Well that is the most inflammatory title I've ever written. I can just imagine the responses:
"You don't know Star Wars better than George Lucas!"
"How many movies have you made?!"
"Star Wars is my childhood! It's perfect! Don't insult it!"
Calm down.
It's OK.
You really like Star Wars. And I will not tell you to stop liking Star Wars.
But people keep complaining that modern blockbusters just aren't as good as they used to be. Besides, every movie could be improved. So let's learn from Star Wars about how to make blockbusters even better by learning from the good and learning from the bad.
"But you can't make a better movie than Star Wars!"
We're just talking about Episode IV here, and we can all agree that Episode V is better than Episode IV. And the guy who made Episode V didn't make Episode IV, so I'm sure after 40 years of learning how to make a good film, someone else could make another movie that's better than Episode IV.
So why do I think they shouldn't have blown up the Death Star in Episode IV?
Because it doesn't quite fit in the plot.
I like to strip a plot down to a "log line" - a description of the plot in 25 words or less.
I like to imagine that plot in 2 elements:
1) At least one character who sells someone on watching the movie.
2) What the character's goal is and what's keeping him or her from that goal. (Hopefully, those intentions and obstacles are interesting)
Once I see that, I get to see what's really necessary to the plot and what really doesn't help the plot. It shows me that entire sequences, concepts, or even characters really have nothing to do with the movie, because it doesn't help any character change or get closer or farther from their goals.
Here's the best log line I can come up with for Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope:
"A farmboy with great dreams leaves his home planet with a monk and a smuggler to rescue a princess and destroy the nearly planet-sized battle station where she's being kept captive."
(I wish I could call Obi-wan a "wizard" and Han a "space pirate", but my friend Zac Green pointed out that "monk" and "smuggler" are more accurate.)
It's a beautiful classical tale that you might find anywhere from a book of fairy tales to a book of great literature.
Here's the problem: The idea of destroying the Death Star doesn't come up until Act 3.
Until then, Luke has 2 desires: Rescue the princess and become a pilot.
Han has 3 desires: Rescue the princess, get his money, and get out of here.
Obi-wan has one desire: Rescue the princess.
Yes, there are Death Star plans, but none of the main characters thinks of destroying the Death Star until the debriefing in Act 3.
I feel like if they took out Act 3 entirely and left in just The Throne Room, people would have liked the movie just as much.
So a much more accurate description of the characters' goals would have been:
"A farmboy with great dreams leaves his home planet with a monk and a smuggler to rescue a princess from a nearly planet-sized battle station."
If destroying the Death Star were really part of the plot, they would have set up in Act 1 that the Death Star needs destroyed and the characters would have done stuff throughout Act 2 to lay the groundwork for destroying the Death Star.
Just like in most movies, the entire plot is laid out for us in Act 1: "Help me, Obi-wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." But once Obi-wan Kenobi helps her, an entirely new plot is introduced in Act 3.
"But the Death Star needed to be blown up!"
"But Leia had seen how much destruction it can cause!"
"How could Luke be a war hero if there were still a Death Star out there?!"
I absolutely agree. The Death Star does need to be blown up. Just not in this movie.
Blowing up the Death Star would have been a natural sequel. It would have taken the same concept and characters and created a new plot. It would have increased the stakes. And it would have filled a plot hole by giving Luke time to learn to fly in between movies. It even would have been a slightly different genre - the sequel would have been a war story, while the original would have been a slightly subverted medieval fairy tale.
And I don't know about you, but I believe in celebrating little victories while working towards the biggest victory. Rescuing the princess seems like a pretty good victory to celebrate, so the Throne Room scene would have made just as much sense and felt just as celebratory whether they'd blown up the Death Star yet or not.
"You don't know Star Wars better than George Lucas!"
"How many movies have you made?!"
"Star Wars is my childhood! It's perfect! Don't insult it!"
Calm down.
It's OK.
You really like Star Wars. And I will not tell you to stop liking Star Wars.
But people keep complaining that modern blockbusters just aren't as good as they used to be. Besides, every movie could be improved. So let's learn from Star Wars about how to make blockbusters even better by learning from the good and learning from the bad.
"But you can't make a better movie than Star Wars!"
We're just talking about Episode IV here, and we can all agree that Episode V is better than Episode IV. And the guy who made Episode V didn't make Episode IV, so I'm sure after 40 years of learning how to make a good film, someone else could make another movie that's better than Episode IV.
So why do I think they shouldn't have blown up the Death Star in Episode IV?
Because it doesn't quite fit in the plot.
I like to strip a plot down to a "log line" - a description of the plot in 25 words or less.
I like to imagine that plot in 2 elements:
1) At least one character who sells someone on watching the movie.
2) What the character's goal is and what's keeping him or her from that goal. (Hopefully, those intentions and obstacles are interesting)
Once I see that, I get to see what's really necessary to the plot and what really doesn't help the plot. It shows me that entire sequences, concepts, or even characters really have nothing to do with the movie, because it doesn't help any character change or get closer or farther from their goals.
Here's the best log line I can come up with for Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope:
"A farmboy with great dreams leaves his home planet with a monk and a smuggler to rescue a princess and destroy the nearly planet-sized battle station where she's being kept captive."
(I wish I could call Obi-wan a "wizard" and Han a "space pirate", but my friend Zac Green pointed out that "monk" and "smuggler" are more accurate.)
It's a beautiful classical tale that you might find anywhere from a book of fairy tales to a book of great literature.
Here's the problem: The idea of destroying the Death Star doesn't come up until Act 3.
Until then, Luke has 2 desires: Rescue the princess and become a pilot.
Han has 3 desires: Rescue the princess, get his money, and get out of here.
Obi-wan has one desire: Rescue the princess.
Yes, there are Death Star plans, but none of the main characters thinks of destroying the Death Star until the debriefing in Act 3.
I feel like if they took out Act 3 entirely and left in just The Throne Room, people would have liked the movie just as much.
So a much more accurate description of the characters' goals would have been:
"A farmboy with great dreams leaves his home planet with a monk and a smuggler to rescue a princess from a nearly planet-sized battle station."
If destroying the Death Star were really part of the plot, they would have set up in Act 1 that the Death Star needs destroyed and the characters would have done stuff throughout Act 2 to lay the groundwork for destroying the Death Star.
Just like in most movies, the entire plot is laid out for us in Act 1: "Help me, Obi-wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." But once Obi-wan Kenobi helps her, an entirely new plot is introduced in Act 3.
"But the Death Star needed to be blown up!"
"But Leia had seen how much destruction it can cause!"
"How could Luke be a war hero if there were still a Death Star out there?!"
I absolutely agree. The Death Star does need to be blown up. Just not in this movie.
Blowing up the Death Star would have been a natural sequel. It would have taken the same concept and characters and created a new plot. It would have increased the stakes. And it would have filled a plot hole by giving Luke time to learn to fly in between movies. It even would have been a slightly different genre - the sequel would have been a war story, while the original would have been a slightly subverted medieval fairy tale.
And I don't know about you, but I believe in celebrating little victories while working towards the biggest victory. Rescuing the princess seems like a pretty good victory to celebrate, so the Throne Room scene would have made just as much sense and felt just as celebratory whether they'd blown up the Death Star yet or not.
Comments
Post a Comment