http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/

I presume, from your use of the term "haters", that you expect some converts to this "theory".

Let me know how that works out for you.

For what it's worth, Anne Lancashire was one of my PhD thesis advisers at the University of Toronto. She and her husband Ian are wonderful science fiction scholars. But she's also totally out to lunch on Star Wars. Her readings are hopelessly mechanistic and are utterly divorced from phenomenological interpretation -- which most non-academics will be interested in. And as much as I'd love to think that Lucas employed this structure deliberately (or with the consideration that this blog gives it), I fear it's much closer to a form of cinematic self-flattery and narcissism than it is an attempt to evoke a storytelling-based pattern.

(And by "it" I mean the relationship between the Prequels and the original trilogy.)

Ugh.

I dislike the over-analysis of anything. It is why I tuned out Shakespear in high school English so long ago. Every frikkin year we were delving into it and analyzing it. Sucked all the enjoyment out of it. I like Star Wars. I don't need anyone to tell me why I do or why I should. I pick and choose what I enjoy and no one can tell me different. The OT will always be my first love because it was my first love when it comes to Star Wars. Even with all its warts and quirks. The PT was fun but never gave me the same feeling of giddiness I got as a child seeing the OT, some of which lay in my disappointment with the storyline as it turned out different than I imagined (which is my issue not a fault of the movies). I doubt the ST will affect that way either much as I may enjoy it. It would be hard to match that child-like wonder as I am very much not that child any more. That's not to say I am not looking forward to the ST, though. Few movies can match that feeling I had back in 77. Avengers came very close as I saw it at least half a dozen times in the theater upon release. I have certain expectations going in to the ST whereas back during the OT era it was all still very new, so that tends to temper my excitement.

Anyways, an analysis like this just sucks all the fun out the series as far as I'm concerned. If it is your thing great, but it does nothing for me.

I had to fast forward through sections of I and II. Point being I am not wasting my life and calories reading something that explains why I shouldn't dislike something that I know I dislike. You could post articles about brussel sprouts if you like, I'll still hate em.

This theory suffers from the same problem as the Jar Jar is evil theory. It's essentially just rabid fans trying to justify their own interpretations to others. Like others have said - I don't need to be told why I should or shouldn't like something and Lucas is not that cinematically intelligent.

I like the theory in that I think it makes a pretty strong case for *intent*. I'm not saying it makes the movies better (or worse), and certainly doesn't rescue the movies from the terrible dialog.

I also like it because the PT is way more important to me than the OT. This is solely because of the amount world-building, which no other franchise remotely touches and is the hallmark of its success. The OT was fun but comparatively contained (while still surpassing everything else prior to it in that regard); the PT blew the galaxy wide open.

For people that want the short version.

This theory suffers from the same problem as the Jar Jar is evil theory. It's essentially just rabid fans trying to justify their own interpretations to others. Like others have said - I don't need to be told why I should or shouldn't like something and Lucas is not that cinematically intelligent.

Well, to be fair, they started as jokes, Ring Theory was basically people mocking the above line with comparisons between scenes/movies, and the Darth Jar Jar thing mocking that he was basically one of the key parts of the Republic's downfalls by doing the whole Senate vote. THEN rabid fans caught wind of the jokes and ran wild with them.

I like the theory in that I think it makes a pretty strong case for *intent*. I'm not saying it makes the movies better (or worse), and certainly doesn't rescue the movies from the terrible dialog.

This is the crux of the problem. Lancashire's theory places a whole whopping lot of inertia behind the intent piece -- which is fine, because she's a literary scholar and that's what they do. (And what, blessed be the gods of lucre, *I* no longer do for a "living.") But that's a niche case to make -- that we should appreciate what someone does because they had a good idea -- that does not appreciate the effect of the results. Which, I think most will agree, are a thin expulsion of noxious gas.

EDIT: I totally hear what you're saying about world-building, though. I for one loved the peek into politics, infrastructure, urban environments, strategy, etc. It's just that the writing and performances were abysmal.

I have a strange feeling of déjà vu.

For what it's worth, Anne Lancashire was one of my PhD thesis advisers at the University of Toronto. She and her husband Ian are wonderful science fiction scholars. But she's also totally out to lunch on Star Wars. Her readings are hopelessly mechanistic and are utterly divorced from phenomenological interpretation -- which most non-academics will be interested in. And as much as I'd love to think that Lucas employed this structure deliberately (or with the consideration that this blog gives it), I fear it's much closer to a form of cinematic self-flattery and narcissism than it is an attempt to evoke a storytelling-based pattern.

(And by "it" I mean the relationship between the Prequels and the original trilogy.)

^ Dat guy's wise.

The PT was fun but never gave me the same feeling of giddiness I got as a child seeing the OT

See, this is where I think a lot of the hate comes from. Think back to the seventies. We had never seen anything like Star Wars before. Up till that point all the space movies were either Silent Running and Logan's Run (both very good, but slow moving) or cheese like The Green Slime or Barbarella or that years Godzilla flick. Fun, but low budget and cheesy. Star Wars turned the industry The World on it's ear.

Consider 1999. We've had the Matrix and Independence day and T2 and Jurassic Park and Armageddon and hundreds and hundreds of big budget extravaganzas. It's hard to be blown away by special effects when you see photo-realistic dinosaurs and Robert Patrick turning into a silver blob every week. The genie was out of the bottle by that point.

It was also a different time, in terms of story telling. The 70's had inflation and the Vietnam War and gas shortages and a general malaise over the population (plus, Disco). We had dark, gritty movies like Dirty Harry and Death Wish - a light, escapist movie that had the balls to tell you "Everything will be okay" was a breath of fresh air.

I firmly contend that if Phantom Menace had come out in 1976 (with 1976 technology and effects of course), that it would have had the same impact as New Hope did. That if New Hope had come out in '99, fourth in a series, everyone would be picking it apart and Annoying Nasal Internet Reviewer would be doing two hour video blogs on how terrible it is.

Is Phantom Menace without flaw? Good lord no - but I think the expectations leveled against it were insurmountable. 16 years pent up nerd anticipation and a marketing plan that was in overdrive for far too long was working against the film. If it had been written by Akira Kurosawa and directed by Orson Wells with George Lucas on hand to personally hand out solid gold bricks to each audience goer, they still would have bitched. But then when E1 turns out to be simply an average movie and not another paradigm shift in human history, it was inevitable that people would ***** and complain.

And I think that the Internet Hive Mind has taken over. Hating the movies have become fashionable and cool. There will never be any room for someone to make up their own minds anymore.

(Aside: Mind you, audience reactions to movies have changed. these days either a movie has to be a masterpiece or a piece of crap. That "Hey, that wasn't too bad" is no longer an acceptable outcome. Feast or famine, awesome or dog poop, Dark Knight Returns or Fantastic Four. Those are your choices.)

I have a strange feeling of déjà vu.

I usually use the term 'Deja POO' instead... I've seen this sith before

I don't HATE the PT I'll just as soon watch them as OT.. it's just that I PREFER the OT coz I grew up with them.

.. and I still sit there saying things like... 'Obi-Wan,,, now there's a name I haven't heard since I chopped your father's arm and legs off!'... or when Leia kisses Luke in ESB,,, 'that's your brother ya tramp!!'

It drives my wife nuts.. she'll reply with 'You can watch it on your own if you don't shut up!'

_{I have a strange feeling of déjà vu.}

_{https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192630-interesting-theory/}

_{It's almost like this was mentioned a couple weeks ago, immediately debunked as absurd drivel, forgotten, then brought back up as if it were new or in any way interesting or relevant.}

I agree with Desslok so much on this: I can barely watch sections Episode 4 these days for similar reasons and that is ok. In it's time it was inivation, so I never questioned anything about it, the lucky shot in a tiny hole, the incredibly long winded opening, or why a death star only sent out so few ties.

The only thing I have against EP 1 particularly was Jar Jar, who was the replacement for the droids (mostly) and kids. I often find them irritating in movies and the idea that one could just park in a space station and blow it up.... (sighs) Otherwise the issue's with 1 and 4 are the same; they both have really slow pacing.

Otherwise I found it a fantastic world building exercise, in fact you probably saw more of the universe in episode 1 then in both 4 and 6 which presented a fairly narrow view. While many would argue that it somewhat dilutes the story but it's nice to see the world behind it.

_{I have a strange feeling of déjà vu.}

_{https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/192630-interesting-theory/}

_{It's almost like this was mentioned a couple weeks ago, immediately debunked as absurd drivel, forgotten, then brought back up as if it were new or in any way interesting or relevant.}

Thanks for your "wisdom".

The PT was fun but never gave me the same feeling of giddiness I got as a child seeing the OT

See, this is where I think a lot of the hate comes from. Think back to the seventies. We had never seen anything like Star Wars before. Up till that point all the space movies were either Silent Running and Logan's Run (both very good, but slow moving) or cheese like The Green Slime or Barbarella or that years Godzilla flick. Fun, but low budget and cheesy. Star Wars turned the industry The World on it's ear.

Consider 1999. We've had the Matrix and Independence day and T2 and Jurassic Park and Armageddon and hundreds and hundreds of big budget extravaganzas. It's hard to be blown away by special effects when you see photo-realistic dinosaurs and Robert Patrick turning into a silver blob every week. The genie was out of the bottle by that point.

It was also a different time, in terms of story telling. The 70's had inflation and the Vietnam War and gas shortages and a general malaise over the population (plus, Disco). We had dark, gritty movies like Dirty Harry and Death Wish - a light, escapist movie that had the balls to tell you "Everything will be okay" was a breath of fresh air.

I firmly contend that if Phantom Menace had come out in 1976 (with 1976 technology and effects of course), that it would have had the same impact as New Hope did. That if New Hope had come out in '99, fourth in a series, everyone would be picking it apart and Annoying Nasal Internet Reviewer would be doing two hour video blogs on how terrible it is.

Is Phantom Menace without flaw? Good lord no - but I think the expectations leveled against it were insurmountable. 16 years pent up nerd anticipation and a marketing plan that was in overdrive for far too long was working against the film. If it had been written by Akira Kurosawa and directed by Orson Wells with George Lucas on hand to personally hand out solid gold bricks to each audience goer, they still would have bitched. But then when E1 turns out to be simply an average movie and not another paradigm shift in human history, it was inevitable that people would ***** and complain.

And I think that the Internet Hive Mind has taken over. Hating the movies have become fashionable and cool. There will never be any room for someone to make up their own minds anymore.

(Aside: Mind you, audience reactions to movies have changed. these days either a movie has to be a masterpiece or a piece of crap. That "Hey, that wasn't too bad" is no longer an acceptable outcome. Feast or famine, awesome or dog poop, Dark Knight Returns or Fantastic Four. Those are your choices.)

^^^^^^^

THIS.

Hmm...

Yeah...

Ahh....

Sooo....

I think if people have to write blog after blog and produce theory after theory about why someone should like something, then that something has ultimately failed at being likable. It's fun to theorize and speculate and dig deeper into the media we consume. It's always good to see if there is some kind of message or nuance that we didn't see when we first viewed it. But ultimately if a literary scholar has to come in and explain to me step by step why I should like the PT then the PT has failed as a story telling device. No one has to tell me step by step why I should love the OT. I already love it. It works.

The PT can be fun to watch. The lightsabre battles are way cooler. But ultimately they do fail as storytelling devices. You can use logic to prop up what Lucas did, but that just means Lucas didn't put in the necessary work the first time to make it likable.

The truly good work speaks for itself. It does not need others to make it likable.

I'm a fan of both the prequels and original trilogies and this theory is interesting.

I think Lucas was much more focused on themes (and repeating and echoing themes etc) and the visuals of the story than any other element of the prequels (especially the dialogue). So that makes this theory more plausible.

Though, I think at this point even a passing familiarity with the process of making the movies can see Lucas had some sort of grand vision but it was regularly turned on its head with large elements added or changed as things went along (Vader being Luke's father, Leia and Luke being siblings). Which makes this theory less plausible.

The PT gets a bad rap now I feel it deserves most of it. I love the set pieces and the way they try to bring in the shift in galactic politics. I could have done without Jar Jar. I don't think they are the worst movies ever made and I think there are several moments of greatness in each of them. I also think that almost nothing could have met the expectations for these films and I wonder if episode 7 will fare the same. Buried under the weight of 40ish years of nostalgia.

As to the ring theory idea. I don't buy it for a moment. I think you could apply it in hindsight but I do not think that was the orginal plan. As has been said in this thread before I think alot of those referancental scenes and images were ment to cash in on nostalgia at best they were easter eggs for those of us that wore out a couple of vhs tapes before we bought dvds that we would later replace with blu rays (there may or may not have been a couple of laser discs in there as well). I think by trying to fit a high literary device to star wars and make it seem like we cannot comprehend the full scope of vision in these theatrical masterpieces, just kind of craps on the reasons why I feel in love with Star Wars. At its heart it is a speghetti western in space. Full of tropes and cliches that just felt so good. Its like your fav junk food, it doesn't have to be the best most elaborate work of art to be wonderful.

I think if people have to write blog after blog and produce theory after theory about why someone should like something...

Let's stop right there. I don't recall any such adage from reading it before. I haven't re-read the whole ring theory article, but there is nothing in the entire first (very long) page that says it's a reason anyone should like the movies more.

It's not about liking or disliking, it's simply an examination of what Lucas potentially did and what his possible intent was. That's the extent of it. All this talk of "I don't have to be told to like it" is just projection, reading something that isn't there at all.

Now if it was Lucas' intent I find it pretty impressive. It doesn't make me appreciate the surface story-telling any better, but it's quite a feat in its own right. And I do think on some level (the mythology, yin yang, character positioning left and right, etc) it lends itself to the success of the franchise. There's something unidentifiable in Star Wars that makes it more broadly engaging *despite* its failures as "good cinema"...nobody I know is clamouring for an Avatar RPG after all, and as cinema that was much better than any of the SW films...

As to the ring theory idea. I don't buy it for a moment. I think you could apply it in hindsight but I do not think that was the orginal plan.

I don't think it was the original plan either. But he had almost 2 decades to mull over how to approach the PT, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out he reverse engineered it.

Or, if you hate the prequels, you could read "Secrets of the Force," my attempt to rewrite the prequels to make them more consistent with the original trilogy. In this version, the Jedi are a secret society and Anakin gets new motivation for turning to the Dark Side.