StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Does Lucas ever say that this was a central concept to the films? Directly, not quotes that could be interpreted as yes.

After reading two pages, I think the author makes two big mistakes.

The first is the same one as conspiracy theorist make: they assume that just because they have a compelling theory that fits the fact they automatically assume that then it must be true. Likewise, ring theory fits around the fact that Lucas structured and reused many elements from the original trilogy. That does not prove that he consciously written it according to Ring Theory unless he says he did. There is no reason for him to keep this a secret.

Second, even if Lucas written the prequel-trilogy according to Ring Theory, that does not make it a masterpiece or make it brilliant. Having a symmetrical story structure (down to visual detail) does not mean that the end result is going to be better. It may give an extra layer of meaning but that does not automatically make badly-executed things suddenly well-executed. In fact it is arguable that it could have made it worse: a scene was not as well-written and well-executed as it could have been because the necessary effort was misdirected at making a subtle hint of narrative structure work rather than making the small pieces work as they should.

I have heard of this error before (in regards to the Men in Black films): filmmakers make a good film that is widely enjoyed because of an imaginative setting with interesting characters and interesting story. When they make a sequel they don't make a new structure for a new interesting story with the same characters and setting. They instead contort the characters and setting to redo the previous film's structure all over again even if it makes an uninteresting story.

I'm not going to go into detail of a scene-by-scene basis because I really don't have time for that and I don't have the films on-hand (and even if I did, I am not going to re-watch them just to see whether or not they confirm some esoretic theory.

Thank you for posting this Adamskywalker007. It was a great read, and highly informative for those who understand the craft of storytelling.

Zixinus wrote:The first is the same one as conspiracy theorist make: they assume that just because they have a compelling theory that fits the fact they automatically assume that then it must be true. Likewise, ring theory fits around the fact that Lucas structured and reused many elements from the original trilogy. That does not prove that he consciously written it according to Ring Theory unless he says he did. There is no reason for him to keep this a secret.

By this logic, all of literary criticism works like conspiarcy theories. Thought that does explain a lot.

Zixinus wrote: I have heard of this error before (in regards to the Men in Black films): filmmakers make a good film that is widely enjoyed because of an imaginative setting with interesting characters and interesting story. When they make a sequel they don't make a new structure for a new interesting story with the same characters and setting. They instead contort the characters and setting to redo the previous film's structure all over again even if it makes an uninteresting story.

I agree, that it doesn't automatically make it a good movie. This article was largely a response to the specific criticism that the prequels weren't creative enough.

By this logic, all of literary criticism works like conspiarcy theories.

I said that they commit the same mistake that conspiracy theorists do, not that they are conspiracy theories. A convincing theory is not proven because it is convincing it is proven by being proven or by failing to disprove it. The most convincing proof that Lucas followed Ring Theory is that he says he did.
As far as I read the essay the attempt to prove it is by pointing out similarities and by matching shots. That proves that Lucas did things to a similar way as to his old films and even that this was intentional but not that he specifically followed Ring Theory.

And yes, it is actually a problem with literature. The subjective reading of a work is never going to match the reading of the author (which changes with every reading), never mind the intentions of the author. This is how you get people claiming that Winnie the Pooh was pro-Nazi propaganda. A non-author's theory is always going to be a theory.

This article was largely a response to the specific criticism that the prequels weren't creative enough.

Then the essay verifies that criticism if its theory is right. Copying yourself and closely matching your new work to the old one is less creative than simply creating something new.

Essentially: Just because the SW prequels happen to mirror elements in the OT doesn't mean that Lucas was consciously doing so. A shuttle landing on the Death Star happens to be filmed similarly to the Republic transport landing on the TF ship... storytelling? Or just that one landing is pretty similar to another? Occam's Razor. Unless Lucas says otherwise, there's no reason to assume that he didn't simply reuse visual and literary elements that he liked from the past trilogy because he could. That's the simple, parsimonious answer, versus assuming that he purposefully structured the prequels along some literary theory.

Yea 'cause the evidence soooo doesn't point to George Lucas making a deliberate callback to an ancient literary technique all throughout the Star Wars saga. I mean it's not he was a big fan of ancient epics and sagas when he was filming A New Hope, or a friend of Joseph Campbell.

Seriously, saying that George Lucas has to say he made it this way just to prove this mountain of evidence true is like saying that you can't convict someone for committing a murder from what was collected at the crime scene unless you get a confession from the suspect.

Seriously, saying that George Lucas has to say he made it this way just to prove this mountain of evidence true is like saying that you can't convict someone for committing a murder from what was collected at the crime scene unless you get a confession from the suspect.

Making deliberate callbacks to his earlier films to make some sort of symmetry is not the same as he specifically using Ring Theory. Making deliberate parallels to previous films and reusing visual elements from his previous films does not consequently prove that he was specifically using Ring Theory. The question whether he used it or not can be most directly and simply be settled by asking him.