

    In Act 1 we're presented with an opening for Luke's personal struggle narrative and path for redemption by Luke having his entire family and mentor wiped out and learning of a mystical heritage which he then must take up; one which revolves around balancing one's personal demons/emotions to achieve self-realization and fruition.
    The impression that you get is quite clearly that Vader is a representative personal antagonist icon to Luke's anguishes (not his pining, but his losses and internal strife) and that the Force represents a path to resolution of Luke's inner turmoil.
    Because of these two early positions, there is a field for harvesting of Luke for his personal narrative where he must face his pain and anguish, fail to resolve it, and then succeed at some level to learn from that failure through a success out of lessons learned; revolving around the motifs of the icon of his personal strife and by means of the icons of his path to salvation (the Force via a saber), which logically would lead to a one on one duel between Vader and Luke if you pursued that set up and motif set to the end.

    Instead, this wasn't followed through (as mentioned, for various logistics reasons), and therefore it created a sort of a (as mentioned previously) "tantric" effect of leaving the deeper aspects of Luke's struggle and internal character narrative dangling.

    I just happen to not enjoy that tease, and think that the story could have been wrapped up within ANH without damaging the value of the trilogy set because Luke doesn't have to learn all of his lessons in ANH, but instead only learn one (which he doesn't learn in ANH): you can't just solve your problems by pretending to be the hero that you always wanted to be, but if you try earnestly, you can instead be a hero for others.

    This lends an opening to the trilogy's whole moral tale revolving around Luke; that self-interest doesn't lead to self-liberation as one would think, but instead that thinking of others and being self-willing does.

    This idea wouldn't even get in the way of ESB and Luke being gung-ho there, because if Luke faced Vader in ANH and failed, he would hardly face him, and he would only think that his failure was a lack of training, and still want for revenge as we see him in ESB, and immediately provides motivation for seeking Yoda for training in ESB - under his assumption that he needs to get better, rather than realizing quite yet that the lesson he actually experienced wasn't about his skill level, but his emotional motivation (and would add another layer to Yoda's warning that Luke wasn't ready because he hadn't completed his training, and another layer in Luke ignoring that warning).


    And again, this doesn't say that Luke's arc in ANH is invalid, or that it's not supportive of the film's story.
    It's just an extrapolation out of what fuel was put in Act 1 for a more in-depth Luke narrative that wasn't really used in ANH for various reasons.

    ANH is still among my favorite SW films. :)

    Cheers,
    Jayson
     
    #144 Jayson, Sep 13, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  5. Jaxxon

    Jaxxon Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Posts:
    317
    Likes Received:
    1,767
    Trophy Points:
    6,842
    Credits:
    1,756
    Ratings:
    +2,225 / 15 / -0
    Just the second act of RotJ. For me, that's the only real failure of the OT. I have no problem with Ewoks, but the story itself just drags to a near standstill during act II, in my opinion. But the Jabba stuff at the beginning and the entire third act are some of the best Star Wars moments for me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...

Share This Page