Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicLuke started training when he was what 18-19, and ends up training for like what 10 years total by the end of ROTJ? To me it's more logical to assume Luke would -not- be as good as Jedi who had been training since at least 9 years of age, taught by a whole community of Jedi when they were still in their prime. Luke is a huge underdog as far as Jedi Hopefuls go, and that's another way the prequels augment the drama in the classic trilogy, by underscoring Luke's chances compared to fully trained Jedi.
Again, for anyone that wants argue the specifics of Jedi-jumping, that is not my point. I’m not saying you can’t argue for what you’re arguing. It’s a complicated subject and I’m not saying that it’s obvious or clear. From my point of view, there are almost as many, if not more, reasons to doubt what you are arguing for and to argue for the opposite, but I just really don’t care enough about that shit.
The fact remains that this concept is artistically jarring from the original, subtle version of the Jedi’s physical prowess. The fact that we actually have to think so much about this complicated mess is problem with the harmony of the “saga.” There is a lack of simplicity here. It takes you out of the drama of the moment if you start with one concept or the other. None of you can claim to have pulled up an obvious answer for this difference from the movies alone.
Anyways, I find it strange that you all love this topic so much. I’m now sorry I brought it up in the first place. I just threw it out off of the top of my head. Seriously, even the original Star Wars had small problems like these (not as many, but it still had them), so it’s not that big of a deal. If any of you want to talk about it further and why it’s supposedly not a problem when we consider your convoluted reasoning, I’m not going to respond anymore. It’s an artistic flaw, a small artistic flaw to be sure, but an artistic flaw nonetheless and that is all I have to say on this matter. Thank you.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicYour assumption that light sabers needed the Force to work is unsubstantiated by any of the Star Wars films, and in fact, Han Solo uses one which pretty much disproves your assumption outright. But it is good to see you actively suspending your disbelief for this concept, because it will come in handy later on for other points I may make about the prequels.
What the hell? Because, Han Solo activates a lightsaber, that
“disproves” my assumption that lightsabers needed the force in some way? That makes no sense. Could you actually spend some time to explain to me, logically, how my statement is somehow
disproven by that example of yours?
For crying out loud, even your beloved, behind-the-scenes reasoning for the Star Wars universe states that a lightsaber can only be built using the force. Does what Han did somehow disprove that idea for you?
In the original Star Wars we learn that the lightsaber is a “Jedi’s” weapon. That means a lot, but I always took that to mean the force was somehow involved in the way its technology worked. The movie doesn’t state that, sure, but, based upon what it says, how can you criticize me for at least considering that assumption? (If we expand our analysis here to RotJ, Vader clearly implies that to construct a lightsaber is an impressive feet for a Jedi.)
Either way, that assumption of mine is totally beside the point here! I’m annoyed that you latched onto it in your misguided way, Go-Mer. Even if we assume that the force does not need to be involved with lightsabers and that it functions using the standard technology of that society, there is STILL no reason to doubt its existence based upon what that first movie provided. They live in a fantasy society with advanced technology. Who are you to say that they couldn’t achieve a weapon like a lightsaber using some technique you aren’t aware of? What actual, specific reasons, from and in the movie’s own context, can you cite that cause you to doubt lightsabers, Go-Mer?
Now onto some real issues . . .
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicTo be sure the "I am your father" revelation" is one of the best revelations in cinema history. It really blew all our hair back when we first saw it, wondering if he was telling the truth between ESB and ROTJ. To a lesser extent, it was also surprising to find out that Yoda is really Yoda. These are some great surprises, but once you see them, they are over. They are like one trick ponies for the audience. To me the long-term dramatic value in these scenes really rests on how Luke will react to these revelations. If anything, knowing this information ahead of time puts more emphasis on Luke.
Ahh, but that is precisely where you are wrong. Those scenes are the EXACT OPPOSITE from “one trick ponies.” Those scenes are dramatic moments where the emotions of the characters and the truths they struggle with take center stage. I thought that would be obvious to you.
We are not talking about a few, mere, disconnected, plot twists; we are talking about a movie where we are involved in what the characters believe and feel. Yoda’s reveal is important EVERY SINGLE TIME, because the movie is designed to put you into Luke’s mind. We agree with his impatience and understand the actions he takes because of it. Darth Vader saying that he is Luke’s father is also important EVERY SINGLE TIME, because the movie is designed to focus upon what Luke cares about and what Luke is feeling. Thinking about how Darth Vader is Luke’s father before the important line and from other contexts distracts you from the intense and special emotions of the moment.
I’m sorry that you express the lame inability to come at an old movie with a fresh mind and that you cannot enjoy dramatic moments for what they are. I’m sorry that you can’t still be “wowed” every time by the father-reveal scene as I am, time after time. I feel
very sorry for you if your mind is truly as weak as you say.
The FACT remains that Empire Strikes Back is not designed to have those elements in your mind ahead of time. They take your mind off of the character-driven plot and drama of the film in immensely discordant ways. That is simply wrong, from an artistic standpoint, because that is the film’s original focus. You have added nothing to contradict this fact.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicLet's examine how people hear things. In any movie with humans, it is usually assumed that people just hear things. If a movie got into the idea that there are these sound waves hitting a membrane inside our ear which causes these little bones to resonate, which in turn allow us to perceive sounds, then nothing is really changed, it's just now we have this additional information that is usually assumed.
Very true, but if I were to tell you that microscopic, telepathic elephants exist in our ears and stomp around to create vibrations in our brain to alert us to things that happen around us, that would initially sound troubling to you, and perhaps even stupid. That’s not to say that the midichlorian explanation that Qui-Gon gave was anywhere near that bad, but it was still bad enough in that same way to take people out of the drama of the moment and lessen the impact of the film.
Otherwise, your thoughts about how the midichlorians are an interesting explanation to you is not something I’m going to argue with. I’ll just quickly say that, from my personal interests in science, I find midichlorians to be a simple, boring, and generic idea compared to other possible explanations for force sensitivity. But, I can still accept what you’re talking about and understand how you find it interesting. My actual point for this issue is how it is not presented well in the movie. It makes the force overly complicated and messy at that moment.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicOriginally posted by: TiptupAnyways, the yin-yang concept was executed horribly in episodes II and III. One minute you’d have a concept be identical and then the next minute it would be opposite.
But that contrast is what makes the parallels more meaningful than if they just repeated the exact same things.
Okay, and can you actually provide some reasons for why that would be?
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicIf [the parallels] make enough sense to be predictable, why would you suggest Lucas is insulting your intelligence with them?
My intelligence is insulted at that point because he expects me to be entertained by that kind of predictability.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicTo me the most important component of Art is what the observer brings to the table. For a viewer like me who loves to wonder about stuff like this, this dynamic brings more enjoyment than if all of the concepts were wrapped up into a neat little package and sat on our lap with instructions on how we should feel about it.
Well, that’s a quaint idea but rather stupid, I’m afraid. From that supposed point of view, the very existence of art cannot even be a good thing. Potentially, you could walk up to a blank, white wall and entertain yourself with what you “bring” if that is what is most important. What is most important about art is what it communicates. Sorry.
Also, you don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about with respect to art. Let me try again: Art communicates concepts and emotions to people. Art can either be beautiful or ugly. Normally people strive for beauty. One important element to enjoying beauty, for example, is simplicity when it ties together complexity. That is far from being an easy or unchallenging process, and, if anything, it should excite your sense of wonder beyond what it provides.
The problem with much of what exists in the prequel trilogy is the fact that it doesn’t excite my imagination. I often find its concepts annoying, boring, and/or messy. That’s hardly what I’d call beautiful. But, if you find a lot of enjoyment when untangling ugly and messy concepts, then I’m truly happy for you.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicIf you prefer "standard" fare that's fine. To me Star Wars is more meaningful because it is so much more thought provoking than "standard" fare.
Heh, “standard fare,” eh? What’s that supposed to mean exactly?
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicWell most of the time, you are just supposed to accept these things at face value. If you don't want to think about why something is the way it is, then all you have to do is -not- question it. Suspend your disbelief and roll along with it.
Ahh, well, maybe you can “accept” substandard entertainment but I cannot. Its not something that I believe anyone should do. If a work of art wants me to accept it, then it should first work hard to entice me enough to accept it; it should be well crafted.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicOriginally posted by: TiptupSo much of what happens in the prequel trilogy’s story occurs for stupid reasons.
Such as?
Well, we’ve already been discussing the most important example of this for me. I believe it is stupid when Anakin murders children over a rather tame, 5-second dream on the basis of the illogical words of an evil, untrustworthy, man.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicTo call Anakin a complete psychopath is to miss the humanity in his feelings of selfishness.
I agree and I don’t miss the humanity of Anakin’s feelings of selfishness at all. What you seem to miss however, is how Anakin’s feelings of selfishness are so vastly outweighed by his inability to empathize with his victims, and therefore we are forced to conclude that he was a psychopath.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicIt teaches us that evil can happen to anyone, even us. By relating to an evil person such as Darth Vader, we can see how even a person who sees themselves as "good" can end up making the wrong choices. It teaches us to be ever vigilant of the evil lurking within ourselves.
That is a good lesson, but we can relate to the evil of psychopaths and still be absolutely disgusted by them as we should be.
Darth Vader is ruined as a redeemable villain when he is turned into a whiny, creepy, annoying psychopath. Even as a basic, honorable villain, forgetting redemption, Darth Vader is ruined by the prequels.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicFear is bad. It's debilitating. It only serves to make us unstable. Wanting to be with his mother is fine, being afraid of losing his mother is natural, wanting to save his mother or wife from death is natural. Fear is not a good thing, but it's a natural occurrence in the human condition. It's not the fear that's evil, it's the anger and hate that it can lead to that is evil.
Fear is very natural. It is also good though. If I don’t fear harm to things which I deem good, then I cannot say that I truly love them. Do you believe that love is bad as well?
Also, when Obi-Wan was afraid the sand people would return, and thought it wise for them to leave quickly, was he giving in to his bad feelings?
Don’t be silly. Fear is often very good. The way fear is channeled is how it becomes bad.
Originally posted by: Darth AwesomeAs for the message of needing to let things go, it was best demonstrated with Anakin's mother. Anakin needed to let her go and move on. But he opted to cling to the past and, when it came time for her to die, he was not prepared for it. If he had let her go, he could have come to terms with it and not started down that path to the Dark Side. He would not have clung to Amidala, and the Emperor would not have been able to use the fear of loosing her for his ends.
That is one of the reasons the Jedi shun such material possessions. Greed and fear of loss controls us too much.
