Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request
Obi-Sock Kenobi said:That was the way television was back then. It was all terrible.
Moe_Syzlak said:Has anyone read this "Ring Theory" essay?
http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ring-composition-chiasmus-hidden-artistry-star-wars-prequels/
At best, it seems like an excuse for the prequels (and some of the less original ideas in Jedi). Much of it seems like a stretch to me in a similar way to how one can find meaning in Dark Side of the Oz. Ultimately, even if all of this is true and Lucas had this grand ambition from the start, it doesn't make the prequels good movies, even viewed in this context.
Right on."Prequel apologists... prequel apologists... let it go."
While I said in my original post that it is a stretch at best, I don't think referencing RLM a few times makes it a rebuttal. RLM is simply the most widely known critique and I think this author is merely using it as a stand in for ALL prequel criticism. The point, however labored, is that the prequels have this ring theory built into them in the same way they have the Hero's Journey built in. Again, I find that a stretch and even if true doesn't make them good movies. But it's hardly the point for point rebuttal of RLM as has been posted around here before. He's attempting to make the same kind of academic argument for the prequel trilogy (and by extension the overall six film arc) that others made for the OT and its use if the Hero's Journey. The problem is simply noting it doesn't make it meaningful. Star Wars resonated deeply across generations, nationalites, religious backgrounds, etc. Academic studies as to why that might be are therfore legitimate. The prequels had no such resonance so, even if all this is true, what's the point.addiesin said:I really wish you or the writer had said up front it is primarily written as a rebuttal to the RLM reviews (reviews which are favored higher than the films they analyse) because it's kind of just sad to write so much based on that. Aren't rebuttals supposed to be made in a comparable format to what is being rebutted? I think this person would be better off not spending all that time and money much on web space, a domain name, and a wordpress theme and an essay and instead, maybe, making a video review. It's a shame because generally I really enjoy fan theories in most forms but this was more like a disguised argument against something I already enjoy.
Right on.
Moe_Syzlak said:While I said in my original post that it is a stretch at best, I don't think referencing RLM a few times makes it a rebuttal. RLM is simply the most widely known critique and I think this author is merely using it as a stand in for ALL prequel criticism. The point, however labored, is that the prequels have this ring theory built into them in the same way they have the Hero's Journey built in. Again, I find that a stretch and even if true doesn't make them good movies. But it's hardly the point for point rebuttal of RLM as has been posted around here before. He's attempting to make the same kind of academic argument for the prequel trilogy (and by extension the overall six film arc) that others made for the OT and its use if the Hero's Journey. The problem is simply noting it doesn't make it meaningful. Star Wars resonated deeply across generations, nationalites, religious backgrounds, etc. Academic studies as to why that might be are therfore legitimate. The prequels had no such resonance so, even if all this is true, what's the point.
BTW, I, too, enjoy the RLM reviews more than the actual films.
TV's Frink said:heb, you are a weirdo in the best way possible.