Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7705836" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's not what all Star Wars fans do. I consider myself a fan of Star Wars - but not because I super-obssess over every little detail (which tend not to hold up for even a moment - the Imperial &quot;assault&quot; on Hoth, and the Rebels' escape, is just one example).For some fans, it's fun because it's pulpy action with a veneer of mysticism and moral wisdom. Not more than that.These comparisons are ridiculous.First, a sequel doesn't change the originals - they're still there to be enjoyed. (The literary world is full of second-rate sequels or copies or &quot;echoes&quot;. And of failed first goes followed up by better second attempts. The bad works don't hurt the good.)Second, of the three important works you mention the only one I've personally seen is the Pieta. On two occasions, once sufficiently early in the morning that I was just about the only person there. As a piece of art it is absolutely remarkable. It is dramatically and remarkably modern, in my view, when compared to contemperaneous statuary. I think for anyone it would be an arresting work. And for someone who is familiar with the story of the Crucifixion - a very central story to much of Europes cultural output over the past 1600-odd years - it is even moreso. The arresting modernism and the treatment of the Crucifixion also, for me at least, come together in the way it seems to capture - in statue form - the much more modern ideas of Catholic existentialism.Comparing a sequel to any film - especially a pulp film like Star Wars - to the destruction of one of the greatest works of visual art ever created, is just ludicrous.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7705836, member: 42582"] It's not what all Star Wars fans do. I consider myself a fan of Star Wars - but not because I super-obssess over every little detail (which tend not to hold up for even a moment - the Imperial "assault" on Hoth, and the Rebels' escape, is just one example). For some fans, it's fun because it's pulpy action with a veneer of mysticism and moral wisdom. Not more than that. These comparisons are ridiculous. First, a sequel doesn't change the originals - they're still there to be enjoyed. (The literary world is full of second-rate sequels or copies or "echoes". And of failed first goes followed up by better second attempts. The bad works don't hurt the good.) Second, of the three important works you mention the only one I've personally seen is the Pieta. On two occasions, once sufficiently early in the morning that I was just about the only person there. As a piece of art it is absolutely remarkable. It is dramatically and remarkably modern, in my view, when compared to contemperaneous statuary. I think for anyone it would be an arresting work. And for someone who is familiar with the story of the Crucifixion - a very central story to much of Europes cultural output over the past 1600-odd years - it is even moreso. The arresting modernism and the treatment of the Crucifixion also, for me at least, come together in the way it seems to capture - in statue form - the much more modern ideas of Catholic existentialism. Comparing a sequel to any film - especially a pulp film like Star Wars - to the destruction of one of the greatest works of visual art ever created, is just ludicrous. [/QUOTE]

Verification