- Time
- Post link
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga" — Page 17
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Well I don't think personal values are evil or less important than universal values, it's a balancing act between the two.
Hear you nothing that I say?
If your motivations and actions are pure, then there is no conflict between universal and personal values. The two can work together perfectly and in that situation you would have no need to balance anything. It’s very simple and you should be able to follow what I’m saying here.
Heh, so you agree with me that the line was logically stupid, but you enjoy it because it then shows that Obi-Wan is evil too?
LOL
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
We have a situation where Anakin has been told since 9 that he is "the chosen one". That the Force created him for the purpose of "bringing balance" to the force. He has the Jedi in one ear talking about what they see as what's good. He has the Emperor in the other ear talking about what he thinks is "right". He knows that all the chaos and war are the direct result of these two Force based religions, and as you pointed out, the Jedi aren't exactly saints in the whole matter either.
He knows Sidious is evil. He sees all the ways the Jedi have been acting selfishly, against the Jedi Code itself. To me it isn't such a huge leap to see why he would see fit to judge them all. After all, he was bringing balance back to the Force. If he was the chosen one, then why shouldn't he be the one to make them agree?
Well I don't think personal values are evil or less important than universal values, it's a balancing act between the two.
Hear you nothing that I say?
If your motivations and actions are pure, then there is no conflict between universal and personal values. The two can work together perfectly and in that situation you would have no need to balance anything. It’s very simple and you should be able to follow what I’m saying here.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I'm not sure I follow. The whole saga seems to show both sides of the same coins. In the prequels, we see things from the perspective of a "good" establishment that is fighting an "evil" rebellion, and in the classic trilogy we see things from the perspective of a "good" rebellion that is fighting an "evil" establishment.
I don't think Lucas is preaching as much as he's showing both sides to everything and letting the viewer come to their own conclusions about what is "right and wrong".
Two sides of an ethical coin are often nice to consider, however that’s not what I was talking about. You were condemning Anakin for caring too much about his personal values, yet for you to propose that ethic is hypocritical when you consider the prequels as a whole. There are many times, in the prequels, when the Jedi cared for personal things. Therefore when they claim to reject personal desires and attachments, they are being obvious liars. (It almost makes me wonder if they were teasing Anakin with fake rules just to provoke him.) I’d love to see you argue for how the Jedi were being consistent on this issue, Go-Mer.
Let me try to explain my point once more: We all have personal motivations that could easily hurt other people or be unfair in a universal context if we blindly acted upon them. Yet we are rational creatures and can analyze our actions before we make them. Knowing that, we can then argue that it is always possible to act on our personal values in ways that are completely compatible with universal values. The evil or goodness of an action is thus not based upon “balancing” different perspectives, but upon analyzing cold, hard truths.
Anyways, as a side note, your two-sided analogy there breaks down. The establishment is clearly evil in many ways the prequel trilogy. Even the supposedly virtuous Jedi are depicted as arrogant, overconfident, complacent, and compromised. Heh, the only good qualities within the establishment and the Jedi in particular are proven to be wholly incompetent over the course of the prequels.
To me that's more interesting than if it wasn't questionable. The whole saga is about the concept of good and evil. The message is a lot of that comes down to point of view.
I'm not sure I follow. The whole saga seems to show both sides of the same coins. In the prequels, we see things from the perspective of a "good" establishment that is fighting an "evil" rebellion, and in the classic trilogy we see things from the perspective of a "good" rebellion that is fighting an "evil" establishment.
I don't think Lucas is preaching as much as he's showing both sides to everything and letting the viewer come to their own conclusions about what is "right and wrong".
Two sides of an ethical coin are often nice to consider, however that’s not what I was talking about. You were condemning Anakin for caring too much about his personal values, yet for you to propose that ethic is hypocritical when you consider the prequels as a whole. There are many times, in the prequels, when the Jedi cared for personal things. Therefore when they claim to reject personal desires and attachments, they are being obvious liars. (It almost makes me wonder if they were teasing Anakin with fake rules just to provoke him.) I’d love to see you argue for how the Jedi were being consistent on this issue, Go-Mer.
Let me try to explain my point once more: We all have personal motivations that could easily hurt other people or be unfair in a universal context if we blindly acted upon them. Yet we are rational creatures and can analyze our actions before we make them. Knowing that, we can then argue that it is always possible to act on our personal values in ways that are completely compatible with universal values. The evil or goodness of an action is thus not based upon “balancing” different perspectives, but upon analyzing cold, hard truths.
Anyways, as a side note, your two-sided analogy there breaks down. The establishment is clearly evil in many ways the prequel trilogy. Even the supposedly virtuous Jedi are depicted as arrogant, overconfident, complacent, and compromised. Heh, the only good qualities within the establishment and the Jedi in particular are proven to be wholly incompetent over the course of the prequels.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
That line is actually dumb to me since Obi-Wan uses the word “only.” He can’t attack the use of absolutes by using an absolute. Plus, the Jedi talk in terms of absolutes all the time if you follow the prequel trilogy alone. It’s a totally hypocritical line of dialogue. I don’t know what George was thinking . . . he probably wasn’t.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes! (I love that line)
Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes! (I love that line
) That line is actually dumb to me since Obi-Wan uses the word “only.” He can’t attack the use of absolutes by using an absolute. Plus, the Jedi talk in terms of absolutes all the time if you follow the prequel trilogy alone. It’s a totally hypocritical line of dialogue. I don’t know what George was thinking . . . he probably wasn’t.
To me that's more interesting than if it wasn't questionable. The whole saga is about the concept of good and evil. The message is a lot of that comes down to point of view.
Heh, so you agree with me that the line was logically stupid, but you enjoy it because it then shows that Obi-Wan is evil too?
LOL
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
We have a situation where Anakin has been told since 9 that he is "the chosen one". That the Force created him for the purpose of "bringing balance" to the force. He has the Jedi in one ear talking about what they see as what's good. He has the Emperor in the other ear talking about what he thinks is "right". He knows that all the chaos and war are the direct result of these two Force based religions, and as you pointed out, the Jedi aren't exactly saints in the whole matter either.
He knows Sidious is evil. He sees all the ways the Jedi have been acting selfishly, against the Jedi Code itself. To me it isn't such a huge leap to see why he would see fit to judge them all. After all, he was bringing balance back to the Force. If he was the chosen one, then why shouldn't he be the one to make them agree?
Why shouldn’t he be the one to make everyone agree? Because he doesn’t mind murdering countless innocent children as a way to relieve his comparatively-trivial, emotional discomfort.
Sorry, but Anakin just isn’t likeable. Seriously, I’d love to hear your explanation as to why you think a psychopath is such a cool character, but instead you keep trying to justify his actions or make excuses for him and they just don’t work. His problems do not come close to justifying what he did.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I agree that the "I am your father" is ruined for the audience, but I think it still works on a dramatic level to have the surprise be just for Luke. We see that Anakin is Vader in the prequels, then we see Ben flat out lying to Luke about Vader killing Anakin, so after Yoda and Obi-Wan beg Luke not to leave before he is trained because he's not ready and he leaves anyway, we get to that part where Vader tells him the truth and the audience then wonders... Crap, how is Luke going to take being lied to by Obi-Wan? Is he going to be able to still trust his teachings? Is he going to say screw Obi-Wan, he's no better than Vader as Anakin said about Palpatine vs the Jedi?
We don't find out until the next movie, which starts out with Luke dressed up like Evil Anakin in black robes, force choking gammorean guards and telling Jabba not to underestimate his power.
To me this whole dynamic ratchets up the tension quite a bit with the way it all flows now.
First, those questions are absolutely needless in those scenes and only serve to distract from the story’s emotions. (What good are they to ask at those points?) The OT is not enhanced by those thoughts in any way as far as I can tell. At best, what happens in the OT only serves to enhance the PT.
Second, you don’t need the PT to have the concern that Luke might go to the dark side. The OT sets that up sufficiently and beautifully. And besides, let’s be realistic here, there’s only so far that kind of suspense can go. Seriously, he’s the freakin’ hero of the story! Anyone who cannot invest faith in his goodness probably isn’t enjoying the movies in the first place.
Heh, if you can argue for that assessment without the slightest reservation, then I truly feel sorry for you. The Darth Vader revelation is awesome every single time for me. It has NEVER been “fleeting.” You just have to watch movies with a fresh mind and forget the context of scenes that are out of order. It makes for very enjoyable viewing. I never knew you were so feeble, Go-Mer.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Now, to keep that surprise, you have to show a first time viewer the classic trilogy first. The problem with that is you lose most of the surprises in the prequels. You know going in that Palpatine is Sidious, you know going in that the Jedi are going to be made all but extinct, you know going in that only Yoda and Ben survive, you know going in that Anakin does not do the right thing in the end, you know going in that Padme won't survive. You know going in that the Republic will become the Emprie. The list goes on and on.
All for one surprise that only works the first time you see it.
I agree that the "I am your father" is ruined for the audience, but I think it still works on a dramatic level to have the surprise be just for Luke. We see that Anakin is Vader in the prequels, then we see Ben flat out lying to Luke about Vader killing Anakin, so after Yoda and Obi-Wan beg Luke not to leave before he is trained because he's not ready and he leaves anyway, we get to that part where Vader tells him the truth and the audience then wonders... Crap, how is Luke going to take being lied to by Obi-Wan? Is he going to be able to still trust his teachings? Is he going to say screw Obi-Wan, he's no better than Vader as Anakin said about Palpatine vs the Jedi?
We don't find out until the next movie, which starts out with Luke dressed up like Evil Anakin in black robes, force choking gammorean guards and telling Jabba not to underestimate his power.
To me this whole dynamic ratchets up the tension quite a bit with the way it all flows now.
First, those questions are absolutely needless in those scenes and only serve to distract from the story’s emotions. (What good are they to ask at those points?) The OT is not enhanced by those thoughts in any way as far as I can tell. At best, what happens in the OT only serves to enhance the PT.
Second, you don’t need the PT to have the concern that Luke might go to the dark side. The OT sets that up sufficiently and beautifully. And besides, let’s be realistic here, there’s only so far that kind of suspense can go. Seriously, he’s the freakin’ hero of the story! Anyone who cannot invest faith in his goodness probably isn’t enjoying the movies in the first place.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Again nothing against the landmark surprise of "I am your father", no doubt that is one of the biggest surprises in cinema history.
But is is a very fleeting surprise.
Again nothing against the landmark surprise of "I am your father", no doubt that is one of the biggest surprises in cinema history.
But is is a very fleeting surprise.
Heh, if you can argue for that assessment without the slightest reservation, then I truly feel sorry for you. The Darth Vader revelation is awesome every single time for me. It has NEVER been “fleeting.” You just have to watch movies with a fresh mind and forget the context of scenes that are out of order. It makes for very enjoyable viewing. I never knew you were so feeble, Go-Mer.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Now, to keep that surprise, you have to show a first time viewer the classic trilogy first. The problem with that is you lose most of the surprises in the prequels. You know going in that Palpatine is Sidious, you know going in that the Jedi are going to be made all but extinct, you know going in that only Yoda and Ben survive, you know going in that Anakin does not do the right thing in the end, you know going in that Padme won't survive. You know going in that the Republic will become the Emprie. The list goes on and on.
All for one surprise that only works the first time you see it.
Interesting point, the PT did have its share of revelations, like any story, but, quite frankly, it’s almost impossible to be edge of your seat for those PT developments. From bad acting, to bad dialogue, to childish views of the world and absolutely evil motivations on the part of the heroes, there’s not much for normal people to care about. The Vader/Father revelation alone is of more value than all of those other points put together.
Secondly, what do you mean “one surprise”? You seriously believe the OT has only one surprise?! Sorry to dare contradicting your strong feeling on this matter, but ANH, ESB, and RotJ all have very large plot revelations that are completely ruined by the PT if you start with them as the intended context. I mean, wow, are you sure that you are even taking this conversation seriously, Go-Mer? Yikes.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Hear you nothing that I say? If your motivations and actions are pure, then there is no conflict between universal and personal values. The two can work together perfectly and in that situation you would have no need to balance anything. It’s very simple and you should be able to follow what I’m saying here. Well yeah, -if- your motivations are pure. But how often is that going to be the case? Certainly not 100% of the time.
I'm just saying (as you even acknowledged) that the "I am your father" scene works even when you know the surprise going in. I hope you don't think I was putting the scene down, or trying to say the surprises in the prequels are all better than that. I'm just saying that when you do look at this as a 6 film saga, there is a whole lot more spoiled in the prequels by watching the classic trilogy first than there is for the classic trilogy when you see the prequels first. At least when you see the prequels first, the events all unfold in chronological order, so nothing is ever really pre-ordained by recollections of what ended up happening. The surprises that -are- ruined in the classic trilogy by watching the prequels first, are all one trick ponies for a first time viewer only. There is only going to be one time that someone is going to be surprised by Vader saying he's Luke's father, by suddenly realizing Yoda is Yoda, or by Luke piecing together that Leia is his sister. But after that, it's all known before hand anyway. As I mentioned before, I used to consider the development that Leia was Luke's sister to be a pretty convenient plot contrivance when it just came out of nowhere. Now that it is set up by the flat out showing of it at the end of ROTS, it doesn't seem quite so convenient, and even comes off as a well planned element to the story.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Secondly, what do you mean “one surprise”? You seriously believe the OT has only one surprise?! Sorry to dare contradicting your strong feeling on this matter, but ANH, ESB, and RotJ all have very large plot revelations that are completely ruined by the PT if you start with them as the intended context. I mean, wow, are you sure that you are even taking this conversation seriously, Go-Mer? Yikes.
I may not have considered them all, but so far I am thinking about "I am your Father", the fact that Leia is Luke's sister, that Yoda is really Yoda, and that Jabba really looks like Jabba. Have I missed some? Hear you nothing that I say?
If your motivations and actions are pure, then there is no conflict between universal and personal values. The two can work together perfectly and in that situation you would have no need to balance anything. It’s very simple and you should be able to follow what I’m saying here. Well yeah, -if- your motivations are pure. But how often is that going to be the case? Certainly not 100% of the time.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Two sides of an ethical coin are often nice to consider, however that’s not what I was talking about. You were condemning Anakin for caring too much about his personal values, yet for you to propose that ethic is hypocritical when you consider the prequels as a whole. There are many times, in the prequels, when the Jedi cared for personal things. Therefore when they claim to reject personal desires and attachments, they are being obvious liars. (It almost makes me wonder if they were teasing Anakin with fake rules just to provoke him.) I’d love to see you argue for how the Jedi were being consistent on this issue, Go-Mer. I bet you would. No they weren't consistent, and your assessment is largely correct. They were lying to themselves as much as anyone else.
You see them talking about attachments being bad, and striving to "only think about others", but the reality is as Palpatine points out, they still operate in ways beneficial to themselves. To a viewer, that adds more uneasiness about everything. If the Jedi's virtues aren't as solid as they should be, then the Jedi are fooling themselves. They are more and more allowing the ends to justify the means.
Notice in the beginning of ROTS, the crawl talks about how there are heroes on both sides, and that evil is everywhere? Lucas talks about how the Jedi had become fundamentally corrupted in This E! Fluff piece (cue ahead to about 5:00 to skip most of the "3rd time's a charm" smoke blowing by the usual suspects).
So if the scene is still amazing without it being a surprise for you, then what's the difference if it's that scene or the prequels that tips you off to that truth? Sure the first time we ever saw it, Bang Zoom fireworks, mouth agape, hands down the best surprise for an audience member in cinema history. I can certainly see why one would want to preserve that awesome dynamic for a first time viewer.
But I also think a lot of the reason so many of us were unimpressed with the prequels had to do with us largely knowing how it was all going to turn out in the end. Instead of being on the edge of our seat, a lot of us were rolling our eyes and thinking to ourselves: "Well get on with it already. We know that you're really Sidious Palpy, why even front like that? What's with the whining Anakin?, just start soullessly killing people" We get it, you were a nice kid once, but then you turn bad, that's what we want to see, that's why we are all here." Originally posted by: Tiptup
Interesting point, the PT did have its share of revelations, like any story, but, quite frankly, it’s almost impossible to be edge of your seat for those PT developments. From bad acting, to bad dialogue, to childish views of the world and absolutely evil motivations on the part of the heroes, there’s not much for normal people to care about. The Vader/Father revelation alone is of more value than all of those other points put together.
Obviously a lot of you here really don't like the PT at all, and would rather think of the OT on it's own. In that case, of course none of the prequels' surprises will matter to you as much as the classic trilogy's.Two sides of an ethical coin are often nice to consider, however that’s not what I was talking about. You were condemning Anakin for caring too much about his personal values, yet for you to propose that ethic is hypocritical when you consider the prequels as a whole. There are many times, in the prequels, when the Jedi cared for personal things. Therefore when they claim to reject personal desires and attachments, they are being obvious liars. (It almost makes me wonder if they were teasing Anakin with fake rules just to provoke him.) I’d love to see you argue for how the Jedi were being consistent on this issue, Go-Mer.
I bet you would. No they weren't consistent, and your assessment is largely correct. They were lying to themselves as much as anyone else.You see them talking about attachments being bad, and striving to "only think about others", but the reality is as Palpatine points out, they still operate in ways beneficial to themselves. To a viewer, that adds more uneasiness about everything. If the Jedi's virtues aren't as solid as they should be, then the Jedi are fooling themselves. They are more and more allowing the ends to justify the means.
Notice in the beginning of ROTS, the crawl talks about how there are heroes on both sides, and that evil is everywhere? Lucas talks about how the Jedi had become fundamentally corrupted in This E! Fluff piece (cue ahead to about 5:00 to skip most of the "3rd time's a charm" smoke blowing by the usual suspects).
[clip from ROTS]
Palpatne: Remember back to your early teachings? All who gain power are afraid to lose it. Even the Jedi.
Anakin: The Jedi use their power for good.
Palpatine: Good is a point of view Anakin. The Sith and the Jedi are similar, in almost every way. Including their quest for greater power.
Anakin: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength, they think inward, only about themselves.
Palpatine: And the Jedi don't?
[cut to Lucas talking]
George Lucas: The Jedi are always fighting this reality that they're, in essence, diplomats. they sort of persuade people to do the right thing... but their job really isn't to go around fighting people, yet they are now used as generals, and they are fighting a war, and they are doing something they really weren't meant to do. They're being corrupted by this war. By being forced into being generals, instead of peace makers. I don't condemn Anakin for loving Padme, I don't condemn him for wanting to save her, I don't condemn him for wanting to bring his concept of "peace" to the galaxy. I condemn him for crossing the line to meet those goals. Where exactly did Anakin cross the line? Was it when he slaughtered a tribe of Tuskan Raiders that had kidnapped and tortured his mother to death? Was it when he killed DooKu after disarming him and having him under control? Was it when he disarmed Mace Windu to prevent him from illegally killing an unarmed prisoner? Was it when he pledged himself to Sidious' teachings? Certainly by the time he was slaughtering innocent younglings there was no question about it anymore. The line had been fully crossed.
To be fair, I did preface that with a statement about how substantial the "I am your father" revelation was. I just meant that once you know Vader is Luke's father, it's over. You spend every other time following that knowing that in the back of your head that's what he's going to tell Luke, and that it's true.Palpatne: Remember back to your early teachings? All who gain power are afraid to lose it. Even the Jedi.
Anakin: The Jedi use their power for good.
Palpatine: Good is a point of view Anakin. The Sith and the Jedi are similar, in almost every way. Including their quest for greater power.
Anakin: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength, they think inward, only about themselves.
Palpatine: And the Jedi don't?
[cut to Lucas talking]
George Lucas: The Jedi are always fighting this reality that they're, in essence, diplomats. they sort of persuade people to do the right thing... but their job really isn't to go around fighting people, yet they are now used as generals, and they are fighting a war, and they are doing something they really weren't meant to do. They're being corrupted by this war. By being forced into being generals, instead of peace makers. I don't condemn Anakin for loving Padme, I don't condemn him for wanting to save her, I don't condemn him for wanting to bring his concept of "peace" to the galaxy. I condemn him for crossing the line to meet those goals. Where exactly did Anakin cross the line? Was it when he slaughtered a tribe of Tuskan Raiders that had kidnapped and tortured his mother to death? Was it when he killed DooKu after disarming him and having him under control? Was it when he disarmed Mace Windu to prevent him from illegally killing an unarmed prisoner? Was it when he pledged himself to Sidious' teachings? Certainly by the time he was slaughtering innocent younglings there was no question about it anymore. The line had been fully crossed.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Let me try to explain my point once more: We all have personal motivations that could easily hurt other people or be unfair in a universal context if we blindly acted upon them. Yet we are rational creatures and can analyze our actions before we make them. Knowing that, we can then argue that it is always possible to act on our personal values in ways that are completely compatible with universal values. The evil or goodness of an action is thus not based upon “balancing” different perspectives, but upon analyzing cold, hard truths. I'm not sure I follow. You mean that in every case we have a personal desire, we can choose to either act on it or not depending on whether or not pursuing that desire would have a negative impact on universal values? If I have that right, then yeah I agree. But how often do people kid themselves in order to rationalize their way around things?
Originally posted by: Tiptup Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Again nothing against the landmark surprise of "I am your father", no doubt that is one of the biggest surprises in cinema history.
But it is a very fleeting surprise.
Heh, if you can argue for that assessment without the slightest reservation, then I truly feel sorry for you. The Darth Vader revelation is awesome every single time for me. It has NEVER been “fleeting.” You just have to watch movies with a fresh mind and forget the context of scenes that are out of order. It makes for very enjoyable viewing. I never knew you were so feeble, Go-Mer. Let me try to explain my point once more: We all have personal motivations that could easily hurt other people or be unfair in a universal context if we blindly acted upon them. Yet we are rational creatures and can analyze our actions before we make them. Knowing that, we can then argue that it is always possible to act on our personal values in ways that are completely compatible with universal values. The evil or goodness of an action is thus not based upon “balancing” different perspectives, but upon analyzing cold, hard truths. I'm not sure I follow. You mean that in every case we have a personal desire, we can choose to either act on it or not depending on whether or not pursuing that desire would have a negative impact on universal values? If I have that right, then yeah I agree. But how often do people kid themselves in order to rationalize their way around things?
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Anyways, as a side note, your two-sided analogy there breaks down. The establishment is clearly evil in many ways the prequel trilogy. Even the supposedly virtuous Jedi are depicted as arrogant, overconfident, complacent, and compromised. Heh, the only good qualities within the establishment and the Jedi in particular are proven to be wholly incompetent over the course of the prequels. Well certainly they were not ideal. I consider the establishment's basis to be "good", in that I think democracy in essence is better than a dictatorship. But when democracies become corrupted (that should be the title for a Fox Reality show 
) then what's the answer?. If you can't work things out through the system because the system itself is corrupted, then what?
Sorry, but Anakin just isn’t likeable. Seriously, I’d love to hear your explanation as to why you think a psychopath is such a cool character, but instead you keep trying to justify his actions or make excuses for him and they just don’t work. His problems do not come close to justifying what he did.
I didn't say he was cool for being evil. I'm just saying that this story is a character study of how someone who is good can end up turning evil. It may not be likable, but it's a part of human nature that is worth considering.Anyways, as a side note, your two-sided analogy there breaks down. The establishment is clearly evil in many ways the prequel trilogy. Even the supposedly virtuous Jedi are depicted as arrogant, overconfident, complacent, and compromised. Heh, the only good qualities within the establishment and the Jedi in particular are proven to be wholly incompetent over the course of the prequels.
Well certainly they were not ideal. I consider the establishment's basis to be "good", in that I think democracy in essence is better than a dictatorship. But when democracies become corrupted (that should be the title for a Fox Reality show ) then what's the answer?. If you can't work things out through the system because the system itself is corrupted, then what?Originally posted by: Tiptup
Why shouldn’t he be the one to make everyone agree? Because he doesn’t mind murdering countless innocent children as a way to relieve his comparatively-trivial, emotional discomfort.
Exactly. That's obviously the case, but Anakin has had the issues clouded to the point where it's not so easy to see from his perspective. The Jedi's virtues are in question, Sidious is obviously evil, the Senate is obviously ineffective, does Anakin see what's right in the moment, or is he always looking away to the future, to the horizon? To him he sees a future where all this BS brought on by the Sith and the Jedi and the corrupted Senate would just be gone. He then rationalizes his horrific actions in the present as being justified by the end goal. Originally posted by: TiptupOriginally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I agree that the "I am your father" is ruined for the audience, but I think it still works on a dramatic level to have the surprise be just for Luke. We see that Anakin is Vader in the prequels, then we see Ben flat out lying to Luke about Vader killing Anakin, so after Yoda and Obi-Wan beg Luke not to leave before he is trained because he's not ready and he leaves anyway, we get to that part where Vader tells him the truth and the audience then wonders... Crap, how is Luke going to take being lied to by Obi-Wan? Is he going to be able to still trust his teachings? Is he going to say screw Obi-Wan, he's no better than Vader as Anakin said about Palpatine vs. the Jedi? We don't find out until the next movie, which starts out with Luke dressed up like Evil Anakin in black robes, force choking Gammorean guards and telling Jabba not to underestimate his power. To me this whole dynamic ratchets up the tension quite a bit with the way it all flows now. First, those questions are absolutely needless in those scenes and only serve to distract from the story’s emotions. (What good are they to ask at those points?) The OT is not enhanced by those thoughts in any way as far as I can tell. At best, what happens in the OT only serves to enhance the PT. Second, you don’t need the PT to have the concern that Luke might go to the dark side. The OT sets that up sufficiently and beautifully. And besides, let’s be realistic here, there’s only so far that kind of suspense can go. Seriously, he’s the freakin’ hero of the story! Anyone who cannot invest faith in his goodness probably isn’t enjoying the movies in the first place. I never really worried about Luke turning to the dark side at all in the classic trilogy on it's own. Sure things got hairy, but like most movies I had seen, the hero pulls it out of his ass at the last moment. Of course Luke throws down his saber, of course Luke does the right thing. What isn't too common in most movies is the Hero actually falling as Anakin does. You put that before you show Luke's story, and suddenly nothing is as sure as you thought. The expectation going into the prequels is that Anakin will slip and slide his way through ambiguity, but do the right thing in the end. If you don't know ahead of time that he will just leap into the abyss, then that development is heart breaking. You root for him to pull his head out of his ass so long, and then he crosses that line. Originally posted by: Tiptup
Heh, so you agree with me that the line ("Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.") was logically stupid, but you enjoy it because it then shows that Obi-Wan is evil too?
I don't think it makes him evil, it just highlights his self righteousness as a point of view.Originally posted by: TiptupI agree that the "I am your father" is ruined for the audience, but I think it still works on a dramatic level to have the surprise be just for Luke. We see that Anakin is Vader in the prequels, then we see Ben flat out lying to Luke about Vader killing Anakin, so after Yoda and Obi-Wan beg Luke not to leave before he is trained because he's not ready and he leaves anyway, we get to that part where Vader tells him the truth and the audience then wonders... Crap, how is Luke going to take being lied to by Obi-Wan? Is he going to be able to still trust his teachings? Is he going to say screw Obi-Wan, he's no better than Vader as Anakin said about Palpatine vs. the Jedi? We don't find out until the next movie, which starts out with Luke dressed up like Evil Anakin in black robes, force choking Gammorean guards and telling Jabba not to underestimate his power. To me this whole dynamic ratchets up the tension quite a bit with the way it all flows now. First, those questions are absolutely needless in those scenes and only serve to distract from the story’s emotions. (What good are they to ask at those points?) The OT is not enhanced by those thoughts in any way as far as I can tell. At best, what happens in the OT only serves to enhance the PT. Second, you don’t need the PT to have the concern that Luke might go to the dark side. The OT sets that up sufficiently and beautifully. And besides, let’s be realistic here, there’s only so far that kind of suspense can go. Seriously, he’s the freakin’ hero of the story! Anyone who cannot invest faith in his goodness probably isn’t enjoying the movies in the first place.
I never really worried about Luke turning to the dark side at all in the classic trilogy on it's own. Sure things got hairy, but like most movies I had seen, the hero pulls it out of his ass at the last moment. Of course Luke throws down his saber, of course Luke does the right thing. What isn't too common in most movies is the Hero actually falling as Anakin does. You put that before you show Luke's story, and suddenly nothing is as sure as you thought. The expectation going into the prequels is that Anakin will slip and slide his way through ambiguity, but do the right thing in the end. If you don't know ahead of time that he will just leap into the abyss, then that development is heart breaking. You root for him to pull his head out of his ass so long, and then he crosses that line. Originally posted by: TiptupHeh, so you agree with me that the line ("Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.") was logically stupid, but you enjoy it because it then shows that Obi-Wan is evil too?
Why shouldn’t he be the one to make everyone agree? Because he doesn’t mind murdering countless innocent children as a way to relieve his comparatively-trivial, emotional discomfort.
Sorry, but Anakin just isn’t likeable. Seriously, I’d love to hear your explanation as to why you think a psychopath is such a cool character, but instead you keep trying to justify his actions or make excuses for him and they just don’t work. His problems do not come close to justifying what he did.
Originally posted by: Tiptup Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Again nothing against the landmark surprise of "I am your father", no doubt that is one of the biggest surprises in cinema history.
But it is a very fleeting surprise.
So if the scene is still amazing without it being a surprise for you, then what's the difference if it's that scene or the prequels that tips you off to that truth? Sure the first time we ever saw it, Bang Zoom fireworks, mouth agape, hands down the best surprise for an audience member in cinema history. I can certainly see why one would want to preserve that awesome dynamic for a first time viewer.
But I also think a lot of the reason so many of us were unimpressed with the prequels had to do with us largely knowing how it was all going to turn out in the end. Instead of being on the edge of our seat, a lot of us were rolling our eyes and thinking to ourselves: "Well get on with it already. We know that you're really Sidious Palpy, why even front like that? What's with the whining Anakin?, just start soullessly killing people" We get it, you were a nice kid once, but then you turn bad, that's what we want to see, that's why we are all here." Originally posted by: Tiptup
Interesting point, the PT did have its share of revelations, like any story, but, quite frankly, it’s almost impossible to be edge of your seat for those PT developments. From bad acting, to bad dialogue, to childish views of the world and absolutely evil motivations on the part of the heroes, there’s not much for normal people to care about. The Vader/Father revelation alone is of more value than all of those other points put together.
I'm just saying (as you even acknowledged) that the "I am your father" scene works even when you know the surprise going in. I hope you don't think I was putting the scene down, or trying to say the surprises in the prequels are all better than that. I'm just saying that when you do look at this as a 6 film saga, there is a whole lot more spoiled in the prequels by watching the classic trilogy first than there is for the classic trilogy when you see the prequels first. At least when you see the prequels first, the events all unfold in chronological order, so nothing is ever really pre-ordained by recollections of what ended up happening. The surprises that -are- ruined in the classic trilogy by watching the prequels first, are all one trick ponies for a first time viewer only. There is only going to be one time that someone is going to be surprised by Vader saying he's Luke's father, by suddenly realizing Yoda is Yoda, or by Luke piecing together that Leia is his sister. But after that, it's all known before hand anyway. As I mentioned before, I used to consider the development that Leia was Luke's sister to be a pretty convenient plot contrivance when it just came out of nowhere. Now that it is set up by the flat out showing of it at the end of ROTS, it doesn't seem quite so convenient, and even comes off as a well planned element to the story.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Secondly, what do you mean “one surprise”? You seriously believe the OT has only one surprise?! Sorry to dare contradicting your strong feeling on this matter, but ANH, ESB, and RotJ all have very large plot revelations that are completely ruined by the PT if you start with them as the intended context. I mean, wow, are you sure that you are even taking this conversation seriously, Go-Mer? Yikes.
- Time
- Post link
Go-Mer-Tonic has indicated that Luca$h may have based his concept of midichlorians on the mitochondria in some cells on Earth.
Humans inherit their mitochondria from the mother, not the father.
So the idea, in fact, contradicts the heredity it sets out to confirm.
- Time
- Post link
One of many things ruined for me was Emperor and his lightning powers, which was originally in line with how luke actually did underestimate the emperor as Yoda warned him not to and believed him to be defensless but surprise surprise, he has lightning bolts flying from his fingers. It's now just a ho hum trick luke could have blocked easily if he didn't throw away his lightsaber now (Oh silly me, I forgot jedi can now block it with merely their hands too.). Well done, George.
But whatever. Welcome back to 1999, everyone.
heh. I'm going to do something I should have done years ago. I'm going to call my cousin up and we're going to go outside where trees and grass are and we're probably going to go to the park and play some chess or meet girls, maybe I'll marry one of them someday and start a family... Yeah. It's about time.
"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."
"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.
http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Yeah, you see Vader's return to the light coming in the same way we used to see it coming that Luke throws down his sword.
At least now, up until that very last second, we aren't so sure about Luke doing the right thing, and if he didn't, then it could all have ended up like the end of the prequels, sans any more hope.
I don't think Luke was operating on the condition that he thought Palpatine was defenseless. He throws down his saber knowing full well it could cost him his life, otherwise what's the point of having Luke do that? I can't imagine looking at that heroic act as being dependant on Luke thinking he could take the Emperor without a lightsaber, the point is that he will not fight them. So what if he -could- have blocked the lightning with a saber? He didn't have one on him because he chose to throw it down. That's the whole point here.
Also, Yoda is the only Jedi who manages to absorb force lighting. Chances are it's an advanced technique.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
They may inherit the Mitochondria from the mother, but the concentration of mitochodria per cell could be another hereditary trait passed on by the father.
The reason that we now theorise that mitochondria, and chloroplasts as well, started out as unicellular organisms which other cells engulfed and, eventually, turned into intracellular bodies without any independence, is that both contain a circular strand of DNA. This is a trait of bacteria and totally different to the chromosomal DNA in nuclei. This circular DNA controls much of the reproduction and activity of these bodies. I have never seen any evidence that heredity has any hand in determining the numbers of mitochondria (or chloroplasts) in cells.They may inherit the Mitochondria from the mother, but the concentration of mitochodria per cell could be another hereditary trait passed on by the father.
Numbers do vary according to the type of cell in question. For example, muscle tissue cells are rich in mitochondria, whereas red blood cells have none.
The claim in the PT is that midichlorians are symbiotes, not intracellular bodies. If I remember correctly, though, Qui-Gon does say that they are found inside cells, am I right?
Unless one comes up with an entirely new idea for how sexual reproduction occurs in the humans in the SW galaxy, then one must accept that cell contents are inherited from the mother. The only thing passed on from the father is his half of the child's genome. The midichlorians would come from the mother. These would then, presumably, reproduce and distribute themselves among the cells of the growing foetus as they divide and multiply.
Go-Mer-Tonic's theory would require that "Force-sensitive" beings (and particularly members of the Skywalker family) have some sort of hereditary trait that makes them a better habitat for the midichlorians, promoting the development of unusually large colonies of them in the body.
This theory encounters problems in the form of the Jedi's laws of celibacy. If no Jedi (or Sith?) have ever reproduced for "over a thousand generations", then the likelihood of this hereditary trait occuring spontaneously, by mutation, in multiple species regularly enough to allow for the order to survive by taking on new apprentices is extremely unlikely.
Even a recessive trait would eventually disappear over such a long time period if those showing the trait are always removed from the gene pool. One could argue that some of those with the trait may not be taken into the order, but the implication in TPM is that this is unlikely. Even if it did happen, over the time period given, I do not think that the evidence supports the theory.
- Time
- Post link
The Jedi are fundamentally against forming personal attatchments, but they do bear children here and there. Ki Adi Mundi for example has several children with several wives on his home planet, because there is such a low % of men compared to women and everyone has to "do their part" so to speak, or something like that. Also there is the idea that hereditary traits could skip a generation as well, resulting in a non Jedi candidate to bear a jedi candidate.
If anything, I think the Midichlorian concept serves to make the Force -less- hereditary. Before Luke was strong in the force simply because he was Anakin's son. Now it's more specifically, because he (like his father) had a strong predisposition to use the Force. Now with the Midichlorian concept, it's not that they are fundamentally different from the other beings in the galaxy, they just have an easier time tapping into the Force.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
The Jedi are fundamentally against forming personal attatchments, but they do bear children here and there. Ki Adi Mundi for example has several children with several wives on his home planet, because there is such a low % of men compared to women and everyone has to "do their part" so to speak, or something like that. If a member of the Jedi Council can do that, then why can't any Jedi? Is Ki Adi Mundi expected to have no attacment to his offspring? Is that why Mannequin had to be so secretive?
Now with the Midichlorian concept, it's not that they are fundamentally different from the other beings in the galaxy, they just have an easier time tapping into the Force.
If they have an easier time tapping into the Force due to a hereditary trait then it does mean that they are fundamentally different from the other beings in the galaxy. The Jedi are fundamentally against forming personal attatchments, but they do bear children here and there. Ki Adi Mundi for example has several children with several wives on his home planet, because there is such a low % of men compared to women and everyone has to "do their part" so to speak, or something like that. If a member of the Jedi Council can do that, then why can't any Jedi? Is Ki Adi Mundi expected to have no attacment to his offspring? Is that why Mannequin had to be so secretive?
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Also there is the idea that hereditary traits could skip a generation as well, resulting in a non Jedi candidate to bear a jedi candidate. You're referring to exactly the same thing as the recessive traits I was talking about and, as I said, I don't think the evidence supports it.Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
If anything, I think the Midichlorian concept serves to make the Force -less- hereditary. Before Luke was strong in the force simply because he was Anakin's son. Now it's more specifically, because he (like his father) had a strong predisposition to use the Force.
These two sentances both mean the same thing - that it is hereditary.Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicAlso there is the idea that hereditary traits could skip a generation as well, resulting in a non Jedi candidate to bear a jedi candidate. You're referring to exactly the same thing as the recessive traits I was talking about and, as I said, I don't think the evidence supports it.Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
If anything, I think the Midichlorian concept serves to make the Force -less- hereditary. Before Luke was strong in the force simply because he was Anakin's son. Now it's more specifically, because he (like his father) had a strong predisposition to use the Force.
Now with the Midichlorian concept, it's not that they are fundamentally different from the other beings in the galaxy, they just have an easier time tapping into the Force.
- Time
- Post link
It is still hereditary, but everyone has them to a certain extent. It's not like some living things aren't connected to the force.
Jedi are no more different from others who don't have as high a midi count than tall people are from people who are short.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Jedi are no more different from others who don't have as high a midi count than tall people are from people who are short.
This statement flies in the face of the facts. The larger the population of midichlorians in someone's body, the greater their potential as a Jedi. That is what the PT states, in no uncertain terms. Jedi are no more different from others who don't have as high a midi count than tall people are from people who are short.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
I never got the impression from the OOT that anyone was excluded from the Force or that anyone's potential was limited by anything other than their own determination.
I never got the impression from the OOT that anyone was excluded from the Force or that anyone's potential was limited by anything other than their own determination.
I would think that too. The thing about the force is that it is everything. It is the trees, the grass, the sky, the stars, you yourself are part of the force. So if everything and everyone is part of the force, everyone can manipulate it, control it, make it help them in thier darkest hour. Some aren't as in tune with the force as others. What it really means to be a Jedi is that you are incredibly in tune with the force. It doesn't matter what your "medichlorian" count is, but how determined you are and in the end, how much you believe. In real life, those who believe in God, pray to God, and give God thier loyalty will be rewarded and thier life enriched. The force was such a beatuiful and strong analogy, and then Lucas made the prequels and fucked it all up by making the force something that your blood count dictates. Is thier something in our blood that makes us more in tune with God than others? No. Lucas sold his soul when he made the prequels. He took the complex and beautiful concept of the force and downtoned it for kiddies.
And Go-Mer, if you can argue with that, saying that's always how it was, then you truly are insane, and I pity you.
You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Yeah but the whole thing about why Luke and Leia were both powerful in the Force had to do with the fact that they were Anakin's children.
Yeah but the whole thing about why Luke and Leia were both powerful in the Force had to do with the fact that they were Anakin's children.
Very true. Right with ROTJ Lucas introduced the genetic aspect of the Force--the difference between ROTJ and the PT is that the PT actually dwelt on it and made it specific and scientific, whereas ROTJ kind of just brushed it aside due to the plot cornering that it was used to explain.
- Time
- Post link
You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
- Time
- Post link
Sometimes you just don't need to know certain things for the story to work anyway. (we're talking about a world where a giant moonsized space gun is called the Death Star) If we don't need to know it, let it go and let's move on. Hyperdrive leaking? What is it leaking, gas, radiation? Let's just not get into it. What would all movies be like if they stopped for five minutes to explain how every little insignificant thing works before they go forward with the story. Like a car for instance... See now you use gasoline which provides fuel for the ignition in the engine and is in combustion with the engine, allowing us to drive to our destination. Snore... Not the best example but you understand since you're sitting there not knowing a thing about how a podracer engine works because it just isn't worth explaining. Big rocket boost things come out of it and it moves forward. Sense a strong force in some silly little slave boy? good. Moving on. May the Schwartz be with you.
However before the usual "It was perfectly fine with me and I saw nothing wrong with it lucas is my dad." cyber-vomit is spread in the rest of the thread, I only first wonder if you need everything spelled out for you on that level of detail (microscopic) then you must be really pissed about Padme's death. We were left hanging with that one. Not even the force itself knew why the hell she died. That is something that would aid the audiences understanding if it were explained a little more as well as the oh gee wiz guess what, someone came back from the dead to teach us how to do it too, but Lucas was in a rush...
edit: oh and probably the weirdest crime of adding jedi blood tests that I doubt even Lucas himself can pretzel argue his way out of is how Palpatine was never identified by whatever means jedi use to find midi-babies. Oopsie.
By the way my heart is beating, hoping that mel brooks does a spaceballs prequel parody, but I think we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a Pt anyway so that's why he hasn't done it yet. Or is that cartoon I heard about still in development?
"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."
"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.
http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
- Time
- Post link
Religion is strong in families that grow up together, it's not something genetically passed down to the next generation. Religion is learned not inherreted.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Now, with the Midichlorian concept all beings have an innate ability, not just Jedi.
So if anything, Midichlorians upholds what you would like the Force concept to be, whereas without them, you had to be related to someone strong in the Force.
As far as how Palpy avoided the Midi Test, he is a Sith Lord in hiding. Sith wouldn't be taking their babies in for Republic testing, because that would give them away as Force sensitives.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
So if anything, Midichlorians upholds what you would like the Force concept to be, whereas without them, you had to be related to someone strong in the Force. That's not the case. As I have stated, the information we have from SW '77 and ESB '80 suggests that who you're related to has nothing to do with your abilities. You aquire Force-sensitivity and the ability to manipulate the Force through training alone. The hereditary aspects were brought in by ROTJ and the idea of midichlorians are a direct result of that.Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
As far as how Palpy avoided the Midi Test, he is a Sith Lord in hiding. Sith wouldn't be taking their babies in for Republic testing, because that would give them away as Force sensitives.
He wasn't a Sith Lord in hiding when he was born. Are you suggesting that one or both of his parents were Sith? So if anything, Midichlorians upholds what you would like the Force concept to be, whereas without them, you had to be related to someone strong in the Force. That's not the case. As I have stated, the information we have from SW '77 and ESB '80 suggests that who you're related to has nothing to do with your abilities. You aquire Force-sensitivity and the ability to manipulate the Force through training alone. The hereditary aspects were brought in by ROTJ and the idea of midichlorians are a direct result of that.Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
As far as how Palpy avoided the Midi Test, he is a Sith Lord in hiding. Sith wouldn't be taking their babies in for Republic testing, because that would give them away as Force sensitives.