Please don't kill me

[Circa]

I've never had that feeling with the original trilogy. The only things I've seen that have changed it for the worse is the "Han didn't shoot first" thing (but mostly because the change was done so badly), and The Force Unleashed storyline. Other than those, I see no damage done.

[Cerez]

That's interesting. I still remember a time when the Clone Wars was an overwhelming historical event, when the Jedi knights were a mysterious force from the ancient past who possessed almost magical powers, and where a young boy was forced to embark on a great adventure to find the shocking truth behind his greatest fears -- to the audience's delight. Where the world of Star Wars was not so scientific and held elements of great mystery and magic.

 

The story told today is not that same story.

 

EDIT:

 

 

"Before the dark times, before Lucas had…"

[therfiles]

That's not entirely fair, @@Cerez. The fleshing out of those elements was done primarily by the book authors (initially) then by the prequels, which the fans genuinly wanted. Everything about Star Wars was completely new and mysterious when it came out. Even the way the story was told, the lack of opening exposition, the exciting action was very new when the film first came out. The fans wanted more Star Wars and they definitly got it. Granted, midiclorians was certainly a step in the wrong direction.

 

I really hope that same element of mysticism is presented in VII. That's why the removal of post EP 6 canon was so vital.

[Circa]

I mean, yeah, there was mystery and intrigue because it was the first movie. It was meant to tickle your imagination. Those stories were bound to be told though. Star Wars became such a huge universe with thousands of stories to tell, and they stem from that first movie.

[eezstreet]

That's interesting. I still remember a time when the Clone Wars was an overwhelming historical event, when the Jedi knights were a mysterious force from the ancient past who possessed almost magical powers, and where a young boy was forced to embark on a great adventure to find the shocking truth behind his greatest fears -- to the audience's delight. Where the world of Star Wars was not so scientific and held elements of great mystery and magic.

 

The story told today is not that same story.

 

EDIT:

 

 

"Before the dark times, before Lucas had…"

This guy gets it.

 

Fuck midichlorians.

[Cerez]

I mean, yeah, there was mystery and intrigue because it was the first movie. It was meant to tickle your imagination. Those stories were bound to be told though. Star Wars became such a huge universe with thousands of stories to tell, and they stem from that first movie.

 

Yeah, but what you both seem to keep missing is that in the process of adding in those details and making changes a vital essence of the story was lost. The humanitarian value of the artwork was compromised by the author/owner of the work.

 

Those details did not have to be told. There were other ways the lore could have been expanded that would have preserved the integrity of the original art.

[Circa]

I suppose so. But I like to see how things happen. Very rarely am I upset with a sequel or prequel. Part of that is because I'm very open minded when it comes to most things. But it's mostly because I like to see the bigger picture and more content. I love Star Wars, so getting more Star Wars is a very good thing to me.

 

I do understand what you're saying though. You make good points.

[CrimsonStrife]

Yeah, but what you both seem to keep missing is that in the process of adding in those details and making changes a vital essence of the story was lost. The humanitarian value of the artwork was compromised by the author/owner of the work.

 

Those details did not have to be told. There were other ways the lore could have been expanded that would have preserved the integrity of the original art.

 

It was Lucas's concept and property.  HIS universe, the EU was created by individuals which he licensed the IP out to for their stories, but at no point was he required to do so, or even acknowledge they existed, and he doesn't have to keep any of them either.  It is his creative license to do what he wants to these universes, these stories.  We can belly-ache, but that's it, it is his, and now by proxy Disney's right and prerogative to do what they see fit.

 

It's his (and their) artistic license, and creative freedom.  To claim any value of the artwork was lost because the vision of the author has changed, is not ours to make.

[Flynn]

I'm just excited for the new movies because I know they'll be good movies - IMO Abrams did a bang-up job with the new Star Treks, and I'm sure that EPVII and beyond will be good standalone movies.

Whether they'll fit into the canon? That doesn't really matter so much to me. I can keep the EU canon and the movie canon separate, and there doesn't have to be a complete divide between the two either.

Also on the subject of characters and their creators- Lucas did create the universe, so he has license to do whatever he pleases with it. His actions may not be received well (cough cough prequels) but as the creator, he is allowed to do that. You can complain about the direction of the characters all you want but that won't change his mind or ideas.

 

TL;DR EPVII won't necessarily be a good Star Wars movie (in terms of canon) but it will be a good movie, and Lucas may be a dick but he has license to do so.

[Cerez]

It's his (and their) artistic license, and creative freedom.  To claim any value of the artwork was lost because the vision of the author has changed, is not ours to make.

 

CrimsonStrife, so you're saying that the voice of the person who appreciates the artwork the artist has created should not be heard? That the fan/reader/viewer's experience should not be respected and taken into consideration?

 

The artist creates, but he/she needs to do so in respect to themselves, to their own work, and the effect their work has on the audience. I believe a good artist will never desecrate their own work. As human beings we are not in full control of all that we create. Other factors come into play. And that's why we have to be careful and respectful towards what we have created.

 

I feel the artwork that I've started this thread with shows exactly this dilemma of the creator: torn between his uncertainty whether to make drastic changes, or whether to preserve the integrity of his original creation. All the while the artwork (the character) stands on the other side, her fate entirely determined at the mercy of the creator, but witnessed by countless people in the audience, whose hearts are affected by the artist's changes.

 

Lucas did create the universe, so he has license to do whatever he pleases with it. His actions may not be received well (cough cough prequels) but as the creator, he is allowed to do that. You can complain about the direction of the characters all you want but that won't change his mind or ideas.

 

The point of this thread so far has been not to complain, but to discuss the relationship between the artist and his creation, as presented in the artwork I have shared at the start of this post.

[Circa]

I don't think everyone is making it as personal as you are assuming.

 

If all this is too off topic for you @@Cerez, I can clean it up for you if you'd like. I thought it was a decent discussion though. 

[therfiles]

I agree with you @@Cerez, about the artist's vision, but in this instance, I really doubt that Lucas 'desecrated' his work intentionally. He thought Star Wars was for kids, and that many of the themes he wanted to get across had already been successfully delivered with the OT. He just wanted to fill in this immense story that he desperately wanted to tell. So it's natural that the fans were outraged by the prequels, as the fan base had grown up significantly, naturally they thought the material would grow with them.

 

While a good artist respects and builds on the thoughts and opinions of his audience, I believe it his/her mission to challenge and evolve that vision further. That may not come across successfully, and it probably didn't in this instance, but an artist should hardly be locked into what his audience had begun to expect from him/her.

 

Plus, Lucas didn't write TCW or make the decision to remove the EU. Let's not bash him too hard.

 

This a good discussion, IMO. Excellent points.

[Jeff]

I just want a refund for all the damn books I read that now suddenly never happened

[Cerez]

but an artist should hardly be locked into what his audience had begun to expect from him/her.

 

I agree with this entirely. But as an artist myself I find that it helps not to touch what has been completed, or what works, exactly for this reason. Out of respect for the creation, and for the audience that appreciates it. That doesn't stop an artist from moving forward. There's a point where every artist needs to let go of their artwork, and release their baby to the world. Beyond that, changing anything is altering the integrity of the artwork, and in my belief showing a form of disrespect towards one's own creation.

 

George Lucas is a good example, as what he did unsuccessfully represents this issue in creative rules/philosophy really well.

 

And while it's true that Lucas didn't create everything on his own, the work was still his property as an author, and he had moral responsibility over it while handing out licenses, permissions, and overviewing new work created for his fictional universe. In fact, he still does to this day, supervising the production of the new trilogy as the original author and advisor.

[Circa]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. As an artist, I create things for my own enjoyment. If others enjoy it too, that's great. But I'll never limit myself to other people's standards just to please them, while sacrificing my own visions and enjoyment.

[Cerez]

No, no-no; I'm not saying that as an artist I would create work solely for others' enjoyment, @@Circa. Quite the contrary. Art is an expression of the artist, and it needs to stay personal at all times.

 

But once the artwork is considered done for the first time by the artist, and released to the world; from that point there should be no further changes necessary. If the artist seeks to improve his/her own work, they should do so by creating a new artwork, not by mending the already published one.

 

The original artwork should be preserved for what it is, with all its merits and faults. That's what I firmly believe. Because sometimes faults add just as much to the integrity and value of an artwork.

 

And there is the chance factor, the "gift of the muse", the "magical" essence that contributed to its first creation that would be compromised with a second interference by the artist.

[Ping]

You claim that a work of art should not be changed or amended once it has been published. This is fair enough, but Lucas has not actually changed very much of anything once it was published - with the sole exception of the special edition re-release of the original trilogy, where he added scenes and touched it up here and there. So he didn't change his published artworks; but this is of course not what you are referring to. You claim that the prequels, the Rebels series that replaced the Clone Wars and all that are changing the way we perceive the story in a bad way. Now, clearly you are not advocating never making any prequels/sequels to anything, since that would be absurd, and since it is inevitable for a prequel/sequel to change our perception of the original, the original artwork is necessarily going to be changed whenever some piece of the story is added to it. So your original issue has to be amended from "don't change anything about the artwork you have already published" to "don't change it in a bad way", where 'bad way' refers to something about hurting the integrity of the story, making it into something that it originally wasn't.

 

Now this is where things get a bit tricky. We surely all agree that Lucas didn't one day wake up and go 'well, I guess it's time to destroy everything that was good about SW and rob its integrity'. So what he wanted to do was to expand the story in a way that he thought was appropriate, i.e. in a way that maybe even fit his vision for what SW originally was supposed to be like. Others saw the result and disagreed that it had expanded the story in a way that was appropriate because it conflicted with the way they thought about SW. Who is right? It depends on whether or not we include the intention of the artist into our evaluation of the artwork and whether or not Lucas' vision for SW did change over the course of the years. 

 

If we do accept that the intention of the artist should be taken into account, then Lucas is right and what you perceive to be an attack on SW's integrity merely expresses your misunderstanding of what it was originally supposed to be. But even if we do accept that the intention has to be taken into account and we say that Lucas' intention changed over the years in important ways, i.e. where he originally thought of SW as a spacedrama but then thought of it as a show for kids, we'd have to argue that this somehow constitutes a bad change, which I don't think it has to. If we don't take the intention into account, then maybe Lucas was wrong, but not taking it into account creates really terrible problems for art crticism that I'm not sure we should buy into.

 

But there is a second way it could have been 'changed in a bad way'. If we accept for now that what Lucas did to whatever original artwork, in terms of adding to the story or changing its direction, does not constitute changing it in a bad way, it could be that what does constitute changing it in a bad way is the way he put those changes into effect, i.e. his cinematography. It could be, after all, that the idea for an expansion to artwork x was a good one, but the artwork y that resulted out of that idea sucked as a movie, regardless of its merit as a sequel. I think we are in a far better position to judge this case than we are with the previous one and I think Lucas did fail here. Having movies in a series that genuinely sucked does hurt the series' credit and so hurts the original artwork by mere association. But this isn't about the integrity of the plot and more about whether or not his movies sucked, which means it's hard to draw anything normative out of that except for "don't make movies that suck."

[Onysfx]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. As an artist, I create things for my own enjoyment. If others enjoy it too, that's great. But I'll never limit myself to other people's standards just to please them, while sacrificing my own visions and enjoyment.

Well said.

 

As well, I think that the established canon severly limits what JJ can do for episode 7. You know what made star wars great in the first place? It was something new, mysterious, something amazing that you had never seen before. New creative ideas. And I certainly hope, that is the feeling JJ can bring back. 

 

WE DON'T NEED MORE OF THE SAME, WE NEED SOMETHING NEW. I understand you all have feelings for the EU, but it doesn't have to be wrecked completely. Look at the zelda series, it has a timeline split that goes into 3 different timelines. Not that I'm saying star wars should take that route but...I really think that's what star wars needs. A movie that makes you come out of the theatre with the movie still looping in your head over and over.

 

....not to mention John Williams is doing the music again

[Futuza]

MIGHTY JOHN WILLIAMS.

 

The main reason I see any movie.

[Cerez]

Thanks for your thoughts, and opinions, @@Ping. The way you've expressed them at first made me jump back in fright a little, but I do see your point about the prequel/sequel problem.

 

I will pose the question, though, is it really necessary for a prequel or sequel to impact the original work, and, furthermore, if Lucas' intention was to expand on or continue the original story, why had he changed the feel and thematic content of the artwork? I don't remember the original trilogy have so many action sequences and so little character development, for example.

 

In serial fiction, the episodes are usually tied in a manner where the overall essence of the series is maintained throughout, even if the individual stories differ.

 

For instance, the Back to the Future series is a good example. The episodes have an entirely different storyline, and each even have a completely different time period and location, and yet they all feel as though they are a part of the same work of art. The original trilogy of Star Wars does the same, as does the original Indiana Jones trilogy.

 

The same thing can't be said about the fourth Indiana Jones film, which, although it attempts to mimic the feel of the original series, fails to capture much of the essence of the original artwork.

 

If an author/artist is going to revisit a work of art they have released 10 years ago, they ought to do it in a manner that preserves the integrity of the original artwork. That's no easy task (largely due to the passage of time), and that's why I think, as a rule of thumb, that, once finished and released, an artwork should not be re-edited or altered in any way by the original artist -- especially if considerable time has passed since its initial release.

 

The on-going problem with the new Star Wars is exactly this: while all the content is intended to fall into the same work of art, they do so in a way where old content is being replaced and "overwritten" by new content, and the older work of art is constantly being affected or compromised by the new.

 

That's what I mean about the Clone Wars series as well. For the sake of argument, let's take the Star Wars: The Clone Wars as an original, independent work of art. If the Clone Wars series was an individual work of art, with its own style, not tied to the grand label of Star Wars, the series and its character would endure and survive the passage of time. But now we have another series that mimics the style of the old one, also labelled as Star Wars, that changes the overall themes and essence of the original artwork, and pushes the original work of art into the background. Therefore no respect is being paid to the old series and its characters. I'm hope what I'm trying to say here makes sense.

[CrimsonStrife]

But now we have another series that mimics the style of the old one, also labelled as Star Wars, that changes the overall themes and essence of the original artwork, and pushes the original work of art into the background. Therefore no respect is being paid to the old series and its characters. I'm hope what I'm trying to say here makes sense.

 

But this would imply that the events of Rebels are to overwrite the events of The Clone Wars, of which we've yet to see any evidence.  The style has changed, likely because the targeted audience has changed.  The Clone Wars very obviously started out as a show for children more than adults, but the show somewhat matured as it's audience did.  Now while that audience would still likely love to have a Star Wars showed aimed at them, Disney and LucasFilm want to take the program and market it back at the original target age range.  Easiest way to do that is to just start over.

 

None of that is being erased, and we have no reason to think that we might not see some of those characters yet return in the future, so nothing is being lost in regards to that series.

[Cerez]

Hmm… It's too early to say yet, but deep down I still feel that the same thing is taking place with the Clone Wars to Rebels transition as with the rest of the Star Wars art so far.

 

But let's move away from the Clone Wars series, and look at the earlier work (like the prequels to original trilogy relation) to analyse the artist to art subject relation and determine the general artistic possibilities with the new sequel, Episode VII, in the series.

 

That may help us to come to some worthwhile conclusions about sequential art and the artist's proper conduct in relation to his/her work.

[Lamented]

Here's something that will kill you, however:

 

Did you know the same guy in that picture wanted Ahsoka to die in Season 5? Not such a beautiful picture anymore. He was trying to pimp her.

[Cerez]

Did you know the same guy in that picture wanted Ahsoka to die in Season 5? Not such a beautiful picture anymore. He was trying to pimp her.

 

I know there was a rumour circulating about that. I know that George played a part in the creation of Ahsoka, and that him and Dave (the director of the series) kept in active touch regarding the development to her character. It's also obvious that there had to be a way to prevent Ahsoka from being able to appear later in the original trilogy films and in Episode 3, but I don't think killing her was actually intentionally discussed as a plan of action at any point.

[Ping]

@@Cerez: You still affirm that a published artwork should not be changed, except that this should hold especially so if the artwork was released a longer time ago. You argue against denying sequels by saying that there can be a good amount of continuity in the "essence" and "feel" of a handful of movies in a series, so making sequels is fine as long as you preserve those original aspects. You then say that this is hard, but especially so with movies that were released a long time ago due to the passage of time, so they should not be revisited or changed.

 

But although there might be some continuity between original and sequel, as long as the sequel is tied to the series thematically in some way, it necessarily impacts the original at the very least by mere association (that was my last point in the previous reply) and very often it does so because it adds to the story or plot in some way; whatever adds to the story changes the original by mere expansion of it. So the sole fact that we do have a sequel necessarily changes the original - of course it might preserve certain elements like what you call the "feel" of it, but it does change it in other ways, so you can't say that one should never change the original without saying we should never make prequels/sequels.

 

However, that was exactly my point and I'd be merely repeating myself: If we affirm that sequels are ok, we also affirm that some changes are ok. The point then is figuring out what sort of changes are ok or whose perception of what the "essence" of a movie is should count more. I argued that we can't make sense of "essence" without taking the author's intention into account, and if Lucas' intention was to make action movies all along, then he's merely right. Even if his intention about the genre changed, it might have stayed the same about other stuff, so it doesn't follow that this change is necessarily bad. 

 

 

 

The on-going problem with the new Star Wars is exactly this: while all the content is intended to fall into the same work of art, they do so in a way where old content is being replaced and "overwritten" by new content, and the older work of art is constantly being affected or compromised by the new.

From what I said follows that merely because something is replaced, overwritten or compromised by something new it doesn't have to be bad at all, and I can back it up with examples too: Empire Strikes Back fully and completely overwrote and replaced the initial way we thought of vader's relationship to luke in the 'original' ANH movie. The purely antagonistic relationship was 'compromised' entirely through the reveal that vader was in fact luke's father. The same goes for the way we thought of luke and leia beforehand as well, making the kissing scenes very cringy now. But I don't see you complaining about that because this is rightly deemed a good (and I presume 'essential') change. So the fact that something is replaced etc in the original artwork is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

My bottom line is that the only person who has any authority on the question what makes for a good or bad 'essential' or 'narrative' change is Lucas himself, since the 'essence' of his art is partially constituted by his intention. Which is why we should refrain from pointing fingers at certain things and saying they are bad because they introduce changes in the plot that we deem bad (like erasure of characters; we might dislike it, but that doesn't make it bad, disrespectful or break with an essence of sorts). We should only judge the movies as pieces of cinematography and then claim they are bad sequels because they don't live up to the well executed cinematography of the originals.