RETURN OF THE JEDI - Yay or Nay? - Page 2

That's hilarious, Imperator. Nice post.

All I can tell you is that it's what the man said. He said that it was meant to be like one of those old TV serials only you start watching it in the middle so you are only half sure of what is going on. Because of this confusion you think that Luke's story is the main focus of the film, but once you take a wider view of it you realize that the whole Star Wars saga is really about the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker.

I can't believe you questioned Ackbar's leadership. That man is a military genius.

A simple viewing of the first two films are enough to show you that the idea of the OT saga as being about Vader's redemption is sheer bullshit.

First up, nobody even knew Vader was Luke's father in the first film. That's a fact - read Annotated Star Wars Screenplays to see how none of the "saga" stuff even began until Empire. You will also see how nothing you take for granted was even remotely planned in advance. Leia as Luke's twin was 100% made up on the spot during script phase. The original novelization for A NEW HOPE - written by Lucas - has Luke and Leia 2 years apart in age.

Even then, there was the thought of having ben kenobi be Luke's dad, among other things. The redemption stuff was put in for ROTJ, probably because Lucas didn't want to end his series with a guy killing his dad. The idea of the whole series being about redemption comes ONLY after work begins on the PT.

Read old Lucas interviews, read books about the films. Lucas is notorious for changing his tune about STAR WARS time and again.

I find it odd he would change his story so much, even in the George Lucas documentary they claimed he had the basic Star Wars storyline all worked out as he was writing the original script, I can imagine a few new additions and revisions as time went on, such as the twin thing, but for the whole central idea of the story to be made up as things went along and then for Lucas to lie about it seems kind of farfetched.

And whether it was an idea spawned before or after the OT, I think the idea that it is really the story of Anakin Skywalker works and is consistent with all the films. I mean, the idea of perspective changes is nothing new, the first twenty minutes of A New Hope was seen through the eyes of the droids before making the shift to Luke, on a larger scale it would make sense that the story be told through the eyes of different characters as time goes on.

Don't believe ANY official thing you hear about the original films at this point. Read the book I linked to above to really get a good idea of how little Lucas had in mind with the original.

If anything, he has gone back to his earlier outlines to pluck names or basic concepts to use later, but that's just cannibalism. Thats' not a plan.

Intended or not, the trilogy still works as a redemption story for Vader.

A guy trying to make himself out to be smarter than he actually is --- that never happens.

I think I will track that book down, this is intriguing.

Lucas now claims twins was always part of the plan. The press at the time had Carrie Fisher claiming it was her idea. The original "another" was Anakin.

Are you serious? Where?
In the Jedi documentary shot years ago he plainly says they hadn't decided that until production time.

Well, Chewbacca could have been an EXCEPTION -- just because one Eskimo can program in C+ doesn't mean they all can.

I was under the impression that the ANH novelization was actually ghostwritten by Alan Dean Foster.

On the new 4th disc he says it was always part of the plan.

Whoever wrote it, don't you think Lucas would have caught that bit?

He could have played it that way, but I think he also figured it would be easier to round up a bunch of little people than find enough freakishly tall people to fit into the wookie costumes.

Unbelievable. He's got revisionist fever.

That would have been awesome.

But yeah, Lucas's actions in the last decade or so have been dangerous to filmmaking as a whole in my eyes, all this tinkering and bullshit is...bullshit. Tweaking CGI is not a problem, but rearranging the damn story over and over is fucked up. It just opens the floodgates for other directors to change their films, for dubious reasons too, like Speilberg and his post 9/11 non-shotgun weilding FBI agents E.T shenanigans. It'll only get worse.

Anyway, RotJ, an ok film, was my favourite as a kid. Kids grow up however...

Spielberg expressed his desire to change ET a decade or so before 9/1. He's always regretted the guns.

Ah, they always say that. Seriously though, think of your favourite movie and then imagine the director going back and changing unnesessary things, its just annoying and can lead to ridiculous things.

Everyone here more or less seems to hate the middle part of this movie and the ewoks, if Lucas had to change stuff in this trilogy then we all know what.

(note: E.T wasnt my favourite movie)

Am I the only one that sees that Devin's message implies he's actually read the novelization to Star Wars?

When 3P0 basically becomes folk storyteller and tells the SW tale to the 'primitives', it's meant to be a mini demo of what myths have done throughout world history.

INSPIRE.


The Ewoks NOW want to become part of this ongoing myth. They want to become players in the 'story'. That's their motivation.

How is it ludicrous? Because the Ewoks have a cutsey side to them?

You can say that about the whole saga. There's a goofy and cutsey aspect to the films from the opening scene of film 1. Does that nullify some of more interesting subtexts? I guess for some. I'm sure the anthropological subtext here wouldn't be as questioned by overgrown fanboys if Lucas used the less cute Wookiees in the tale.

Then again, Dre was seriously pondering the Vietnam motif in this very thread.



(Now that warrants a wink!)

The problem wasn't that the Ewoks were cute it's that they were too cute. Sickeningly cute, panderingly cute. It''s not the design of the characters it was the execution. The entire middle chapter of the film is completely devoid of tension and sense of threat because of how cute they were portrayed from the very first time they appear on screen. Just because they were small didn't mean they had to be portrayed as completely harmless. A better director would have tried to build up the threat of some native creatures that are hiding in the trees and the overgrown vegetation. Instead the enitire middle chapter of the film just sort of lays there as you watch it waiting for something to happen.

You are winking, but that comes from Lucas and I believe that side of it, the idea of the less techno savvy criters overthrowing those who rely on technology. Thematically it's consistant with the first film.

Primitives want to eat heroes.

Primitives falsely worship one of the heroes.

Primitives show friendship to heroes.

Primitives enchanted by the larger-than-life fairy tale of the heroes.

Primitives are inspired by the story of these fantastic events.

Primitives realize the story isn't over.

Primitives are inspired to play a part in the 'tale', and become big heroes at the end of the story.

Future storytelling will now include these heroic primitives as pivotal players in the fairy tale.

And the storytelling will go on and on........


If that is not the chain of events in JEDI, please tell me where I'm mistaken.


The above is what mythmaking and the oral story tradition is all about. It's the kind of stuff Lucas studied before he even went to film school as an anthropology major. Regardless of the cutsey "entertainment" value (or lack thereof), the subtext IS there. That's what mythmaking was all about. Lucas didn't fluke this storypoint. Sheesh.


But keep denying it all you want.

I haven't heard any quotes or comments from the filmmakers on this... but I think mecha is probably right. Lucas is a great believer in Joseph Campbell's monomyth, and goes so far as to call Campbell his 'mentor'. The whole structure of ANH follows Campbell's prototype Hero Cycle, and the following films add complications and sub-plots without ever deviating significantly from the Hero Cycle blueprint. He has said that part of his goal with Star Wars was to provide a new mythology for his generation, and his kid's generation. As far as that goes he's been moderately successful.

Considering all that it's very possible the Ewoks are the proxy for the audience in that scene- They are learning their mythology the way Homer's predecessors sang the Iliad around campfires. And the whole point of the monomyth is that it motivates people to change their perspectives and actions to conform with the heroic ideals expressed in the stories. That's why the Ewoks fight.

The scene fails spectacularly as cinema because we can't accept Threepio as a sage storyteller and we don't identify with the Ewoks. The scene hovers between "cute" and "funny", when it really should be "inspiring". Still, I think the intent is pretty damn obvious.

I remember an interview with Jay Cocks in a screenplay magazine, during the release of "Gangs Of New York"( If you don't know who he is, he's a former Time Magazine film critic who became buddies and even a creative "confidant" with several of the 'movie brats' of the 70s. He also cowrote "Strange Days" with James Cameron in the early 90s. The guy get's around). Anyway, they asked him to give his impression of all the big guys of the 70s, and obviously Lucas' name came up. He was asked whether he could foresee the phenomenon of SW in the those early days of the decade.

His impression of George was a quiet and modest guy walking around with Frazer's "The Golden Bough" under one arm, and the "Works of Alex Raymond" under the other.

I can think of no other reason for that scene to exist. Lucas has told a lot of tall tales about the creation of Star Wars... the whole notion that Anakin was the central character from even before ANH was greenlit is a bag of bullshit... but his connection with Campbell is real. After all, it's Campbell who made a point of complimenting Lucas for applying his own mythmaking principles.

I don't get the "giving Lucas too much credit" thing. I'm just saying he worked a lot of his own philosophy into the Star Wars script, inluding Buddhism-lite and the Campbell Hero Cycle. It's not friggin rocket science, and not all of it worked particularly well. The scene we're talking about is a big fuck-up from a cinematic POV. It's fair-to-mediocre storytelling. How's that for not giving too much credit?

But I do NOT believe that Star Wars OT was written by committee, I do NOT agree that merchandizing was the primary motivation for the OT, and I do NOT believe Lucas is an idiot or a hack. He was telling the story he wanted to tell. He put the storytelling scene in because he was trying to make some point, NOT because he wanted to sell some more Ewok toys. The OT Lucas was NOT entirely a sell-out.

Can't say the same about the PT Lucas.

I don't quite understand why we even need bother discussing what lucas says, or when he came up with these ideas, in regards to the meaning of the saga. yeah it would probably have made for a more cohesive whole (most certainly in the PT) if he had planned it all out in advance, but what's on the screen is on the screen. mecha is exactly right in his analysis, and just because it was handled in a silly way doesn't mean the subtext isn't there. as for vader's redemption... again, it's on the screen. besides, doesn't darth vader mean "dark father"? whether he was supposed to be redeemed through luke (as it turned out) or destroyed by luke, it's still consistent with mythological underpinnings. this doesn't say anything about the quality of the work, they're two different topics that you guys seem to wanna cram together.

Ewoks always complain, "Oh, it's the Empire....the Empire makes us look bad." Bullsh*t!

When I'm at the ATM at three o'clock in the morning, I'm not checkin' over my shoulder for Imperial Stormtroopers, I'm looking for Ewoks!

Yeah, 'cause you never know when the little fuckers will sneak up behind you and rob you blind.

What if George Lucas wrote it all, and he doesn't know why, kinda like Stephen King with the Dark Tower books. What if?

I agree with the cycle of how myths are born, but as was said, it's not convincing on screen at all. The viewer is forced to apply too much outside knowledge to understand what is happening and you never know if it's the true intent of the film makers. The Matrix apoligists did this and were stomped on hard the geek community. SW is built on simple concepts and age old myths. The fact that most people are blind to Mecha's explanation is an indication that it was communicated poorly. If we go into Matrix like apoligizing and start creating reasons for things happening by citing all sorts of pre-existing works, then the item of discussion is a failure.

Until Lucas changes his mind, and its not on the screen anymore.

Someone should make a ghetto ewok parody or film, they can look threatening in groups, especially wearing bandanas and carrying knives.

It's on the laserdisc documentary.

Like I said, they always say that.

I really don't think it's necessary to contemplate the Ewok motivation on a mythical level to understand intuitively what's going on with the Ewoks in the 3rd act, on a simple narrative entertainment level.

The simple analysis...

After hearing why the heroes are on their planet, they initiate their new friends as members of their tribe. The Ewoks now want to help their new friends.


I mean as a kid, I got that. It's not rocket science that they have become friends with their former captives and now want to assist them. The fact that they became "one of the tribe" after being enchanted by the stories, is understood by a child without getting into the whole anthropological angle. I'd also say the fact that it's probably a little riff on Peter Pan helps too(ie: Wendy telling and inspiring her brothers with stories they will one day play a part in).

Here's a question:
'
How many folks here liked/loved Ewoks as a kid?

I was ten when Jedi came out and I don't think I thought anything of them either way. I thought Jabba was cool as hell in all his grossness. My sister was a year younger and adored the ewoks though. I think she still does.

As I kid I didnt find them cute, though I wondered if they were meant to be some horrible allegory to Indians or something, because their language sounded like it. Infact I still wonder!

The emperor and Jabba naturally disgusted me and still do to this day, some things never change.

As a kid, I hated the Ewoks. but then, I also hated C3PO and R2 whom I now like. I think kids can separate out who the "cool" characters are and who the idiots are. I think I like the droids now because I understand their role, but when I was younger, all I cared about is lasers and things blowing up.

I agree that you're not supposed to put too much thought into these, but what's on screen just doesn't convey much sense until you begin to apply the formula that mecha posted. At that point, it's too much thought.

that's a whole different debate from the point I was making. if you're going to bring that up in the context I was speaking in, you might as well not talk about the movies at all. the changes have, for the most part, been dumb (and relatively minor.) but if you don't think someone can talk about the meaning behind a piece of "art" because the next time you see it it might be slightly different, I hope you never find your way into a play.

"I agree with Devin that it's not "about" Vader's redemption. That happens, sure, but that angle came into play with the prequels, that the whole "saga" is really about Vader. Pfft"
The first trilogy's main theme is the growth of Luke Skywalker into a Jedi Knight. The redemption of Vader is really a secondary theme which is not even hinted at in ANH.

"Not according to George Lucas, watch the commentary."
If you have not noticied, Lucas is heavily into revisionism about his films. "There were never nine films...only six" etc. You can't really believe everything a artist says about his own work. No matter how briliant, artists are just as prone to bullshit as everybody else.
If the redemption of Vader is the saga's main theme, then Lucas sure as hell screwed up the structure in the first two films of the original trilogy, where it is hardly ever evident.....
I think Lucas had a plot outline for the six films, but it was just that..an outline.. and he did make up a lot of the details as he went along. And now he is trying to back pedel....

Well I was responding to this:

And I was basically saying that in this day and age, whats on the screen is at risk of not being there anymore, I used to think once a film was in the can, that was it, out of the director's hands, in history. But its not like that anymore, the 'directors cut' is now the 'directors reimagining'. So I guess it doesnt matter when he came up with these ideas or what they meant when he came up with them, they are constantly subject to change. Absolute power corrupts.

lol, now we're out of context! But oh well, I guess cinema is constantly evolving.

not out of context. it's irrelevant what lucas does to the star wars movies in the future, because what we're discussing now are the films we've all already seen. I was responding to the notion that because lucas claimed to have come up with the ideas far before he probably actually came up with them it altered the fact that the movies were about those ideas.

ROTJ Rules

Return is awesome right on par with Empire - The losers just hate the ewoks but Star Wars is all about the little dude overcoming the MAN.

I love Jedi as much as Empire and always will. I watched it more than the other two as a child, thus cementing its "classic" status in my brain for all time. Nostalgia aside, it's problems lie here:

1. Death Star II = lazy plotting.

2. Ewoks. While I like the whole "unlikely, primitive culture defeats the Empire" subplot, they should have kept it as a bunch of Wookiees. Just because Chewbacca was sophisticated doesn't mean they all have to be (though apparently Lucas thought so).

3. Han Solo. I love the character of Han, as well as Harrison Ford, but he really served no purpose in this film, aside from the opening Jabba sequence. Who's the most to blame? In my book, it's Harrison Ford himself. Sure Lucas could have given him some better material to work with, but it's completely obvious that he DID NOT want to be in this film and doesn't give two shits about the whole thing. It's no secret that Harrison resents his Star Wars involvement to a certain degree, and like Alec Guinness, kept trying to find ways to escape the franchise.

Moments of brilliance:
1. Luke/Yoda on Dagobah again.

2. Jabba's Palace/Sail Barge Battle.

3. Attack against the 2nd Death Star.

4. Most importantly, all scenes with Luke/Emperor/Vader. It's pure magic.


By the way, I have a strong feeling that more than anything, it's the nostalgia factor that keeps some fans from loving the prequels as good films (in spite of their actual inferiority to the OT). Try and tell me that the child generation of today isn't going to love the prequels in 20 years as much as we love the originals right now. They will, you'll see.

I wouldn't say I'm nostalgic about the OT-- for one thing, I've always hated JEDI, unambiguously.

Nevertheless, the first two films are important to me. Living at a time when you could only see a movie in the theatre, and not getting to go see it repeatedly like the other kids, I had to read books and magazines to keep up. That was where I learned how movies are made, and how they affect us the way they do. "The Star Wars Album", in particular, made me aware of the way STAR WARS drew inspiration and ideas from earlier films, which, years later I made a point to hunt down and watch on their own. Again, this was before home video.

STAR WARS was my door to cinema, and I can't forget that. I study it compulsively and I still learn lessons from it, but I can't say I actually love it. Our relationship is... complex.

I saw the OT for the first time when i was 9 in 1997 (specials i know) but never got to see ROTJ at the cinema which was a shame. I'm not sure if the child generation will love the PT in around 20 yrs, i was 11 when it came out and i don't think much of it. hmmm

Was that the first time you saw any SW at all? If so, did you have any awareness of the movies before you actually saw them? As an OG OT viewer, I'm curious to know how your first impression was formed.

73 votes for "good stuff"? Jesus! AOTC was better than ROTJ... and that´saying something!