the next generation of Jedi — Page 2

Moth3r said:

The ban on marriage is a prequel idea; I don't really pay much attention to that.

What he said.  Lucas didn't think the whole matter through very carefully - simple as that. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

Whatever way you look at it, ROTS beats you over the head with a big love-is-bad message. Yoda doesn't condemn attachment just for Jedi. He condemns it outright. And anybody who loved somebody might be willing to seek questionable help if that was the only way to save them. I do't think it's necessarily the mark of an unhealthy love. As for jedi not being intended to be something everyone should emulate, unfortunately the films aren't that clear about that and many people could get the idea the jedi are something to emulate. I'm not sure what Lucas's intention is there, but I think it's quite possible he might view the jedi as ideals to be emulated. I think the distinction between selfish and unselfish love, while possibly important to Lucas, doesn't work as regards the film's message. ROTS does come across as condemning romantic love in general.

It seemed clear to me that young Anakin certainly wanted to emulate being a Jedi after meeting Qui-gon in that one movie.

cap said:

According to the PT, Force sensitivity is all about midichlorians.  If you’re born without the midichlorians, you can’t use the Force, and that’s that.

It's true.  And it sucks.

cap said:

[*] Note: Reportedly, Jedi are allowed to have sex, but not to conceive children.  It is established that accidental pregnancies can happen, even to Jedi, so if Jedi are forbidden to conceive children then they clearly must not be told to rely on fallible birth control.

I don't want to get into specifics, but...couldn't they just use the force for birth control?

cap said:

Octorox said:

cap said:

Octorox said:

I always saw the Jedi as religious figures, like Priests or Monks, that lead a very specific lifestyle not everyone is cut out for.

And, of course, kids are locked into this lifestyle when they are far too young to make such decisions for themselves.  Anakin, at nine years old, was considered “too old” to enter the lifestyle.

The more I think about it, the more Anakin’s “From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!” makes sense.

wow, never thought about that. But I can see how it might be easier if it's all you've ever known

I wonder if Vader talked to the younglings before killing them.

“If you become Jedi, you will live your whole lives without ever falling in love, without having children, without getting laid[*], and without any personal possessions other than your lightsaber.  Trust me, this is better for you.”

 

[*] Note: Reportedly, Jedi are allowed to have sex, but not to conceive children.  It is established that accidental pregnancies can happen, even to Jedi, so if Jedi are forbidden to conceive children then they clearly must not be told to rely on fallible birth control.  Therefore we can only conclude that the sex that Jedi are permitted to have consists of pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality.  (And no, I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between homosexuality and the others.)

How do you even define bestiality in a universe with multiple sentient species? Is getting it on with a Twilek bestiality or just getting it on with a Ronto?

captainsolo said:

I just think of Luke and Mara Jade. If that works, so can anything else. I'm very tired of all the prequel "attachment/possession" nonsense.

I think of Anakin and Padme. If that can go bad so can anything else.

I'm very tired of this EU "Jedi can do any damn thing they want- marry, have kids, get a job, leave the order, rejoin the order, fight against the order, have a beer, murder a star system, go-to-the-Dark-Side-and-always-come-back-because-it's-no-big-deal" nonsense.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

Wtf has happened to Star Wars?

So you'd prefer nice Protestant Jedi (Methodists?) who are allowed to marry rather than Jedi resembling the East Asian monks that they are so clearly inspired by?

And it is worth noting Yoda never gives a word of 'no attachment' advice to anyone who is not weilding a superhuman power that has an active and malignant Dark Side.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

Wtf has happened to Star Wars?

So you'd prefer nice Protestant Jedi (Methodists?) who are allowed to marry rather than Jedi resembling the East Asian monks that they are so clearly inspired by?

And it is worth noting Yoda never gives a word of 'no attachment' advice to anyone who is not weilding a superhuman power that has an active and malignant Dark Side.

Yeah but Yoda's advice sounds like it's meant to apply generally not just for force wielders. And a lot of people will go to that film and go "Wow, Yoda is wise. I have to follow his advice," and try to apply that stuff in their lives.

And I'm not in favor of any group we're supposed to look up to being portrayed as being against love or sex or relationships or whatever. And despite them being shown to have some faults, there is a lot pushing the audience to look up to the jedi. That's pushing an anti-relationship/anti-love attitude as a good thing, as does the plot of ROTS. Love and sex and relationships are a natural part of life and it's unnatural to ban them. Pretty funny for a bunch like the jedi who are supposed to be in touch with life.

TheBoost said:

captainsolo said:

I just think of Luke and Mara Jade. If that works, so can anything else. I'm very tired of all the prequel "attachment/possession" nonsense.

I think of Anakin and Padme. If that can go bad so can anything else.

I'm very tired of this EU "Jedi can do any damn thing they want- marry, have kids, get a job, leave the order, rejoin the order, fight against the order, have a beer, murder a star system, go-to-the-Dark-Side-and-always-come-back-because-it's-no-big-deal" nonsense.

Jeez, the EU writers just want their audience to have some fun, unlike the way the audiences of the prequels had a lack of fun. I think the eu approach is more reasonable than the prequel vision of the jedi. Though they do bounce back and forth between the dark and light sides a bit too much.

skyjedi2005 said:

All though episode II and III went further to being lol rofl trainwrecks of unimaginable lengths.  I still can't watch them and imagine they got past the scripting phase.

There's fun to be had going through those just to pick on moments of lameness. There are spectacular ones. Padme telling Annie it's ok to murder children, Anakin talking about sand, Yoda vs Dooku, Yoda vs Palpatine, just about any Annie-Padme conversation, so much of the scenes on Mustardfart, the Nooooo, etc.

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

So you'd prefer nice Protestant Jedi (Methodists?) who are allowed to marry rather than Jedi resembling the East Asian monks that they are so clearly inspired by?

And it is worth noting Yoda never gives a word of 'no attachment' advice to anyone who is not weilding a superhuman power that has an active and malignant Dark Side.

Yeah but Yoda's advice sounds like it's meant to apply generally not just for force wielders. And a lot of people will go to that film and go "Wow, Yoda is wise. I have to follow his advice," and try to apply that stuff in their lives.

And I'm not in favor of any group we're supposed to look up to being portrayed as being against love or sex or relationships or whatever. And despite them being shown to have some faults, there is a lot pushing the audience to look up to the jedi. That's pushing an anti-relationship/anti-love attitude as a good thing, as does the plot of ROTS. Love and sex and relationships are a natural part of life and it's unnatural to ban them. Pretty funny for a bunch like the jedi who are supposed to be in touch with life.

 Yoda's advice was 'learn to let go of people who are going to die.' Franky, I think that's fairly decent advice.

I happen to know a couple Buddhist monks. They abstain from lots that I enjoy, including meat, sex, marriage, and TV. They are wise men and amazing athletes (and kick my ass at basketball). Their compassion is almost overwhelming, and yet I've never walked away froma meeting with them thinking "These guys hate life and love!" In fact, I'd say they're some of the most in touch with life people I know.

And I certainly hope no one left a sci-fi movie thinking "man, the CG muppet told me to avoid attachment... I need to divorce my wife!"

I dont think Jedi are anti-love at all. I think Obi loves Anakin deeply. Luke plainly loves Han and Leia. But Obi's attachment to Anakin isn't so strong he can't slice him up when he goes all Vadery, and Luke learns that his love of his sister can't be a need so strong he's willing to go to the Dark Side for it.

TheBoost said:

They abstain from lots that I enjoy, including meat, sex, marriage, and TV.

What do you mean "lots?"  There more to life than MSMT?

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

So you'd prefer nice Protestant Jedi (Methodists?) who are allowed to marry rather than Jedi resembling the East Asian monks that they are so clearly inspired by?

And it is worth noting Yoda never gives a word of 'no attachment' advice to anyone who is not weilding a superhuman power that has an active and malignant Dark Side.

Yeah but Yoda's advice sounds like it's meant to apply generally not just for force wielders. And a lot of people will go to that film and go "Wow, Yoda is wise. I have to follow his advice," and try to apply that stuff in their lives.

And I'm not in favor of any group we're supposed to look up to being portrayed as being against love or sex or relationships or whatever. And despite them being shown to have some faults, there is a lot pushing the audience to look up to the jedi. That's pushing an anti-relationship/anti-love attitude as a good thing, as does the plot of ROTS. Love and sex and relationships are a natural part of life and it's unnatural to ban them. Pretty funny for a bunch like the jedi who are supposed to be in touch with life.

 Yoda's advice was 'learn to let go of people who are going to die.' Franky, I think that's fairly decent advice.

I happen to know a couple Buddhist monks. They abstain from lots that I enjoy, including meat, sex, marriage, and TV. They are wise men and amazing athletes (and kick my ass at basketball). Their compassion is almost overwhelming, and yet I've never walked away froma meeting with them thinking "These guys hate life and love!" In fact, I'd say they're some of the most in touch with life people I know.

And I certainly hope no one left a sci-fi movie thinking "man, the CG muppet told me to avoid attachment... I need to divorce my wife!"

I dont think Jedi are anti-love at all. I think Obi loves Anakin deeply. Luke plainly loves Han and Leia. But Obi's attachment to Anakin isn't so strong he can't slice him up when he goes all Vadery, and Luke learns that his love of his sister can't be a need so strong he's willing to go to the Dark Side for it.

Well I'm not discussing Buddhist monks. I'm discussing jedi, prequelized jedi. And these jedi seem to be against a lot that's healthy and natural, even against kids seeing their parents. Yoda seems to be against not only relationships but love as well.

As for prequel Obi, I don't think he feels anything deeply, let along loving Anakin deeply. He was portrayed without feeling, fitting the prequel movies that lacked feeling, fitting the anti-feeling message of those movies with their anti-feeling jedi. 

And I certainly hope no one left a sci-fi movie thinking "man, the CG muppet told me to avoid attachment... I need to divorce my wife

I'm sure someone did. This is real life. People can be awful stupid. And kids can be impressionable.

 Yoda's advice was 'learn to let go of people who are going to die.' Franky, I think that's fairly decent advice.

There was more to Yoda's advice than that. He basically told him not to give a damn about people dying, not to mourn or miss them. Pretty cold stuff. And no I don't think saying you should let go of people who are about to die is good advice. I think it's cold. Let go of them after they die? Ok. But before they die? That's cold. He also told him attachment to people is bad. So basically you shouldn't care about people and you shouldn't give a fuck if they die. And while the word love isn't mentioned it's pretty clear Yoda is saying love is bad with all his bull about attachment and not mourning or missing people. Yoda is encouraging people to be cold fish and the film is teaching that message to little kids. Complete with Anakin's example to show how love is bad.