Originally posted by: CO
See I like the Jedi being a bunch of out of touch monks, cause it makes Lukes character that much better. I never understood why fans thought the Jedi should be this glamor bunch, cause if you watch just 4-6 again, Kenobi & Yoda were wrong the whole trilogy! They are lying to Luke, and everything they tried to steer him to in the end didn't work, cause it is eventually Luke who makes a new option NOT to fight and throw down his lightsaber, and that option was never presented once by Kenobi & Yoda.
Like I said, I agree that the Jedi were dipsticks and Luke's repudiation of them is what makes RotJ good. But the monastic model of dipstick just doesn't work for me. No one in the OT indicates that Jedi didn't have kids; not when Obi-wan first tells the story, not when Yoda is training Luke, not when Vader reveals who's the daddy, not when Yoda confirms it, not when Obi-wan tells the corrected version of the story, not when Luke and Leia briefly discuss their parents on Endor, not when Palpatine gloats about turning Luke's father, and not when Vader is dying and saying his last words to Luke. This story point could have been introduced at almost any point throughout the three movies, and it was not. There's nothing about it in the contemporary novelizations, or in what I've heard of the radio dramas. As far as I can tell, it just wasn't part of the conceptualization of the Jedi until some time after 1983, and it's incongruous with the Star Wars material made before 1999.
The Monk aspect gives a good message to the viewer that in the end, all these PT characters grew up around Jedi, Politicians, War, etc, and none of them really grew up in a normal family. Padme was a queen at 14, is that normal? The Jedi are taken from their families, and become soldiers to the republic, and forsake a normal life, is that normal? Luke & Leia grew up as normal people who got involved with politicians and jedi AFTER they became adults, and it show how normal they are, and how they think alot more rationale then the PT characters did.
See I like the Jedi being a bunch of out of touch monks, cause it makes Lukes character that much better. I never understood why fans thought the Jedi should be this glamor bunch, cause if you watch just 4-6 again, Kenobi & Yoda were wrong the whole trilogy! They are lying to Luke, and everything they tried to steer him to in the end didn't work, cause it is eventually Luke who makes a new option NOT to fight and throw down his lightsaber, and that option was never presented once by Kenobi & Yoda.
Like I said, I agree that the Jedi were dipsticks and Luke's repudiation of them is what makes RotJ good. But the monastic model of dipstick just doesn't work for me. No one in the OT indicates that Jedi didn't have kids; not when Obi-wan first tells the story, not when Yoda is training Luke, not when Vader reveals who's the daddy, not when Yoda confirms it, not when Obi-wan tells the corrected version of the story, not when Luke and Leia briefly discuss their parents on Endor, not when Palpatine gloats about turning Luke's father, and not when Vader is dying and saying his last words to Luke. This story point could have been introduced at almost any point throughout the three movies, and it was not. There's nothing about it in the contemporary novelizations, or in what I've heard of the radio dramas. As far as I can tell, it just wasn't part of the conceptualization of the Jedi until some time after 1983, and it's incongruous with the Star Wars material made before 1999.
The Monk aspect gives a good message to the viewer that in the end, all these PT characters grew up around Jedi, Politicians, War, etc, and none of them really grew up in a normal family. Padme was a queen at 14, is that normal? The Jedi are taken from their families, and become soldiers to the republic, and forsake a normal life, is that normal? Luke & Leia grew up as normal people who got involved with politicians and jedi AFTER they became adults, and it show how normal they are, and how they think alot more rationale then the PT characters did.
Leia was a senator by the age of what, 19? That's not really normal, even if the Imperial Senate was a sinecure. I don't know how normal being a queen at 14 is, but it's not unheard of for children to ascend the throne while a regent rules until they reach the age of majority. This might be done in an elective monarchy solely because the majority of electors prefer a regent to a strong monarch, especially if the constitution term limits monarchs. But I must confess I don't remember whether or not Amidala had any real executive power; besides one viewing of The Phantom Edit, I haven't seen The Phantom Menace since opening day. I just remember thinking the constitution of Naboo would either have been really cool or really stupid. (They let the Gungans live there, so probably stupid.)