Gaffer Tape

Wow.  How many times has ReBoot been brought back from the dead now?  I remember when season 3 was a hallowed and amazing thing!

Heh, yeah, my slight paranoia tends to make me check that feature every so often to see if I've pissed anybody off!

Yeah, it probably wasn't my business to comment on that.  Sorry, Dayv.  You know me, though, just trying to keep the peace. ^_^

I saw Nosferatu available at the same Blockbuster.  I passed on it this time, but I'm certainly planning to check it out eventually.

Haha, true dat!

Yeah, wow, "The Apple," where Kirk takes the Prime Directive and sodomizes it until it begs for mercy.  "But what about the non-interference clause?"  "Aw, fuck that shit.  They don't live the way I want them to, so Starfleet can kiss my bronzed, muscular ass!"

Not that I'm defending him or anything, but he didn't he send you a very detailed letter of apology at one point?  Doesn't necessarily mean you have to or are expected to forgive him for what he did, but doesn't sound like you need to pay him a visit...

Well, there was a contraption in the Super Famicom game Mother 2 (EarthBound in the states) that was called the Sky Walker, which was changed in America to the Sky Runner, so maybe it is.

Yeah, it seemed that George always wanted to put more and more different races in the films, but he really wasn't able to manage it until ROTJ, which is when there was that explosion of goofy band puppets, Mon Calimari, and Ewoks.  Obviously that sensibility continued into the prequels where, suddenly two out of three characters are non-human humanoids or non-human non-humanoids.  Not that it's bad, but it certainly does disconnect the universes, although I'm pretty sure it's been retconned away as aliens being subjugated by the Empire.  In fact, the X-Wing novels, I thought, did a good job of dealing with that plot point when those damned asshole bothans attack the New Republic for being racist and point out that aliens were only used in the rebellion towards the end.

Akwat Kbrana said:

But it makes absolutely no sense. As Xhonzi pointed out, the statement is philosophically self-defeating (it's like "there are no absolutes...absolutely none!"). Moreover, it's demonstrably absurd: check out the different ways Jedi and Sith philosophy is presented throughout the PT, and you'll find it's actually exactly opposite what Obi-Wan claims. The Jedi only see black and white, while the Sith are all about playing in the shadowy grey areas. Recall Palpatine's line in you will: "The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power." Sounds a lot more like moral relativism than dogmatic absolutism to me.

So, George managed to paint a perfectly clear picture of relativistic Sith and thoroughly absolutist Jedi, but then in his desire to shoehorn a Bush-bash into his last Star Wars movie, simultaneously demonstrated that he doesn't even understand the core beliefs and methods of the very characters and movements he created. Strange, innit?

Damnit, you beat me to the punch.  I thought this exact same thing over dinner last night!  Whether or not you think the Jedi dogma is good or bad, it's very much absolutist, even in the OT.  "If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."  Compare it to Palpatine's line in ROTS:  "I embrace a larger view of the Force" and then talking about how one most have knowledge of all aspects of a concept.  It's clear that the Jedi see things only in black and white.  Therefore, Obi-Wan's assertion of absolutes is either political shoehorning, terrible oversight in judgment, or, maybe, just maybe, (although I doubt it) Lucas actually being aware of how corrupt the Jedi were at that point and demonstrating their own hypocrisy.

Yeah, I've heard both:  that Guiness wanted it to happen, and that Guiness hated it happening, so I really don't know which is true either.

Oh, in a related note, I should like to point out that, according to my computer at least, this is the 1,900th thread in this forum.  I am very proud to be that guy.  You're welcome.

Cover... BLOWN!

So, ric... you like those 14 year old girls, huh?  How old are you again?

Oh, snap!  God is a Sith!

TheBoost said:

Dying old b/w films was an awesome process that people today don't respect (the opening of Wizard of Oz is supposed to be sepia toned, but on some versions they've taken it to straight b/w). Chaney's Phantom of the Opera had some green and red scenes, and the flag in "Battleship Potempkin" was sometimes painstakingly handcolored red, frame by frame... imagine how awesome that must have seemed back then.

Thanks for confirming that for me.  That's what I thought.  I wouldn't say that people today don't respect film dyeing.  I think it's just something they either don't understand or have no knowledge of.  However, it's not like the art is lost forever.  Its spiritual successors live on in the forms of gels, lens filters, and post production color correction.

Oh, please don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that was bad or didn't work in a lot of ways.  Especially in terms of Luke, it was a huge improvement that Ben died.  It's a classic motif (sigh, Lucas has ruined that word) to have the mentor killed off so the hero can stand on his own two feet.  And, yes, that's great.  It improves the story.  Like I said, my only concern was whether or not Ben was in sufficient danger to justify sacrificing himself. 

Yeah, but like I said, Ben could have just as easily (but in a not nearly as cool way) delivered Luke his pep talk if he was still alive.  Or did the spirit of Ben somehow pull Luke closer to the Force?  I thought the message was simply, "Believe in yourself, and you can do it."

Anchorhead said:

Gaffer Tape said:

But, Gaffer, Anchorhead will scoff.  Those are the sequels.  They're just ridiculous, they represent a different mindset than the first film, and I try to pretend they don't exist! 

 

I don't try to pretend they don't exist. I have little or no interest in them these days, but I'm aware of the story continuation. That's why I don't make statements like "Those are not Star Wars films", "those are not canon", etc, etc. They are. They're just Star Wars films that I haven't seen in a long time, following a story line I don't care about. My issues regarding Lucas and his attempt to alter history are a separate matter.

For the record, I think Empire has some fantastic moments. I may get the 06 DVD of it before too long.

Regarding your post, are you asking something specific or just pondering the less-than-consistent portrayal of the Stormtroopers throughout the series? It seems to me that they were a substantial threat in the first film and less so in the second & third. As far as Phantom goes, I don't remember seeing any, which is just my lack of familiarity with the film. I can't speak to their threat level.

As for Vader, I think his level of threat and\or power was correct for the story in Star Wars. He was a military member with little regard for other people, he was highly skilled, and had a questionable past that was enough to keep other military personnel somewhat distant. However, he wasn't the be-all, end-all of all things Empire. He wasn't beyond authority. He answered to other ranking members, who did sometimes challenge him. I thought that was a perfect balance.

He was morphed into an almost superhero state as the series went on, which to me felt out of place from the first film.

Ben gave up because a loss was nearly inevitable. Plus it was the necessary choice for the mission to succeed, or even to continue at that point. Earlier in the film, Ben tells Luke that "the droids would now be in the hands of the Empire". By sacrificing himself, he was trying to prevent that from happening at that point in their mission.

Yeah, sorry.  I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.  Well, actually, yeah, I guess I was, but it was all in good fun.  You're the most well-known single movie fan around here, so you do tend to be used as a case study.  Sorry for the innaccuracy.  Hopefully despite that you saw where I was going.

As for Phantom, there are no stormtroopers in that film.  There are just the battle droids, but, in essence, they are used as the stormtroopers, as are the clonetroopers in the other prequels, the expendable, faceless enemy mooks.  And, obviously, in those films, said mooks are dropped without any kind of threat at all.

So now I do have a question if you don't mind.  How was Ben's death the necessary choice for the mission to succeed?  Again, we're going from the shooting script of Ben escaping to the actual film where Ben dies.  Other than that, is there really anything substantially different about the two?  As far as I know, there isn't, so what did Ben dying accomplish?  How did his death keep the droids from being captured?

I guess my thought is, that if the stormtroopers are supposed to be considered threats, and that Ben couldn't possibly fight his way through all of them and Vader, then I suppose I have no complaint about why he chose to give up at that moment.  I guess my view has been tainted too much by the prequels (and even the sequels to an extent) where the stormtrooper equivalents are analagous to bowling pins that can be knocked over in the slightest breeze.  Sigh.  Did George ever watch his movies when making the prequels, or was he too busy thinking, "Ooh, Jedi are kewl.  They make stuff dead and tey r invincibal!"?

Sluggo said:

2. Yes.  Stormtroopers where everywhere.  If the rebels split up and were hiding on, oh say, levels five and six, the stormtroopers could report it in.  And if you manage to lower a blast door on them, they still will find a way to make it through.  And they all can't miss. Sooner or later, one of them will hit their targert.

***

4.  The shooting script and the rough cut of Star Wars had Ben sneaking past many more Imperial officers and Stormtroopers.  The Force was with him.

For two, I was really just referring to Ben being surrounded by them just before his death, not the other stormtroopers we'd seen prior to that.  When the the stormtroopers noticed that Vader was fighting this old man and jog over there, did viewers go, "Oh, shit.  He's surrounded.  He's screwed.  What's he going to do now?"?  And, more importantly, is that a view that is diminished because of the prequels where dozens of stormtrooper equivalents are no threat at all to a single Jedi?  In the context of the first movie alone, are a dozen stormtroopers considered a serious threat to a fully-trained Jedi?

And for four, look at my original post, I guess.  I was actually praising Ben's actions in the first movie for being the only true examples of stealth in, well, any of the movies.  Had this been the sequels, or especially the prequels, Ben probably would have just gutted them all with his lightsaber without a second thought.

doubleofive said:

Gaffer Tape said:

One, could Ben's death have benefitted from more danger?

I'm not sure, Gaffer.  I like the way it goes down currently, not sure if him getting beat down makes Vader more "evil", just makes him seem more powerful.  And I like the idea of an old man still being powerful enough to have to give up in order to be beaten by his apprentice.

I'm not saying I don't like it either.  I probably shouldn't have said "benefitted."  I was more referring to whether or not would help clarify what Lucas claimed he was going for.  Since this is the first example I could think of, take Back to the Future Part II when Biff has Marty cornered on the roof.  Biff clearly has the upper hand at that moment, having Marty at gunpoint, with Marty's only option to jump off the roof.  But Marty knows what Biff doesn't:  that the DeLorean is going to be right there to save him, similar to, "if you strike me down..." etc.  Similarly, Ben could be backed into a corner and seemingly beaten, even though he knows that he can live on if he is struck down, and I don't think he'd lose any power by that.

I'm probably going to get lambasted for even thinking this, but, even though I enjoy it, I occasionally do get the feeling of, "I'm going to sacrifice myself now... because the plot requires me to."  I, too, admit that I always saw the stormtroopers a peanut gallery until writing this post, rather than viewing them as a genuine threat.  And if there is no threat, there doesn't seem to be any reason for him to just go, "Whoop, I guess it's time for me to die."  Again, there's the argument that Ben needs to die so that he can go to the afterlife and council Luke in the final battle.  Okay.  But he could have just as easily said, "Use the Force," to Luke over the ship's radio from the Yavin base.  Hell, he probably did say that in the script before the decision to kill him off was made. 

And, yes, before I go any further, having the spirit of Ben talk to Luke is certainly more dramatically resonant than having it as comm chatter, so don't think I'm tearing down the notion of killing him off.  I'm just toying with the idea that it might have been better to up the danger a little bit in order to give Ben a clearer motivation and clearer sacrifice.  Maybe.

Freddie Mercury goes great with Batman, I hear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weqJJZ3XfMA).  Shameless plug, I know... ^_^

Yeah, like I said, it's the winners who write the history.  I'm sure the members of the Confederacy weren't a bunch of card-carrying, mustache-twirling villains who hated black people.  But since you bring it up, the very interesting thing about the film from the perspective that you bring up is that the film, ultimately, is very overt about being pro-federal government over states' rights, which is probably very surprising considering how pro-Confederacy, pro-KKK it is.  In fact, that's where the title The Birth of a Nation, comes from.  It states that, before the Civil War, the United States were mere individual states, but that it took all the KKK triumphantly defending itself from Reconstruction (film's view) in order to create a unified nation.  I'm really not sure how those two ideals mesh together at all.  It seems to me that, whatever you think of the KKK, they were still defending states' rights, but Griffith was apparently very pro-Federal Government and saw the struggles as necessary to bring the union together.  Interesting...  Hell, this film, the psychological motivatioin behind its viewpoints and its history could fill several theses, methinks, which is probably why I'm so keen to talk on it.  I was also very surprised at how anti-war the film was too.  I believe it explicitly states its purpose at the beginning to show the horrors of war in the hopes that war will never occur again.

Good point.  Just saw that this morning, I don't know how I forgot.  But, yeah, that's hardly a crux of my argument.

Anyway, there are several questions.  One, could Ben's death have benefitted from more danger?  Two, did the presence of stormtroopers in that situation increase the level of danger?  Three, if so, have stormtroopers (and their counterparts) become exponentially more pathetic as time goes on?  Four, what happened to stealth?  Five, how did the scouts in ROTJ not realize that many of their own men went missing at the same time their speeder bike began to randomly explode in the forest, and did they not manage to put two and two together (maybe slightly justified in that it was a trap all along)?