The Case for Remaking Star Wars
Nov. 3rd, 2015 03:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastAlright, I've poked my fun, pointed out some problems. It's only right that I try to come up with something better.
The root problem I see in the Star Wars movies, both trilogies, is that they mistake the nature of the conflict between
Jedi and Sith.
Disclaimers: This going to take a lot of analysis and it's going to involve discussion of some Eastern Philosophy, mixing from different sides of a continent that makes other continents look small. Not only is this a lot of culture to smoosh into this conversation, I have a dramatically amateur understanding of the philosophies. I'm not going to go into depth, here. And, do not treat what I say as real knowledge but, if you are interested, a reason to research for yourself.
The Jedi aren't as Buddhist as we might think. There's a heavy influence of "knightly" honor in them. This kind of knightliness focuses on rightness of action, of emotion, and of self-denial. And, this kind of knight stems from cultures, both European and Asian, that had a view of morality rightness that involved ritual, place, position, and the responsibility to only feel the right emotions with regards to those rituals, places, and positions.
If I'm to make the Jedi a representation of a conflict within the sentient soul, I'm not going to make them "good". I fully expect them to believe they're on the side of good, and talk about Force-based matters in terms of "Light Side" and "Dark Side". But, their true side in a human soul is what some might call the Hun, or civilized self.
The Sith we see in, so far, all of the movies are more caricature than character. The things we do see about their philosophy is that they're more accepting of attachment and passion. It's just that the movies only focus on hate, rather than other potential emotions. This could be a result of the fact that we're only seeing up to four Sith, and all the students of one Sith. Or, it could be that we're just not getting a good report on them, because the movies are obviously pro-Jedi.
In what little I know of the EU, the Sith Creed starts "Peace is a lie, there is only passion". That's dangerous, yes, but it's worth noting that peace isn't always the preferable state. There can be such a thing as a bad peace, the peace of slavery, for instance, isn't actually a conflict... but neither is it acceptable.
So, the Sith can't be the "evil" side of the human soul. To put that in terms of what little I know of Eastern Philosophy, they are the side of the P'o, or bestial self.
Unlike the conflict between good and evil, it would be a disaster if either Hun or P'o wins. It's very easy to see the P'o as evil, because it is dangerous and selfish and prone to lashing out if it doesn't get what it wants. But, it should be noted that it is the part that wants, that loves. It's very easy to see the Hun as good, but... a quick story.
A chef is very devoted to his master. In that devotion, he has sought to make sure that his master has feasted on everything available. He's plied the obvious goose and duck and beef. He's sought and stretched to find guinea pig. He's plied his ability to make a good meal of cat. One day, he hears his master brag of him. "My chef has made sure I have eaten everything but human." The chef summons his son and readies his kitchen, to repair that oversight.
Yes, the chef might live in a world that has rules against such things, but in the absence of such social and official rules, the P'o would love his son enough to refuse, even if that was suggested.
So, the matter isn't "good must defeat evil" but rather "Hun and P'o naturally conflict, but must live in balance."
It's okay for the Jedi to mistake this conflict for good against evil. It's okay for the movies to deceive the audience to that effect. It's not okay for the movies to believe that is the conflict.
With that in mind, we can make minor modifications to the original trilogy, and major improvements to the prequel trilogy.
The original trilogy *can* operate as shown. We're only shown two Sith, one who was trained by the other. And, we're only shown two Jedi (aside from Luke), one who lies to Luke about his father and the other who's willing to let people die in the service of Jedi defeating Sith.
But, we can have some changes. Yes, we need to know what The Force is, but we also need at least a touch more explanation of the Jedi philosophy and way of life. The asceticism needs to be shown, as well as the power. So, the training should include meditation exercises. And, instead of merely saying "stretch out with your feelings", a touch more is required.
"Look past your emotions, your eagerness, your frustration. Those merely confuse you. Look past them and you can feel The Force."
We also need just a bit more of a glance to history in the original trilogy. "A more civilized time" shouldn't be our only idea, but also how the Jedi fit into that "more civilized time". They protected Kings and Queens and protected civilizations from being destroyed, protected traditions from being lost, governments from being toppled. This is still a very rosy view, because it's Obi-Wan's.
In the second movie, we need to know more about Darth Vader, and more temptation toward's Luke, than just this offer of a father. On top of "Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father", there should be "Obi Wan could never understand the ways of the Sith, the power to be had in one's passions, the good we can do when we finally allow ourselves to be
emotional beings." This way we have a Sith that doesn't see itself as evil.
In the third movie, the speech given to Luke at the end, about letting the hate flow through one... why? Seriously, from
Emperor Palpatine's perspective, why give that speech? It's not a speech that would be likely to convince Luke to join him, but one that would reinforce the "Sith are evil and I shouldn't join them" image Luke already has. If this is meant to be a temptation, let's rework that a bit.
"Yes, I feel the anger, the hate in you. Feel those emotions, they *are* you. They are the very power of a Sith, let yourself feel that, Luke!"
These are minor changes, but the point is to keep up the action but also open up the notion that the Sith philosophy might, to some people, actually have some allure.
The big difference is the prequel trilogy. The prequel trilogy, I can honestly say, gets almost all of it wrong. Sure, we can have the advice, from Yoda, to "mourn them not" and his refusal to train Anikan because "I sense in you much fear". But, the rest of it... yeah.
The prequel trilogy shouldn't be a straightforward story of a single person falling into evil. Instead, it should be a more complex story of an idealistic young Jedi-in-training becoming disillusioned with the Jedi philosophy and way of life.
Sure, the exciting story to save the princess is nice, but it should be tempered with people from Naboo who, quite reasonably, challenge the wisdom of sticking to a Monarchy basis of government. The Republic should be rife with classicism. A Great Chain of Being mentality whereby people are in their place and it's for their own good. But, in the first movie of the prequel trilogy, this should be presented much like idealized fantasy movies do with their own fantastic kingdoms... at first.
In the first movie, there should be hints for those who want to look for them and the start of a relationship between a Jedi and a Princess.
In the second movie, yes, the relationship has to be hidden. No, frolicking shouldn't be the order of the day. But, schism in the relationship should be the order of the day. Anikan should see the effects, as should the Princess. It's their different reactions that should set the stage for the schism.
The Princess sees it as her duty to address these problems, now having seen the suffering caused by slavery and caste-enforcement with her very eyes. Anikan sees the argument that even a "good" monarchy will still have these problems, they'd just be softer problems.
She believes that the problem is that of wrong action and wrong emotion, something that a good leader may fix. He sees the problem as one of the bonds of classism and what she and the Jedi call "rightness" at the heart of it. He's starting to see the necessity of people being strong enough to break their chains.
In the final movie, we see the overtaking of the Republic as a good thing. The Jedi philosophical domination isn't any better, from the perspective of the average citizen, than Sith domination. Revolution was essential in both cases.
And, that would set the scene for the sequel trilogy, in which two factions, one of Sith philosophy and one of Jedi philosophy (though not all or even primarily Force Users) vie for leadership. Our protagonists would learn of each and become the third faction that steps in between the two. The choice is simple, both are involved in the politics and culture of the new interplanetary-nation, or neither. If one wins in the battle, they are killed. A society cannot survive out of balance.
It won't be entirely that easy, of course. Balance isn't the only consideration, it has to be a healthy balance. But, no imbalance will be allowed.
(Repeat note: I probably got a lot of stuff wrong in my meager understanding of philosophy. So, feel free to correct me on the matter, in addition to any other discussion.)
The root problem I see in the Star Wars movies, both trilogies, is that they mistake the nature of the conflict between
Jedi and Sith.
Disclaimers: This going to take a lot of analysis and it's going to involve discussion of some Eastern Philosophy, mixing from different sides of a continent that makes other continents look small. Not only is this a lot of culture to smoosh into this conversation, I have a dramatically amateur understanding of the philosophies. I'm not going to go into depth, here. And, do not treat what I say as real knowledge but, if you are interested, a reason to research for yourself.
The Jedi aren't as Buddhist as we might think. There's a heavy influence of "knightly" honor in them. This kind of knightliness focuses on rightness of action, of emotion, and of self-denial. And, this kind of knight stems from cultures, both European and Asian, that had a view of morality rightness that involved ritual, place, position, and the responsibility to only feel the right emotions with regards to those rituals, places, and positions.
If I'm to make the Jedi a representation of a conflict within the sentient soul, I'm not going to make them "good". I fully expect them to believe they're on the side of good, and talk about Force-based matters in terms of "Light Side" and "Dark Side". But, their true side in a human soul is what some might call the Hun, or civilized self.
The Sith we see in, so far, all of the movies are more caricature than character. The things we do see about their philosophy is that they're more accepting of attachment and passion. It's just that the movies only focus on hate, rather than other potential emotions. This could be a result of the fact that we're only seeing up to four Sith, and all the students of one Sith. Or, it could be that we're just not getting a good report on them, because the movies are obviously pro-Jedi.
In what little I know of the EU, the Sith Creed starts "Peace is a lie, there is only passion". That's dangerous, yes, but it's worth noting that peace isn't always the preferable state. There can be such a thing as a bad peace, the peace of slavery, for instance, isn't actually a conflict... but neither is it acceptable.
So, the Sith can't be the "evil" side of the human soul. To put that in terms of what little I know of Eastern Philosophy, they are the side of the P'o, or bestial self.
Unlike the conflict between good and evil, it would be a disaster if either Hun or P'o wins. It's very easy to see the P'o as evil, because it is dangerous and selfish and prone to lashing out if it doesn't get what it wants. But, it should be noted that it is the part that wants, that loves. It's very easy to see the Hun as good, but... a quick story.
A chef is very devoted to his master. In that devotion, he has sought to make sure that his master has feasted on everything available. He's plied the obvious goose and duck and beef. He's sought and stretched to find guinea pig. He's plied his ability to make a good meal of cat. One day, he hears his master brag of him. "My chef has made sure I have eaten everything but human." The chef summons his son and readies his kitchen, to repair that oversight.
Yes, the chef might live in a world that has rules against such things, but in the absence of such social and official rules, the P'o would love his son enough to refuse, even if that was suggested.
So, the matter isn't "good must defeat evil" but rather "Hun and P'o naturally conflict, but must live in balance."
It's okay for the Jedi to mistake this conflict for good against evil. It's okay for the movies to deceive the audience to that effect. It's not okay for the movies to believe that is the conflict.
With that in mind, we can make minor modifications to the original trilogy, and major improvements to the prequel trilogy.
The original trilogy *can* operate as shown. We're only shown two Sith, one who was trained by the other. And, we're only shown two Jedi (aside from Luke), one who lies to Luke about his father and the other who's willing to let people die in the service of Jedi defeating Sith.
But, we can have some changes. Yes, we need to know what The Force is, but we also need at least a touch more explanation of the Jedi philosophy and way of life. The asceticism needs to be shown, as well as the power. So, the training should include meditation exercises. And, instead of merely saying "stretch out with your feelings", a touch more is required.
"Look past your emotions, your eagerness, your frustration. Those merely confuse you. Look past them and you can feel The Force."
We also need just a bit more of a glance to history in the original trilogy. "A more civilized time" shouldn't be our only idea, but also how the Jedi fit into that "more civilized time". They protected Kings and Queens and protected civilizations from being destroyed, protected traditions from being lost, governments from being toppled. This is still a very rosy view, because it's Obi-Wan's.
In the second movie, we need to know more about Darth Vader, and more temptation toward's Luke, than just this offer of a father. On top of "Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father", there should be "Obi Wan could never understand the ways of the Sith, the power to be had in one's passions, the good we can do when we finally allow ourselves to be
emotional beings." This way we have a Sith that doesn't see itself as evil.
In the third movie, the speech given to Luke at the end, about letting the hate flow through one... why? Seriously, from
Emperor Palpatine's perspective, why give that speech? It's not a speech that would be likely to convince Luke to join him, but one that would reinforce the "Sith are evil and I shouldn't join them" image Luke already has. If this is meant to be a temptation, let's rework that a bit.
"Yes, I feel the anger, the hate in you. Feel those emotions, they *are* you. They are the very power of a Sith, let yourself feel that, Luke!"
These are minor changes, but the point is to keep up the action but also open up the notion that the Sith philosophy might, to some people, actually have some allure.
The big difference is the prequel trilogy. The prequel trilogy, I can honestly say, gets almost all of it wrong. Sure, we can have the advice, from Yoda, to "mourn them not" and his refusal to train Anikan because "I sense in you much fear". But, the rest of it... yeah.
The prequel trilogy shouldn't be a straightforward story of a single person falling into evil. Instead, it should be a more complex story of an idealistic young Jedi-in-training becoming disillusioned with the Jedi philosophy and way of life.
Sure, the exciting story to save the princess is nice, but it should be tempered with people from Naboo who, quite reasonably, challenge the wisdom of sticking to a Monarchy basis of government. The Republic should be rife with classicism. A Great Chain of Being mentality whereby people are in their place and it's for their own good. But, in the first movie of the prequel trilogy, this should be presented much like idealized fantasy movies do with their own fantastic kingdoms... at first.
In the first movie, there should be hints for those who want to look for them and the start of a relationship between a Jedi and a Princess.
In the second movie, yes, the relationship has to be hidden. No, frolicking shouldn't be the order of the day. But, schism in the relationship should be the order of the day. Anikan should see the effects, as should the Princess. It's their different reactions that should set the stage for the schism.
The Princess sees it as her duty to address these problems, now having seen the suffering caused by slavery and caste-enforcement with her very eyes. Anikan sees the argument that even a "good" monarchy will still have these problems, they'd just be softer problems.
She believes that the problem is that of wrong action and wrong emotion, something that a good leader may fix. He sees the problem as one of the bonds of classism and what she and the Jedi call "rightness" at the heart of it. He's starting to see the necessity of people being strong enough to break their chains.
In the final movie, we see the overtaking of the Republic as a good thing. The Jedi philosophical domination isn't any better, from the perspective of the average citizen, than Sith domination. Revolution was essential in both cases.
And, that would set the scene for the sequel trilogy, in which two factions, one of Sith philosophy and one of Jedi philosophy (though not all or even primarily Force Users) vie for leadership. Our protagonists would learn of each and become the third faction that steps in between the two. The choice is simple, both are involved in the politics and culture of the new interplanetary-nation, or neither. If one wins in the battle, they are killed. A society cannot survive out of balance.
It won't be entirely that easy, of course. Balance isn't the only consideration, it has to be a healthy balance. But, no imbalance will be allowed.
(Repeat note: I probably got a lot of stuff wrong in my meager understanding of philosophy. So, feel free to correct me on the matter, in addition to any other discussion.)
Re: Good Vs. Evil
Date: 2017-08-11 02:50 am (UTC)But, I honestly believe that they do us harm when we rely too much upon them.
It's all well and good to have a bit of fun, but we do train ourselves, as a culture, to view our world in such terms. So, when it comes to these Cases, I'm generally going to push away from simple Good Vs. Evil narratives because pushing for a society that treats even its foes as complex human beings is important.
That and, yes, I do see the Star Wars series is uniquely improved by this complexity. If it was just a single trilogy, then otherwise left alone, I might not bother. But, at the time the prequel trilogy had already been done and we were looking forward to a sequel trilogy and that makes that complexity all the more of a necessity.