What do the people here think about valleys? Not the topographical kind, but the parts of a work that the author and/or fans admit generally admit are flawed in various ways? I think supreme perfection, if even attainable, can come dangerously close to boring. Star Wars is commonplace enough to make an example: the low fruit of Han preemptively shooting Greedo was seen as a flaw by Lucas but not the fans, so that's not quite as illustrative as I'd like. Instead, I direct your eyes to this: Spoiler: Sibling complications This one is special. I don't often hear the audience invoke spite about this retroactive Lucas edit the same way they do Greedo's death, probably because this is sort of a weird hill to die on. It became a valley as soon as Lucas made up his mind about the characters, but I still think the work is better with it if in no other way than its quirkiness. Flaws are always flaws by critic and audience and usually creator, but their value is still present nonetheless. They still add something via their place in the whole at least as some form of contrast. This notion is still tumbling about in my head, and I'm maybe not articulating it all that well. But I'm curious to hear all your thoughts on the more accepted valleys of works. Do they have merit? Or is it as simple as 'a flaw is a flaw, so the work is better without it?'
Lol yeah, not really the best example, because neither one knew yet. But I get your overall point. Interesting though, that you referred to it as both a valley and a hill (to die on). I think flaws are fine and largely inescapable. Or rather, I suppose someone could work the hell out of a manuscript until it theoretically has no flaws, by which time I think all the life will have been drained out of it as well. In drawing I learned early on that often quick sketches have some vital energy that a more highly worked drawing doesn't. And I think the same principle applies to writing as well. Often the more I rework an idea the less vitality it retains. The closer it can remain to the original spark that gave it life, often the better it 'feels', flaws or no flaws. And often in working the flaws out we can destroy that vitality. I know if I enjoy a story or a movie I'll enjoy it even with a few flaws, unless they get so big or so attention-grabbing that they really destroy something vital. It's a complicated thing—there are a lot of variables. Some flaws are small and hardly even noticeable, some are much larger, and some will be noticed only by readers with Sherlock Holmesian abilities but won't bother the average reader. Then there are those flaws that the average reader/viewer have no idea are flaws, but that a serious enthusiast of (guns, history, engineering, what-have-you) will see as unforgivable. So one of the variables is who the individual reader/viewer is and what expectations they bring with them. Since you chose Star Wars as the example, I'll say it's a movie that I liked so much in a general sense that I was more than willling to forgive any plot holes it had, because the matrix of characters and emotions and whatever-else-it-had made it so enjoyable overall. If a work has that, then many kinds of valleys are very forgivable. If it doesn't, maybe there don't even need to be valleys of any depth to make me dislike it.
I was less forgiving on the sequels, even the first two. Some vital part of what I loved about the original just wasn't there even in Empire. It's hard to say exactly what. But one thing I considered a valley was that the sets were so simple and plain, especially those interiors in Cloud City, where it seemed they made up a few large hallway pieces (that looked like very cheaply-done vacuformed plastic) and just used them over and over. One of the charming aspects of the original (for me) were the rustic and very hand-made interiors on Tatooine. Especially the cave-like interiors of the farmhouse where Luke lived and the other cavelike interior of Kenobi's house. There was nothing so charming in Empire, instead it had those too-plain, too-simple flat walls with no decoration, which reminded me in a bad way of the earlier low budget sci-fi movies of the 50's and 60's that Star Wars had so brilliantly surpassed in every regard. Seeing Empire made me feel like much of that was gone now. But I think I would have been far more willing to forgive that if Empire had more of the synergy of characters/situations/emotions the original did. For me it just didn't. For me the original trilogy (and the trilogy of trilogies) followed the standard rule for sequels—each new installment is usually about half as good as its predecessor (unless made by James Cameron, in which case it's at least damn-near as good as the original).* * This holds true for me right up through Aliens and T2. Beyond that he became just another director as far as I'm concerned. No longer the brilliant superstar he was up to that point. But the same seems to happen to them all at a certain point in their career.
Well I thought the Luke+Leia kiss was interesting because it was removed, but the audience does not complain about it the same way it does the changes to Greedo's death. That makes it a flaw in the eyes of the producer and audience, something I wanted to use to illustrate and gen-u-ine flaw as opposed to a difference in taste or opinion. I don't know what happens to the Camerons and Scotts of the world. It's like they forget some of the most basic principles of the craft. Or maybe they stop listening to their right-hand men.
... and surround themselves with yes-men instead. That's what happened at the Empire of Lucas. He did his best work when he still had some humbleness and lacked any real confidence in his own abilities (like when he directed Star Wars). He listened to other people involved in the production. But when he decided to take over and do the prequels trilogy he gave all that up and decided he knows best. In fact on the original trilogy he had to be talked out of some really bad dieas, like naming the main character Luke Starkiller, and the third movie Revenge of the Jedi (rather than Return). Both choices make Luke sound like a villain rather than the good guy.
I'm a big Star Wars geek and I had no idea that kiss was removed. I even watched Empire Strikes Back last year and didn't notice.
I think we might need a dedicated thread to go through all the flaws in Star Wars movies! The original trilogy is still viewed fondly, though that possibly is due to more than a little nostalgia. Back to the OP, wasn't there a thing with the Chinese Willow pattern on porcelain kitchenware where a deliberate flaw was always included, based on the notion that perfection belonged only to God? I've been a fan of Tom Waits since the age of 17 when my sister gave me a cassette copy of Blue Valentine for Christmas (nearly 40 years ago). I've bought all his albums on vinyl, cassette, cd, digital. If each album contains 10 songs, there's often 3/4 that I generally skip past, that don't work for me. But when he nails it, nothing out there comes close. Curiously, some of those that I might skip are highlights for some other people and, also, sometimes they're songs I come back to and appreciate differently with passage of time. They sometimes stand out as highlights on live albums, so go figure. A friend of mine is quite an accomplished folk musician. He tells a story that I tried to incorporate in a flash piece a while back, about playing at a festival in England, taking a break and joined an impromptu session with other artists when they were joined by one of the marquee names who left a session of similarly billed. When asked why, his answer was "not a single bum note. Fuckers aren't even trying."
