Star Wars Discussion Thread v. Rogue One

[zepp-head]

Merely pointing out that I, personally, don't care if he re-edits the movies as much as he wants.  I think he ruined them, and I won't support his endeavors.  Like everybody else, I'd appreciate if he left the originals available somewhere (which I would actually support). 

I suppose the crux of the matter is the philosophical question of the purpose of art.  Is it to move the artist, or the people who judge his work?  I'd consider that personal decision, and won't fault somebody for deciding to please himself.  I will judge his decisions and his work, though, and part of that will be with my wallet.

That, I feel, is the correct way to go about it.

Funny how it's all the people griping about preserving cinematic history that get happy about this kind of news.  But now it's cool to pretend like the special editions never happened because they're still getting the version they wanted.  Like it or not, those versions happened, and they are also part of cinematic history.  The notions of preserving cinematic history have always sounded noble, but it has always been more about the notion of collective ownership over a franchise, and fan service is not art.

The gripe has never been that Lucas changed his movies, it's that he changed them and then made the new versions the only ones available.  People liked the original versions; they are part of film history.  People who like the new versions can be free to buy the new ones; I have no problem with that.  I'd just like the choice of being able to purchase a copy of the movie I remember from my childhood and watch it in HD.

It seems everyone has the same sentiment that Lucas is free to mess with the movies as much as he wants, as long as people can also have the originals released in the same quality. I don't know why that's so hard to understand, even if he only considers his modified versions to be the definitive versions now.

The recent uprising of folks praising Spielberg for killing off his special edition of ET prove that this isn't necessarily true.  People want to win.  They want to be right and Lucas to be wrong.  It all ties back to the idea of collective ownership.

There is no right/wrong in the creative realm. This is just petty.
Most opinions I see on the matter express that they just want a good copy of the original movies in HD. They are Lucas' movies, not the public's, and he has the right to do whatever he wants to them. Even if it makes them totally shit.

Agreed, though there are sites and forums like originaltrilogy.com that are more or less dedicated entirely to the ideas I mentioned previously.

Funny how it's all the people griping about preserving cinematic history that get happy about this kind of news.  But now it's cool to pretend like the special editions never happened because they're still getting the version they wanted.  Like it or not, those versions happened, and they are also part of cinematic history.  The notions of preserving cinematic history have always sounded noble, but it has always been more about the notion of collective ownership over a franchise, and fan service is not art.

The gripe has never been that Lucas changed his movies, it's that he changed them and then made the new versions the only ones available.  People liked the original versions; they are part of film history.  People who like the new versions can be free to buy the new ones; I have no problem with that.  I'd just like the choice of being able to purchase a copy of the movie I remember from my childhood and watch it in HD.

That was my point, Spielberg made it so that the special edition won't be available anymore.  Yet for all of those complaining that such changes raped their childhood memories, they have no problem with Spielberg saying "sorry, kids who grew up with the new version or anyone that happened to enjoy it, your memories don't fucking count".  It's something he did because he is a coward and didn't want anymore backlash.  He proved that his desire to be liked is more important, and I just can't respect a man who doesn't have the sack to stand up for his own work. 

I realize that it's just a matter of degree, but are you actually saying that that one edit in "E.T." (changing the rifles to walkie-talkies) is the same as the hundreds of edits to dozens of scenes that Lucas has made to the Star Wars movies, sometimes changing the entire meanings of scenes and/or characters?

Have you seen the ET special edition?  Because the walkie-talkies were definitely not the only change.

"An extended version of the film, including altered special effects, was released on March 22, 2002. Certain shots of E.T. had bothered Spielberg since 1982, as he did not have enough time to perfect the animatronics. Computer-generated imagery (CGI), provided by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), was used to modify several shots, including ones of E.T. running in the opening sequence and being spotted in the cornfield. The spaceship's design was also altered to include more lights. Scenes shot for but not included in the original version were introduced. These included E.T. taking a bath, and Gertie telling Mary that Elliott went to the forest. Spielberg did not add the scene featuring Harrison Ford, feeling that would reshape the film too drastically. Spielberg became more sensitive about the scene where gun-wielding federal agents threaten Elliott and his escaping friends and had the guns digitally replaced with walkie-talkies."

But even if it were, I still feel the principle would be the same, albeit a bit diminished.  Debates like these just prove how popular and ingrained Star Wars is to pop culture since this news breaks about ET and has nothing to do with Star Wars, yet that's what everyone talks about when it comes out.  Compare that with other classic films, Lawrence of Arabia, where the original cuts exist nowhere outside of the national film registry, and Metropolis, which isn't even in there, and nobody seems to mind.

[rumborak]

Might be repost, but this is beyond awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BgAlQuqzl8o

rumborak

[Orbert]

I realize that it's just a matter of degree, but are you actually saying that that one edit in "E.T." (changing the rifles to walkie-talkies) is the same as the hundreds of edits to dozens of scenes that Lucas has made to the Star Wars movies, sometimes changing the entire meanings of scenes and/or characters?

Have you seen the ET special edition?  Because the walkie-talkies were definitely not the only change.

"An extended version of the film, including altered special effects, was released on March 22, 2002. Certain shots of E.T. had bothered Spielberg since 1982, as he did not have enough time to perfect the animatronics. Computer-generated imagery (CGI), provided by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), was used to modify several shots, including ones of E.T. running in the opening sequence and being spotted in the cornfield. The spaceship's design was also altered to include more lights. Scenes shot for but not included in the original version were introduced. These included E.T. taking a bath, and Gertie telling Mary that Elliott went to the forest. Spielberg did not add the scene featuring Harrison Ford, feeling that would reshape the film too drastically. Spielberg became more sensitive about the scene where gun-wielding federal agents threaten Elliott and his escaping friends and had the guns digitally replaced with walkie-talkies."

But even if it were, I still feel the principle would be the same, albeit a bit diminished.  Debates like these just prove how popular and ingrained Star Wars is to pop culture since this news breaks about ET and has nothing to do with Star Wars, yet that's what everyone talks about when it comes out.  Compare that with other classic films, Lawrence of Arabia, where the original cuts exist nowhere outside of the national film registry, and Metropolis, which isn't even in there, and nobody seems to mind.

Okay, I wasn't aware of all that.  I read three articles; two focused on the change from rifles to walkie-talkies, seemingly implying that that's all there was (although re-reading them now, they didn't specifically say that), one mentioned two deleted scenes which were re-inserted, and the other just said that the Blu-ray was back to the original theatrical release.  I didn't realize how much tinkering had actually been done.

Yes, the principal is the same, but... I don't know.  As others have mentioned, a lot of it comes down to how you view film as an entertainment medium and an art form.  Does the public "own" it or does it belong to the filmmaker?  Does this mean that the filmmaker is free to change it however he sees fit, or does he have some kind of obligation to his viewing audience?

But it is indeed interesting that Spielberg changes his film back to the original theatrical release, and the first thing people think of it Lucas and Star Wars.  It's the first thing I thought of, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

[El Barto]

I didn't care for ET when it first came out, and have no desire to revisit it.  What I will say is that most of those changes are superficial.  Improvements on the special effects.  Where Spielberg thought he went to far was with an edit that significantly altered the tone or feel of the film.  If all Lucas had done was redo some explosions and add some extra stormtroopers, then I doubt many would be bitching about it.  His changes made the movie completely different.  The characters are no longer the same, and the tone is considerably more lighthearted. 

[Cool Chris]

Lawrence of Arabia, where the original cuts exist nowhere outside of the national film registry….

I assume this ‘original’ cut is a shorter one the studios wanted, as it would allow for more viewings per day. Maybe a matter of perspective, but while something like that may be the ‘original’ cut, I wouldn’t consider it the definitive. But yeah, it should exist somewhere, even if no one would ever want to see/buy it.

I don’t see why they can’t do like what they did with Apocalypse Now. If you do a recut, make it obvious and name it something different, and make both available.

Interesting about ET. I never knew that, but if I saw an article entitled "Changes to ET for DVD/BR blah blah..." I wouldn't care enough to read it.

[zepp-head]

Might be repost, but this is beyond awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BgAlQuqzl8o

rumborak

Still awesome indeed! 

I realize that it's just a matter of degree, but are you actually saying that that one edit in "E.T." (changing the rifles to walkie-talkies) is the same as the hundreds of edits to dozens of scenes that Lucas has made to the Star Wars movies, sometimes changing the entire meanings of scenes and/or characters?

Have you seen the ET special edition?  Because the walkie-talkies were definitely not the only change.

"An extended version of the film, including altered special effects, was released on March 22, 2002. Certain shots of E.T. had bothered Spielberg since 1982, as he did not have enough time to perfect the animatronics. Computer-generated imagery (CGI), provided by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), was used to modify several shots, including ones of E.T. running in the opening sequence and being spotted in the cornfield. The spaceship's design was also altered to include more lights. Scenes shot for but not included in the original version were introduced. These included E.T. taking a bath, and Gertie telling Mary that Elliott went to the forest. Spielberg did not add the scene featuring Harrison Ford, feeling that would reshape the film too drastically. Spielberg became more sensitive about the scene where gun-wielding federal agents threaten Elliott and his escaping friends and had the guns digitally replaced with walkie-talkies."

But even if it were, I still feel the principle would be the same, albeit a bit diminished.  Debates like these just prove how popular and ingrained Star Wars is to pop culture since this news breaks about ET and has nothing to do with Star Wars, yet that's what everyone talks about when it comes out.  Compare that with other classic films, Lawrence of Arabia, where the original cuts exist nowhere outside of the national film registry, and Metropolis, which isn't even in there, and nobody seems to mind.

Okay, I wasn't aware of all that.  I read three articles; two focused on the change from rifles to walkie-talkies, seemingly implying that that's all there was (although re-reading them now, they didn't specifically say that), one mentioned two deleted scenes which were re-inserted, and the other just said that the Blu-ray was back to the original theatrical release.  I didn't realize how much tinkering had actually been done.

Yes, the principal is the same, but... I don't know.  As others have mentioned, a lot of it comes down to how you view film as an entertainment medium and an art form.  Does the public "own" it or does it belong to the filmmaker?  Does this mean that the filmmaker is free to change it however he sees fit, or does he have some kind of obligation to his viewing audience?

But it is indeed interesting that Spielberg changes his film back to the original theatrical release, and the first thing people think of it Lucas and Star Wars.  It's the first thing I thought of, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Indeed.  It is a film series that I don't think will ever be topped in terms of effect it has on pop culture.  Perhaps it will be topped one day, but I don't think it will be in the medium of film.  That's just me though.

As to your other point, it is an interesting one indeed.  I understand the argument that without the fan base that buys all of what the artist makes, they are a large part of the success of that franchise just as the creator is.  However, my thoughts on the matter are closer to El Barto's, who appears to believe that if you choose to pay for something, you are supporting it using purchasing power.  Many believe that more than buying a movie ticket or an action figure, they are buying a stock in how the future of the franchise should be played out. 

Lawrence of Arabia, where the original cuts exist nowhere outside of the national film registry….

I assume this ‘original’ cut is a shorter one the studios wanted, as it would allow for more viewings per day. Maybe a matter of perspective, but while something like that may be the ‘original’ cut, I wouldn’t consider it the definitive. But yeah, it should exist somewhere, even if no one would ever want to see/buy it.

I don’t see why they can’t do like what they did with Apocalypse Now. If you do a recut, make it obvious and name it something different, and make both available.

Interesting about ET. I never knew that, but if I saw an article entitled "Changes to ET for DVD/BR blah blah..." I wouldn't care enough to read it.

Yeah, that's where it gets to be a gray area.  Are we supposed to expect every cut of every movie to survive each time a new video medium arises?  Or do we just select one and run.  Then the issue is which version.  The original?  The director's cut?  The most popular?  What about those who love the film but prefer a version that isn't as popular?  Who is to say?  It's an interesting struggle to me.

[The King in Crimson]

There are like 8 billion different cuts of Bladerunner out there and somehow, Ridley and Co. managed to fit each and every one on the last DVD release.

So yes, it is possible to preserve most if not all cuts of a film.  Especially for incredibly successful films like SW.  Bladerunner was a flop on release.

[zepp-head]

Yet people were happier when this didn't happen in the case of E.T.

[hefdaddy42]

One thing that is being forgotten:

I have that DVD release of ET.  Yes, it featured an extended cut with touch-ups and changes.

It also included the original cut of the film.

[PuffyPat]

HAN SOLO LIVES IN MY TOWN!!!!!!!

[Orbert]

(and he shot first)

[zepp-head]

One thing that is being forgotten:

I have that DVD release of ET.  Yes, it featured an extended cut with touch-ups and changes.

It also included the original cut of the film.

Fun fact: Spielberg didn't want it that way.  The 1982 cut was such a last minute edition that it wasn't advertised on the case or shrink wrap.

[hefdaddy42]

One thing that is being forgotten:

I have that DVD release of ET.  Yes, it featured an extended cut with touch-ups and changes.

It also included the original cut of the film.

Fun fact: Spielberg didn't want it that way.  The 1982 cut was such a last minute edition that it wasn't advertised on the case or shrink wrap.

If you say so.  But once you open it, there are only two discs, and disc 2 is clearly marked "Original Theatrical Release."

He may not have wanted it at first.  Things like this are a process.  But the fact is that fans of the film were never deprived of the original version of the film.

[zepp-head]

One thing that is being forgotten:

I have that DVD release of ET.  Yes, it featured an extended cut with touch-ups and changes.

It also included the original cut of the film.

Fun fact: Spielberg didn't want it that way.  The 1982 cut was such a last minute edition that it wasn't advertised on the case or shrink wrap.

If you say so.  But once you open it, there are only two discs, and disc 2 is clearly marked "Original Theatrical Release."

He may not have wanted it at first.  Things like this are a process.  But the fact is that fans of the film were never deprived of the original version of the film.

I'm sure it was labeled. I was just stating a fact. 

[bosk1]

If I were teaching a class titled "How Not To Appear Defensive In An Argument 101," one of the first things I would teach my students is to never come back with, "I was just stating a fact."  When people say that, I know they think it sounds like they are saying something important.  But in reality, they aren't really saying anything at all.

But no offense.  I was just stating a fact.

[zepp-head]

If I were teaching a class titled "How Not To Appear Defensive In An Argument 101," one of the first things I would teach my students is to never come back with, "I was just stating a fact."  When people say that, I know they think it sounds like they are saying something important.  But in reality, they aren't really saying anything at all.

But no offense.  I was just stating a fact.

Thanks but I wasn't trying to be snippy.  The only reason I brought it up at all was because of the condescending "if you say so".

[Kotowboy]

So.

In Summary :

George "Filthy" Lucre = Douchebag.

Spielberg = Good.

[El Barto]

So.

In Summary :

George "Filthy" Lucre = Douchebag.

Spielberg = Good.

Pretty much.  But, since GL has essentially made Star Wars his life's work, he's voluntarily resigned himself to being judged solely on that basis, where he fails horribly.  Spielberg continues to do new things, and gets judged on all of them.  Some of those have been good enough to earn him great status. 

[bosk1]

If I were teaching a class titled "How Not To Appear Defensive In An Argument 101," one of the first things I would teach my students is to never come back with, "I was just stating a fact."  When people say that, I know they think it sounds like they are saying something important.  But in reality, they aren't really saying anything at all.

But no offense.  I was just stating a fact.

Thanks but I wasn't trying to be snippy.  The only reason I brought it up at all was because of the condescending "if you say so".

Neither was I.  You were just unfortunate enough to fall victim to my ''just stating a fact" pet peeve. 

[Kotowboy]

Pretty much.  But, since GL has essentially made Star Wars his life's work, he's voluntarily resigned himself to being judged solely on that basis, where he fails horribly.  Spielberg continues to do new things, and gets judged on all of them.  Some of those have been good enough to earn him great status.

Spielberg made Duel and Jaws several years before Star Wars even came out.

He also went on to direct E.T.  Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, All the best Indy films, Close Encounters, War Of The Worlds ( I liked it ) and many other classics.

George Lucre is primarily now known for ruining his one good idea.

[hefdaddy42]

If I were teaching a class titled "How Not To Appear Defensive In An Argument 101," one of the first things I would teach my students is to never come back with, "I was just stating a fact."  When people say that, I know they think it sounds like they are saying something important.  But in reality, they aren't really saying anything at all.

But no offense.  I was just stating a fact.

Thanks but I wasn't trying to be snippy.  The only reason I brought it up at all was because of the condescending "if you say so".

It wasn't condescending.  I had never heard that he didn't want it included, so I said "If you say so."  Because you said so.  And I never hear Spielberg say so.

[Super Dude]

Pretty much.  But, since GL has essentially made Star Wars his life's work, he's voluntarily resigned himself to being judged solely on that basis, where he fails horribly.  Spielberg continues to do new things, and gets judged on all of them.  Some of those have been good enough to earn him great status.

Spielberg made Duel and Jaws several years before Star Wars even came out.

He also went on to direct E.T.  Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, All the best Indy films, Close Encounters, War Of The Worlds ( I liked it ) and many other classics.

George Lucre is primarily now known for ruining his one good idea.

Yeah, that pretty much spells it out. And is why Lucas has no right to complain about angry fanboys.

[zepp-head]

If I were teaching a class titled "How Not To Appear Defensive In An Argument 101," one of the first things I would teach my students is to never come back with, "I was just stating a fact."  When people say that, I know they think it sounds like they are saying something important.  But in reality, they aren't really saying anything at all.

But no offense.  I was just stating a fact.

Thanks but I wasn't trying to be snippy.  The only reason I brought it up at all was because of the condescending "if you say so".

It wasn't condescending.  I had never heard that he didn't want it included, so I said "If you say so."  Because you said so.  And I never hear Spielberg say so.

Fair enough.  It's just that the phrase is used in a backhanded way 95% of the time.

[rumborak]

The real bummer about episode I-III is that the storylines themselves aren't all that bad. I almost wish some director did like a Peter Jackson thing and reshot all three movies.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

The real bummer about episode I-III is that the storylines themselves aren't all that bad. I almost wish some director did like a Peter Jackson thing and reshot all three movies.

rumborak

I think the storylines are pretty bad.

[Super Dude]

I agree. I remember Reap or someone had a pretty interesting rewrite a while back.

[orcus116]

The storylines did not come off as interesting enough to be the backbone of not one but three AAA movies. Of course not having well developed characters hurts too.

[zepp-head]

The real bummer about episode I-III is that the storylines themselves aren't all that bad. I almost wish some director did like a Peter Jackson thing and reshot all three movies.

rumborak

The stories are great.  A lot of people really get caught up in the flaws, and though they exist (some of them obvious), they've never been enough to destroy the strengths of the films, in my book anyway.  Film school definitely helped me see them in a new light, but I've always enjoyed them.

[ReaPsTA]

I agree. I remember Reap or someone had a pretty interesting rewrite a while back.

I rewrote part of one scene because my ego is fragile.

The real bummer about episode I-III is that the storylines themselves aren't all that bad. I almost wish some director did like a Peter Jackson thing and reshot all three movies.

rumborak

The story lines are bad.  The fundamental problem with the prequel trilogy is how obvious it is George Lucas did not understand Darth Vader.

There is exactly one decent Anakin scene in the entire prequel trilogy.  It's the one where Anakin tells Padme she should join him so they can overthrow the emperor and rule the galaxy.  Aside from being a great echo of TESB, it's his character in a nut shell.

Vader was never a whiny brat or a psychopath.  He very possibly would have killed all the Sand People after seeing that they raped and murdered his mom, but then he would have been 100% unapologetic about it (because he wouldn't have killed them out of a sense of rage motivated by powerlessness, but simply because he calculated that they deserved it).  He would have also been smart enough to lie about it.  He NEVER would have told Padme about it in a weepy fit.  And - this is important - the relationship he had with the Emperor would have been important because the Emperor would have been the only person he knew he could tell about it.  In the prequels, Anakin has this weird lack-of-a-father-figure-so-I-need-a-new-one relationship with the Emperor.  Vader would never so willingly submit himself to anyone.

The logical question then is - if Vader in the prequels should have been so much more similar to his character in the originals, then where's the room for change?  Simple.  It's implied that Vader's turn to the dark side was tragic because, beforehand, he was basically an honorable and noble guy with a strong sense of self-worth.  The tragedy of his turn to the dark side should have come from him abandoning those sides of his personality to serve the Emperor.

Now ask yourself, would you describe Anakin's character in the prequels as honorable and noble?

I didn't think so.

[zepp-head]

For having so many passions in common, I don't think I've ever encountered someone I disagree with more than you, Reap. 

[Orbert]

The fundamental problem with the prequel trilogy is how obvious it is George Lucas did not understand Darth Vader.

Now you do realize how presumptuous it is to say that George Lucas did not understand Darth Vader, right?  He created the character, and I'm certain that he will argue to the death that he alone truly understands Vader and the story plays out exactly as it was meant to, blah blah blah.

But I agree with you.  Darth Vader was one of the best bad guys in cinema.  First impression was pure evil, combined with that incredible helmet/breathing apparatus and suit, telekinetic power and hints at telepathic power, a truly imposing and terrifying figure.  And yet something of his humanity was still there, tucked away, and was tapped by the end of Episode VI.  Lucas created him, but when it came time to explore how he got to be that way, even though we already knew half the story, he had no idea what to do.  All Lucas had to do was connect the dots, and do it with the some style.  He only got the first part right.

[El Barto]

I agree. I remember Reap or someone had a pretty interesting rewrite a while back.

I rewrote part of one scene because my ego is fragile.

The real bummer about episode I-III is that the storylines themselves aren't all that bad. I almost wish some director did like a Peter Jackson thing and reshot all three movies.

rumborak

The story lines are bad.  The fundamental problem with the prequel trilogy is how obvious it is George Lucas did not understand Darth Vader.

There is exactly one decent Anakin scene in the entire prequel trilogy.  It's the one where Anakin tells Padme she should join him so they can overthrow the emperor and rule the galaxy.  Aside from being a great echo of TESB, it's his character in a nut shell.

Vader was never a whiny brat or a psychopath.  He very possibly would have killed all the Sand People after seeing that they raped and murdered his mom, but then he would have been 100% unapologetic about it (because he wouldn't have killed them out of a sense of rage motivated by powerlessness, but simply because he calculated that they deserved it).  He would have also been smart enough to lie about it.  He NEVER would have told Padme about it in a weepy fit.  And - this is important - the relationship he had with the Emperor would have been important because the Emperor would have been the only person he knew he could tell about it.  In the prequels, Anakin has this weird lack-of-a-father-figure-so-I-need-a-new-one relationship with the Emperor.  Vader would never so willingly submit himself to anyone.

The logical question then is - if Vader in the prequels should have been so much more similar to his character in the originals, then where's the room for change?  Simple.  It's implied that Vader's turn to the dark side was tragic because, beforehand, he was basically an honorable and noble guy with a strong sense of self-worth.  The tragedy of his turn to the dark side should have come from him abandoning those sides of his personality to serve the Emperor.

Now ask yourself, would you describe Anakin's character in the prequels as honorable and noble?

I didn't think so.

Yeah, I think this is a pretty good assessment.  As I see it, GL never explored the kid's daddy issues, instead spending all of his time focusing on Padme.  The problem is that with Padme being the core of his issues, his fatal flaw is reduced to the simple fact that he's a fucking idiot.  Nothing in his transformation really related to her, except that he had a misguided suspicion that she'd die.  It Lucas had spent some time dealing with daddy/Palpatine, at least we could say there was something significant enough to account for his turn to the darkside, rather than just outright naivete.  That would make the death of Annakin tragic and meaningful.

I'll stop short of saying that his story sucked.  I think he had the outline of a wonderful story, and there's no reason why he couldn't have fleshed it out nicely over three films.  He just sucks at story telling.  He worries about making it appealing to a dumbed down audience and how it can be marketed.  That leads him to focus on the wrong stuff.  His interest in making it a children's film is certainly a big component of that.  A darker tone wouldn't have saved it in it's current form, but it would have been an improvement. 

[Super Dude]

I hope something crazy happens with the IP rights and someone is able to go and do it right after GL dies. Bear in mind I have no idea how IP law works (yet).

[GuineaPig]

I don't understand people who say the prequels have a great story.  There's a whole mess of go-nowhere plots, confusing motivations, a lack of thematic continuity, and characters doing stupid things (or out-of-character things). 

I guess people are talking about the core "A good man turns evil" story, but to interpret that as the actual story means stripping away 99% of the actual plot.  There are much more to the films (or any film) than that.

[Orbert]

True, but there is also a difference between the story and the plot, and differing opinions on which is which.  To me, the basic story is of a guy who started off good, with good intentions, who through a series of tragedies and lack of proper guidance, became something very, very evil.  That's not a bad story right there, if a bit cliché.

It's how it all played out that most people have trouble with.  I think of that as the plot.  Or hell, maybe that's the story and the outline is the plot.  Which is which?