The Empire Strikes Back is a "junk movie" — Page 5

Bingowings said:

At the beginning of ROTJ Vader turns up to give the Moff the bad news that he can't have more men until he gets the second Death Star working.

So it couldn't have blown up anything around the time of ESB because it wouldn't be operational yet.

Obviously. What I meant was, destroying any planets wasn't even mentioned. Obviously they couldn't blow up any planets during episode 5, I meant, if the empire and the sith were truly the bad guys, they would've at least had plans and mention of it during episode 6. Darth Vader never told luke skywalker that "join me and together we can destroy the planets with the death star as father and son"". I won't even discuss episode 6 because that is totally off-topic and not pertaining to this thread, as we've gotten off on a bit of a tangent here already, discussing cloning and stuff like that!!!!!

Maybe. But since the entire debate--whether it's good, bad, or a non-issue--is never brought up, discussed, or even alluded to, it really just feels like the script failed to pick up on a serious thematic issue inherant in the film. In other words, it's a bit of a plot hole. To me, it doesn't seem deliberate design. It seems the same reason that the entire central mystery of Attack of the Clones--who ordered the clones, and who Sifo-dyas was and what he was doing--was simply ignored in the sequel. Which is to say....who the fuck knows. It was simply dropped.

...what the hell!? How can you have a sequel that does that?? But Lucas went that far. I'm not sure what he was thinking. But basically the effect is that he pretended Episode II didn't exist. Which is awesome, because that movie is terrible. But it's just one more nail in the coffin for why the prequel trilogy was an epic failure of sometimes embarassing preportions. Can you think of another trilogy that simply jettisons the entire plot 2/3 of the way through? Well, maybe that is why Revenge of the SIth is so watchable, so I don't regret it, but it's certainly an indictment against George Lucas from his own self.

thecolorsblend said:

 

Wexter said:

Is this even a serious question? How about the same reason we haven't yet cloned a human being? Because it doesn't seem right. Basically the Clone Wars were about Republic pitting their artificially manufactured disposable human beings against the armies of disposable machines. And everyone was so degenerated that it didn't even strike them as a moral dilemma. Now if "Clone Wars" (which was established as soon as Episode IV) was in fact about this dilemma - and the bad guys would be in favor of such policy - that would make an interesting conflict.

I think you're missing the forest but hitting the trees. Doesn't it mean something that the morality is scarcely ever discussed? Nobody seems to terribly mind the loss of life. The absence of that concern for life manufactured to kill and/or die is what morally indicts the Republic and the Jedi.

 

Just like during/in the original trilogy.......

"Great shot kid that was one in a million"- Han Solo, five seconds or so after the first death star exploded and was blown up and the millions of people on it were burned to death in a large, giant explosion........ As well as "ye-hooo", after killing two of anakin skywalker's tie fighter pilots.......

"YE-HAWWW"-Lando Calirissian after blowing up the second death star, and, guess what??? The same thing that happened with the first death star..........

Star Wars, hence the title obviously, is about war........Yet none of our "heroes" or "good guys" ever experience regret for killing stormtroopers. Luke skywalker even killed stormtroopers, not in self defense, but in anger after anakin killed obi wan......

Nothing suprising going on there during/in the prequels trilogy!!!!

Father Skywalker said:

thecolorsblend said:

 

Wexter said:

Is this even a serious question? How about the same reason we haven't yet cloned a human being? Because it doesn't seem right. Basically the Clone Wars were about Republic pitting their artificially manufactured disposable human beings against the armies of disposable machines. And everyone was so degenerated that it didn't even strike them as a moral dilemma. Now if "Clone Wars" (which was established as soon as Episode IV) was in fact about this dilemma - and the bad guys would be in favor of such policy - that would make an interesting conflict.

I think you're missing the forest but hitting the trees. Doesn't it mean something that the morality is scarcely ever discussed? Nobody seems to terribly mind the loss of life. The absence of that concern for life manufactured to kill and/or die is what morally indicts the Republic and the Jedi.

 

Just like during/in the original trilogy.......

"Great shot kid that was one in a million"- Han Solo, five seconds or so after the first death star exploded and was blown up and the millions of people on it were burned to death in a large, giant explosion........ As well as "ye-hooo", after killing two of anakin skywalker's tie fighter pilots.......

"YE-HAWWW"-Lando Calirissian after blowing up the second death star, and, guess what??? The same thing that happened with the first death star..........

Star Wars, hence the title obviously, is about war........Yet none of our "heroes" or "good guys" ever experience regret for killing stormtroopers. Luke skywalker even killed stormtroopers, not in self defense, but in anger after anakin killed obi wan......

Nothing suprising going on there during/in the prequels trilogy!!!!

The Star Wars films are about war, in the sense of Where Eagles Dare, the movie inspiration for first person shooters. You have bad guys and you have heroes, and the heroes kills the bad guys to win. Just like the serials. They are Villains, because in the end it's a black and white morality tale, a fantasy without real-world examples because it's a morality play. Lord of the Rings is like this too. Ultimatelyt it is isn't applicable to real life, and is actually a bit offensive if you really break it down, but fantasy's get away with it, because they are fantasy's and also play on our inherant either/or biases. That's why it's okay to have a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Harrison Ford is killing conscripted German citizens for laughs, while in reality films/books like The Reader or Slaughterhouse Five would turn Indiana Jones into a brainwashed mass murderer as much as any Nazi. Yet we cheer him on as he machine guns Germans while we boo when John Wayne is under fire from them. It's a bit disgusting, but hey that's the way George Lucas makes films, did you see Red Tails? A movie that is racist to both white AND black people! Congrats to him!

zombie84 said:

Maybe. But since the entire debate--whether it's good, bad, or a non-issue--is never brought up, discussed, or even alluded to, it really just feels like the script failed to pick up on a serious thematic issue inherant in the film. In other words, it's a bit of a plot hole. To me, it doesn't seem deliberate design. It seems the same reason that the entire central mystery of Attack of the Clones--who ordered the clones, and who Sifo-dyas was and what he was doing--was simply ignored in the sequel. Which is to say....who the fuck knows. It was simply dropped.

...what the hell!? How can you have a sequel that does that?? But Lucas went that far. I'm not sure what he was thinking. But basically the effect is that he pretended Episode II didn't exist. Which is awesome, because that movie is terrible. But it's just one more nail in the coffin for why the prequel trilogy was an epic failure of sometimes embarassing preportions. Can you think of another trilogy that simply jettisons the entire plot 2/3 of the way through? Well, maybe that is why Revenge of the SIth is so watchable, so I don't regret it, but it's certainly an indictment against George Lucas from his own self.

Episode 2 basically copied and recycled and shoehorned all of the ideas from Episode 5 into the same storyline; no originality and coming up with new ideas here Georgey Lucas, just borrowing and taking from the older storyline ideas.......

For example.....

Cut off the hand of somebody during a 3-way fight involving Darth Sidious, and after that, was given the choice to either join or to reject the Darkside of the Force, during the 3rd episode of the trilogy......

Had their right hand cut off during a duel with a Sith Lord, during the second episode of the trilogy, only to be replaced with a cybernetic right hand replacement.......

In the third episode of the trilogy, in a 3-way fight between darth sidious, his other sith apprentice, and the young jedi knight, the young jedi cuts off the sith lord's hand in revenge and is tempted by palpatine to kill the sith lord that they have at their mercy.......

Is that Anakin or Luke Skywalker???? Both of em!!!!!! Stop borrowing old ideas, george, it's getting old by now.....

zombie84 said:

Father Skywalker said:

thecolorsblend said:

 

Wexter said:

Is this even a serious question? How about the same reason we haven't yet cloned a human being? Because it doesn't seem right. Basically the Clone Wars were about Republic pitting their artificially manufactured disposable human beings against the armies of disposable machines. And everyone was so degenerated that it didn't even strike them as a moral dilemma. Now if "Clone Wars" (which was established as soon as Episode IV) was in fact about this dilemma - and the bad guys would be in favor of such policy - that would make an interesting conflict.

I think you're missing the forest but hitting the trees. Doesn't it mean something that the morality is scarcely ever discussed? Nobody seems to terribly mind the loss of life. The absence of that concern for life manufactured to kill and/or die is what morally indicts the Republic and the Jedi.

 

Just like during/in the original trilogy.......

"Great shot kid that was one in a million"- Han Solo, five seconds or so after the first death star exploded and was blown up and the millions of people on it were burned to death in a large, giant explosion........ As well as "ye-hooo", after killing two of anakin skywalker's tie fighter pilots.......

"YE-HAWWW"-Lando Calirissian after blowing up the second death star, and, guess what??? The same thing that happened with the first death star..........

Star Wars, hence the title obviously, is about war........Yet none of our "heroes" or "good guys" ever experience regret for killing stormtroopers. Luke skywalker even killed stormtroopers, not in self defense, but in anger after anakin killed obi wan......

Nothing suprising going on there during/in the prequels trilogy!!!!

The Star Wars films are about war, in the sense of Where Eagles Dare, the movie inspiration for first person shooters. You have bad guys and you have heroes, and the heroes kills the bad guys to win. Just like the serials. They are Villains, because in the end it's a black and white morality tale, a fantasy without real-world examples because it's a morality play. Lord of the Rings is like this too. Ultimatelyt it is isn't applicable to real life, and is actually a bit offensive if you really break it down, but fantasy's get away with it, because they are fantasy's and also play on our inherant either/or biases.

Well, then don't criticize the prequels for that kind of disposable life morality; both han solo and lando calirissian were happy screaming guys, who screamed like cowboys when millions of people were burned to death in a giant explosion........Hmm......... That sounds very kind, moral, and nice, let's give them medals of good moral character (sarcastic tone).....

There are 2 things that i don't understand about what you had just said. Where eagles dare??? That's a kickass iron maiden song, but what does that have to do with star wars?? I also don't understand your last sentence, please explain it better, fantasy is offensive but gets away with it, what???

U R basically implying that the rebellion alliance are a bunch of evil bad guys, and it's is OK to root for evil violent criminal people in fiction, which is basically implying that REBELS=EVIL, and Galactic sith Empire=Good guys!!!!

georgec said:

What are we arguing about? I want in on this.

Read all of the previous posts, brother.......

zombie84 said:

Father Skywalker said:

thecolorsblend said:

 

Wexter said:

Is this even a serious question? How about the same reason we haven't yet cloned a human being? Because it doesn't seem right. Basically the Clone Wars were about Republic pitting their artificially manufactured disposable human beings against the armies of disposable machines. And everyone was so degenerated that it didn't even strike them as a moral dilemma. Now if "Clone Wars" (which was established as soon as Episode IV) was in fact about this dilemma - and the bad guys would be in favor of such policy - that would make an interesting conflict.

I think you're missing the forest but hitting the trees. Doesn't it mean something that the morality is scarcely ever discussed? Nobody seems to terribly mind the loss of life. The absence of that concern for life manufactured to kill and/or die is what morally indicts the Republic and the Jedi.

 

Just like during/in the original trilogy.......

"Great shot kid that was one in a million"- Han Solo, five seconds or so after the first death star exploded and was blown up and the millions of people on it were burned to death in a large, giant explosion........ As well as "ye-hooo", after killing two of anakin skywalker's tie fighter pilots.......

"YE-HAWWW"-Lando Calirissian after blowing up the second death star, and, guess what??? The same thing that happened with the first death star..........

Star Wars, hence the title obviously, is about war........Yet none of our "heroes" or "good guys" ever experience regret for killing stormtroopers. Luke skywalker even killed stormtroopers, not in self defense, but in anger after anakin killed obi wan......

Nothing suprising going on there during/in the prequels trilogy!!!!

The Star Wars films are about war, in the sense of Where Eagles Dare, the movie inspiration for first person shooters. You have bad guys and you have heroes, and the heroes kills the bad guys to win. Just like the serials. They are Villains, because in the end it's a black and white morality tale, a fantasy without real-world examples because it's a morality play. Lord of the Rings is like this too. Ultimatelyt it is isn't applicable to real life, and is actually a bit offensive if you really break it down, but fantasy's get away with it, because they are fantasy's and also play on our inherant either/or biases. That's why it's okay to have a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Harrison Ford is killing conscripted German citizens for laughs, while in reality films/books like The Reader or Slaughterhouse Five would turn Indiana Jones into a brainwashed mass murderer as much as any Nazi. Yet we cheer him on as he machine guns Germans while we boo when John Wayne is under fire from them. It's a bit disgusting, but hey that's the way George Lucas makes films, did you see Red Tails? A movie that is racist to both white AND black people! Congrats to him!

So, U r implying that george lucas is digusting??? Hmm......

Father Skywalker said:

zombie84 said:

Father Skywalker said:

thecolorsblend said:

 

Wexter said:

Is this even a serious question? How about the same reason we haven't yet cloned a human being? Because it doesn't seem right. Basically the Clone Wars were about Republic pitting their artificially manufactured disposable human beings against the armies of disposable machines. And everyone was so degenerated that it didn't even strike them as a moral dilemma. Now if "Clone Wars" (which was established as soon as Episode IV) was in fact about this dilemma - and the bad guys would be in favor of such policy - that would make an interesting conflict.

I think you're missing the forest but hitting the trees. Doesn't it mean something that the morality is scarcely ever discussed? Nobody seems to terribly mind the loss of life. The absence of that concern for life manufactured to kill and/or die is what morally indicts the Republic and the Jedi.

 

Just like during/in the original trilogy.......

"Great shot kid that was one in a million"- Han Solo, five seconds or so after the first death star exploded and was blown up and the millions of people on it were burned to death in a large, giant explosion........ As well as "ye-hooo", after killing two of anakin skywalker's tie fighter pilots.......

"YE-HAWWW"-Lando Calirissian after blowing up the second death star, and, guess what??? The same thing that happened with the first death star..........

Star Wars, hence the title obviously, is about war........Yet none of our "heroes" or "good guys" ever experience regret for killing stormtroopers. Luke skywalker even killed stormtroopers, not in self defense, but in anger after anakin killed obi wan......

Nothing suprising going on there during/in the prequels trilogy!!!!

The Star Wars films are about war, in the sense of Where Eagles Dare, the movie inspiration for first person shooters. You have bad guys and you have heroes, and the heroes kills the bad guys to win. Just like the serials. They are Villains, because in the end it's a black and white morality tale, a fantasy without real-world examples because it's a morality play. Lord of the Rings is like this too. Ultimatelyt it is isn't applicable to real life, and is actually a bit offensive if you really break it down, but fantasy's get away with it, because they are fantasy's and also play on our inherant either/or biases.

Well, then don't criticize the prequels for that kind of disposable life morality; both han solo and lando calirissian were happy screaming guys, who screamed like cowboys when millions of people were burned to death in a giant explosion........Hmm......... That sounds very kind, moral, and nice, let's give them medals of good moral character (sarcastic tone).....

There are 2 things that i don't understand about what you had just said. Where eagles dare??? That's a kickass iron maiden song, but what does that have to do with star wars?? I also don't understand your last sentence, please explain it better, fantasy is offensive but gets away with it, what???

The Iron Maiden song is based off the 1968 Clint Eastwood WWII movie that inspired the 1992 video game Castle Wolfenstein, the basis for FPS games. It's a great action film, and Lucas seems to have used part of the plot when making Star Wars too! And yeah, fantasy gets away with it. That's why people--myself included--love Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lord of the Rings, and other films. They should be terribly offensive, but they aren't, mainly because they are intentionally unrealistic. It's the same thing with a film like 300. A film that is embarassingly racist. But I love it. Temple of Doom gets the same pass in my book. I overlook things that would cause me to write letters to the editor because the fantasy environment promotes leniency. Based on their popularity, this is widespread.

Sorry Wolfenstein 3D! Who thinks of the 1981 Wolfenstein when they hear "castle wolfenstein"? :p That's like specifing A New Hope when you say, Star Wars is a classic film! ;)

Tyrphanax said:

adywan said:

Father Skywalker said:

Yes, but how do you know that moff tiaan jerjerrod was on it when it blew up?? Remember that the guys were evacuating on it at the ending; nothing ever confirmed whether or not grand moff tiaan jerjjerod escaped!!!!

Check the deleted scenes on the blu-ray. They were about to blow up the moon of Endor when the Death Star was destroyed, so no, he didn't escape

Wookieepedia.

Wookipedia banned me. They're mean and stupid.....

Besides, wookipedia is not george lucas's offical canon website, it's is a star wars website made by fanboys and fangirls......

I read that he died during/in the explosion, it just wasn't confirmed by an official source yet. What about the evacuation, when luke skywalker was dragging his father's body down to the shuttle????

twister111 said:

 

Father Skywalker said:

they would've at least had plans and mention of it during episode 6. Darth Vader never told luke skywalker that "join me and together we can destroy the planets with the death star as father and son"".

The hell are you on about!?!? The Death Star from the beginning was a weapon of fear to keep the systems in line so they could just dissolve the senate. It wasn't created to destroy a list of planets. They only needed to demonstrate it's destructive power once to test it then the second time to destroy the rebel base. After that they would have all the fear they needed to keep their power and they would set out to rule the planets from that fear.

 

They actually used it twice, once on Despayre, the second time on Alderaan, if you count the EU (the expanded universe) as being canon.... Let's not get into canon debates now, however. My point is, what the hell/heck does dissolving the senate and beauracy have anything to do with using the death star???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzs-OvfG8tE

I watched that video and I'm still very confused. Was the death star built as a tool against the rebels?? If the rebel alliance had never existed, would the death star still have been built and used on alderaan and despayre???

Use the death star to rule the galaxy?? What?? I don't get it.... Fear was used to keep the rebels in line, not the people.....No rebels, no death stars, rebels are not good guys, they provoked the war and the destruction of planets.

"No star system will dare oppose the emperor now"