logo Sign In

Go-Mer-Tonic

User Group
Members
Join date
13-Sep-2006
Last activity
28-Mar-2007
Posts
928

Post History

Post
#249484
Topic
Interesting tidbit about who shot first
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249484/action/topic#249484
Time
I think Lucas was just really strapped on time and money. I am not so sure a reshoot after the fact would have been possible. I think that's why he just "fixed it in post" by tweaking the dialogue to make it clear that Greedo planned on shooting Han.

Obvioulsy some here didn't think it was all that obvious based on Greedo's body language, which just goes to show the subtitles weren't always enough to get that point across.

I think that's why Lucas felt it had to be clarified.

I can see why people don't all like it, but at least the 2004 SE isn't quite as awkward looking, and they shoot at almost the same time to the point that both shots are on the screen at the same time, with Greedo's just a touch quicker.

To me that timing change alters it from a reaction shot on Han's part, to a shot he was making at about the same time. I always looked at that timing change to be a "okay let's meet in the middle" on Lucas' part.
Post
#248819
Topic
Rebel Assault II and, Jedi Knight Dark Forces II cutscenes
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248819/action/topic#248819
Time
I really enjoyed this game back when it first came out for PC. As far as full motion rail shooters go, I thought they did the best they could. Unlike most other FMV shooters, they actually used video that was larger than the monitor, so that they could pan left, right and up and down a bit so you sort of felt more control than you would otherwise.

I think that was the first game that used Scott Lawrence as the voice of Darth Vader, which I still think is the closest they ever got to James Earl Jones without actually using James Earl Jones.

The cutscenes were much better looking than the first game, and I ejoyed the cheesey humor.
Post
#248782
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248782/action/topic#248782
Time
Originally posted by: CO
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Well, you make a very good point there. Yet for some reason it is very frustrating for me, as a Star Wars fan, to have seen the films fall to the place where they are now. I know they aren’t the worst films ever, but they could have been somewhat good. Perhaps I believed Lucas’ own self promotion a little too much. Perhaps I shouldn’t have believed he was a genius who single-handedly built the original trilogy as he tried to claim (despite that no being true at all). Perhaps, then, the prequel movies and the SE wouldn’t be so frustrating for me now.
. I think this is how we all feel who were under whelmed by the PT, or what I call duped in thinking that Lucas is this messiah. I say that in the context that Lucas is not the messiah as everyone states that he is and was even during the OT days, cause I still feel the quality drop started with ROTJ, continued with the SE nonsense, and sent red flags to me as a fan with the PT. See, I don't remember Lucas or anyone associated with Lucasfilm claiming that Lucas is a "messiah". I only saw him as a filmmaker. A really good filmmaker, but still human and imperfect. Maybe that's part of the reason I was able to roll along with the imperfections of the prequels, because I didn't see the classic trilogy as being the work of some kind of holy man. I know most people feel ANH and Empire are the best in the series, but I can't help but wonder how much of that was because of what Lucas brought to the table with his film, and how much was because of what –we- brought to the table in regards to our imagination. Truly wonderful the mind of a child is. I know I am in a minority here, but I think all the films are at about the same level give or take a bit here and there. I think they all have logic hurdles, dicey dialogue, hit and miss acting, and effects that aren't always 100% real looking.
Originally posted by: CO
Even with ROTJ being a good but not great sequel, the O-OT is a very coherent trilogy that for 3 movies that Lucas made up as he went, actually flows really well. The one beef I have with the OT is that Luke's last name is Skywalker, and Vader’s name is Anakin Skywalker? They should have had Anakin’s last name be Starkiller in ROTJ, so at least it shows an attempt to hide Luke when he was born.
It's a stretch, but I always figured it was okay because Luke was more or less stashed away from the Empire on Tatooine. It's not like he was attending imperial high school or anything like that.Originally posted by: CO
The O-OT really did a better job of sticking with the characters, and actually building on them better then the PT did, even the secondary characters like Lando. The O-OT characters all had character arcs by the end of the trilogy:

Luke: Farmboy to Jedi who saves his father and the galaxy
Han: Rogue who is all for himself but becomes a team player by ROTJ
Vader: Bad guy who saves his son and kills the Emperor
Lando: Selfish guy who sells out his friend Han, but eventually blows up DSII
Leia: ?????????? Leia is the only one I think they dropped the ball with in ROTJ, cause when Lucas made her Luke’s sister, it takes her away from being head of the Rebellion in which is the strength of her personality.
Anakin: Slave boy to powerful Jedi to Sith Lord.
Obi-Wan Kenobi: Apprentice Jedi to one of the top Jedi's in the order to desert hermit.
Padme: Naive puppet politician to headstrong leader.
Jar-Jar: Societal outcast to important representative.

I see what you mean about being tied to "what has to happen", but I think Lucas made a decent attempt to balance that out with as much character development as he could with that requirement.Originally posted by: CO
Zombie is right that we should be lucky with 2 Great movies in SW & ESB, and as I said, I never really buried ROTJ that much before the PT, cause we had 2 classics and 1 good sequel. But looking at the saga, there are more bad then good movies!! Now I don't hate any PT movies cause I can enjoy ANYTHING with SW in it, but that doesn't mean I am not naive to think they are all OK movies that could have been better.
You are lucky to have enjoyed 2 movies out of 6, and I can see why you would rather enjoy 2 out of 3 than 2 out of 6.

I feel pretty lucky to have gotten 6 amazing films, because for me they form the Voltron of movies, something that I don't think anyone else has even come close to achieving.
Post
#248779
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248779/action/topic#248779
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
About force jumps, I still don't see the problem. Luke's jumps were already fantastic, and to me, most of the Jedi jumps in the prequels aren't all that much higher than Luke's. I understand -that- you prefer more subtle jumps. I don't quite understand why. I see. So, this is still a very extreme issue for you then? Interesting. I am truly sorry Go-Mer. I mean, I understand that you have a fixation upon this subject, but as I have already stated many times, I do not. The super jumps are not any kind of an extreme problem for me at all. I simply mentioned it off the top of my head in my first post. It was something that didn’t match up with the rest of the “saga” to me in a vague sense and that’s all. I’m now sorry that the Jedi jumps have now struck such a strong nerve with you. As I have already said before in this thread, and for many of the precise reasons you outlined in your last post, I am easily able to overlook this issue and pretend it somehow works.

Sure, I’ll admit that I still consider the super-jumps to be small flaw in the sense that the previous movies had already ingrained such a strong image of the Jedi into my mind. They moved like ordinary people for the most part and could only perform miraculous feats with great labor and concentration. Perhaps Luke was just an unskilled novice as you say, but I always got the impression that Luke was a pretty capable Jedi in terms of his physical capabilities. But, as you said, I never knew any of those things for certain, and I’m thus able to overlook and accept the super jumps. Oh good, I misunderstood. I thought this was a big deal that you couldn't roll along with. My mistake.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
What I’m unable to overlook or accept however is your outright dismissal of my point of view. You have implied that I am supremely illogical for gathering the impression that I did. Apparently, to formulate a general concept of the Jedi, based upon what the movies themselves have made me accustomed to, is some sort of supreme crime in your eyes. I’m sorry but I find that odd. After all, I able to understand your point of view to a degree, and yet you somehow cannot even see where I am coming at all. Well maybe "illogical" isn't the right way to put it. I guess it's just a difference in the way we each approached these new movies. I certainly never assumed that Jedi would be doing all of the things they did in the PT on my own going on the classic trilogy. Certainly there are more fantastic qualities to some of the things the Jedi can do in the prequels. Still, I didn't see that as an "artistic" or "logical" flaw, it was just the way things were in this story. I then adjusted my perception to fit with this new information, replacing my assumptions with how things "really" were. To me it all clicked and made perfect sense as I watched these movies for the first time. Instead of folding my arms and saying: "Hey Luke never did anything like that in the classic trilogy" I put my hand under my chin and said: "So -that's- how Jedi were when they were the guardians of peace and justice in the old Republic." Obviously, this wasn't a big deal for you either, so really the lack of logic here was in my perception that it was.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I get the impression that if George Lucas were to decide tomorrow that Jedi could shoot beams of radiation from their eyeballs and melt storm troopers in a single second with them, you would then wholeheartedly accept that concept. And, if I were to then express even the slightest reservation about that power, I can only guess that you would accuse me of being completely illogical and unfair. Now come on, we were talking about how an existing force power from the classic trilogy was portrayed to more of an extreme in the prequels, not a force power that magically appeared out of nowhere. Some of the things the Jedi do in the prequels that they never did in the classic trilogy such as Jedi speed (seen in the beginning of TPM), I can see as being something more out of left field.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Obviously to you this is a fairly large deal, and one you have a hard time rolling along with. Uhh, no, I already said in this thread that this issue isn’t a “fairly large deal” to me at all. In fact, I have stated the opposite a number of times now. For crying out loud, the first time I watched The Phantom Menace, I didn’t even notice the jumps were as high as they were! It was not until a later viewing that I saw how extreme they were and, sure, became somewhat bothered by them. But still, it’s not this important to me. It is nothing to debate to the extreme degree you apparently want to debate it. I’ve been trying to dispense with the issue for a number of my posts now. I already stated that they can work from a different point of view. Again, I misunderstood, my mistake.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I think it's nonsense to question the logical veracity of Jedi that can jump twice as high as Luke. Hmm, once again, you have the arrogance to completely dismiss my point of view as “nonsense.” Is that what you call being open-minded Go-Mer? If so, then I’m impressed by your gall. It was only in response to your complete dismissal of the fact that light sabers aren't any more logical than Jedi being able to jump as high as they do. I was making a point about how light sabers go beyond what we know about in our own existence just as some of the more fantastic Jedi powers do, and you told me that the difference was that there was in inconsistency between the way Jedi jumping in particular had been portrayed in the prequels as opposed to the classic trilogy.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Again, the reason I had a small problem with the super jumps was because the previous films had given me a far more subtle concept of the Jedi in terms of their physical prowess. I’m glad that you are making me restate that so many times. Quite frankly, it’s not an extreme problem for me. My previous concept of the Jedi was not that important to me and I’ve stated that many times now. I am able to accept the new jumps and overlook my previous concept. Can we move on now? One gripe down, how many do we have left? Yes, I am sorry I thought you found this to be a problem.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Forgive me, but I believe it's stupid to absolutely "assume" that Jedi in their prime wouldn't be able to jump as high as they ended up doing in the prequels.
Ahh, well I’m beginning to think that you are stupid for assuming that I “absolutely” believed Jedi couldn’t make super jumps. I never said that anywhere in this thread and I have even clearly denied that sentiment a number of times now. You have provided no reasons to accuse me of making such an extreme assumption and yet you keep accusing me of it. Why is that, Go-Mer? I don't know I'm just used to disagreeing with people who don't like the prequels I think. I appreciate your patience with me.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Here is what I was keying in on that you had said in response to me explaining that light sabers don't make logical sense, because lasers wouldn't just stop at one end like that without something to reflect or absorb the energy.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Nonsense. Light sabers were always presented in a very logically beautiful way in the films. They were mysterious and magical weapons that somehow needed the force to work and, unlike what you claim, they were clearly different from the laser blasters in the film (please don’t make flippant points). All in all, light sabers are a very simple and acceptable subject from a logical standpoint, and very enjoyable from a logical standpoint as well. Now, if we were to have logically delved deeper into how light sabers supposedly worked in the films themselves and talked about plasma and shit like that, sure that might well have been an unsuccessful addition, artistically speaking. There’s no way for us to know though, since the films never went that route. Wow, so that’s where you were going with that? You’re so brilliant Go-Mer!

Of course, first let’s totally miss the fact that I have already communicated why light saber problems and my super jump problems are not similarly problematic, like fifty times. And, lets overlook the fact that I can overlook my problem with the super jumps, but let’s instead talk about how incredibly smart you are, Go-Mer. Stop it. Really, you're making me blush.

Oh wait, I think I see where my misunderstanding came from. You are saying that the reason why Jedi being able to jump a bit higher than Luke is not the same kind of issue as the concept of a light saber because there is a consistency with the way the light saber is portrayed within the films, whereas the Jedi jump has progressed to become more intense. I can see how you had an expectation for the Jedi to have similarly more subtle powers as Luke displayed, and understand how making them more extreme can approach "hoakie" status, I just think that the light saber is also fairly "hoakie" from the get go. It looks cool but there's really no logic behind it, it just is.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Ahh, but wait, you said that you believe that lasers “wouldn’t just stop at one end,” Go-Mer? Well, in that “keying” text you quoted of mine, I actually stated why that was a clearly stupid assumption for you to make. Light sabers are not laser guns! They’re light sabers! According to the story, according to the way they look, and according to the way they are used, light sabers are clearly designed to work like swords and not laser guns! Yeah, but light doesn't just stop unless there's something to absorb or reflect it. I think the only laser we see in the classic trilogy is the Death Star super laser. The blasters are firing some kind of energy bolt, there's more to it than just light.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Your light saber problems are not directly comparable to my small problem with the super jumps. Again, over a long period of time, the previous films gave an impression of what Jedi could do, and from that artistic standpoint, the super jumps seemed to be outside of those capabilities. (Nothing more, nothing less. I have no extreme opinion on this matter.) Your problem with light sabers on the other hand is based upon nothing in the films or anything in reality for that matter. Why don’t you focus on a more difficult, prequel problem, Go-Mer? Are you afraid that you can’t defend them with your straw-man arguments as easily? Absolutely terrified. I do see what you were saying now. I personally didn't assume Luke would be a reference for the full spectrum of what a fully trained Jedi in the prime of the Jedi could do, so that's why I don't think there's a problem with it, but I can see what you are saying, and I don't mean to imply it's invalid. It is just a problem that never came up for me is the best way to put it.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
By not seeing anything there to reflect it, and knowing how lasers seem to work here on Earth, that's how I can assume that. Assumptions by their very nature rest on perception and limits of imagination, and are not dependant on facts.
That’s PRECISELY why you shouldn’t rigidly hold to your assumptions, Go-Mer. As I said in my previous post, sometimes it’s good to approach something with wonder and NOT have a clear perception for everything that you experience. I’ll state this once more: There was nothing in the films to intelligently support your assumption that light sabers were “lasers.” There were also no intelligent reasons in the film to support your assumption that anything concerning light sabers needed to be “reflected.” Therefore, to argue that light sabers have a problem on either basis is far from intelligent.
I agree. They don't get into the light saber concept enough to be able to disprove it's possibility in reality. That's why you and I were able to accept it at face value -without- over thinking it.Originally posted by: Tiptup
On the other hand, my general concept of the Jedi and their physical capabilities does have a small degree of support in the actual films. Is it a super strong degree of support? No, and I never said that it was. Can I openly reject super jumps as illogical? No, I have never said that I could. I simply said that I don’t particularly like them from an artistic standpoint, not that I could reject them completely. I would hope that you can finally get that into your skull, Go-Mer.
Okay, so it's not that it doesn't make sense that the Jedi are more powerful than Luke, you just don't like that they are. It's not "artistically" pleasing to you. I'm sorry it took so long to understand that.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I think you might need a lesson in logic, Go-Mer.Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Do I now? I would suggest that you could use a lesson in fantasy.
Yes I do actually think you might need a lesson in proper logic, in fact your last post was horrendous in this regard. And, I believe your suggestion is empty, since I am well versed in fantasy as a method, thank you.
Thanks for guiding me back on track. Originally posted by: TiptupOriginally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I'm the one making "unfair" comparisons? I'm just illustrating what I find to be a huge double standard here.
Light sabers are not a double standard for me. There’s no valid reason you can provide to prove that I am being hypocritical here. (Though, if it is not obvious to you and you need everything to be clearly stated, I will say that you have so far tried to present many invalid reasons in your attempt to label me a hypocrite, but that I have now explained why those reasons are wrong. If you are unable to understand my explanations then I would certainly be willing to help clarify.)
I think I have it now, but you never know.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Similarly to the way you pretend the logical problems with the concept of a light saber don't exist?
Similarly is an adverb.
I am altering it's meaning, pray I don't alter it any further. Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Well we know Jedi have powers of telekinesis, it's not that illogical to me to assume that if they were falling, and they were concentrating hard enough on their landing, they could use that kind of telekinesis to help slow their fall before impact. In other areas where I can think of Jedi being far more fragile, they were falling from a great height while they were unconscious, which would handily explain this to me.
Hmm, that’s an interesting concept. I would ask, then, why cannot Jedi levitate? Or are you suggesting that Anakin used his telekinesis to alter the hover-car’s movement in order to lessen the impact? If so, then how come it doesn’t look like the hover car is being moved through telekinesis? And, either way, why doesn’t Anakin look as if he is concentrating on the force to use his telekinesis?
I imagine it to be like a force push. You can't just levitate yourself, but you could lessen your impact if you were falling. To me it looks like Zam Wessel's speeder was impacted by Anakin landing on it.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
To me it's important to enjoy these movies as much as possible.

The focus of Revenge of the Sith to me is the manifestation of the grey area involved with good and evil. The morals of ROTS are very similar to the morals presented across the entire saga. That love is better than hate, and compassion is better than greed, but also that life doesn't always make the right choices very clear. On the one hand, saving Padme and Shmi are noble, compassionate things. Anakin strives to obtain the power to control these things, and is then consumed by the desire to control the plight of the entire galaxy, so he "can make things the way he wants them to be", but as Padme asks, "at what cost"? It's an examination of what's "right" for an individual and at what point that becomes less important than what's "right" for the greater good.
First, why is it important to enjoy the prequels “as much as possible”? Do you say that with every movie or just with movies that are related to Star Wars? Do you say that with every TV show that happens to come along? Isn’t better to enjoy what you actually find enjoyable and not force yourself to enjoy a film simply because it’s a film or simply because it’s related to Star Wars?
I say that with any movie I am watching. To me the point of watching a movie is to be entertained. The more I enjoy it, the more I have gotten out of the deal. For that reason, I try to work with the entertainment as much as possible. The Star Wars Saga is just where I happen to get the most enjoyment out of the deal when it comes to movies.

Also I'm not saying that I force myself to enjoy things that aren't enjoyable, I just strive to see what the filmmaker was trying to get across, and don't let my pre-conceived notions about "how it should be" get in the way of enjoying it for what it is. I don't spend a whole lot of time second guessing the film maker, and instead just enjoy what he has done as much as possible.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Otherwise, I see how you could enjoy that focus from the prequels. However, I have trouble seeing that focus in the films. How are you able to overlook the many times that the films are clearly hypocritical in regard to that focus? I see many times where the films display the fact that what’s “right” for an individual is what actually determines what is then right for the greater good more than anything else. To me that clear display seems to contradict the focus you enjoy. Therefore, how are you able to overlook inconsistency? Why is that seeming hypocrisy unimportant to you?

I really do want to understand your point of view, Go-Mer. Assuming you can act with a reasonable mind.
Could you be more specific as to what you find to contradict what I am seeing? To me Anakin's desire to save Padme from possible death is a good thing. It's personal for Anakin because he has a personal interest in keeping her around because he loves her. The path he goes down in pursuit of that goal pushes the whole galaxy into the dark times of the Empire. In that way, Anakin put himself above the rest of the galaxy and it ended up being bad for everyone.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I really don't see why you would say it's incoherent.
From my point of view, RotS is either incoherent or Anakin is a psychopath. Either way I can’t enjoy the movie. I’ve already told you this before and you totally failed to reply. Oh well, if you can’t understand my point of view even to the slightest degree, then you can hardly claim to have an open mind.
Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes! (I love that line ) Anyway, I don't see Anakin as a complete psychopath.

When it comes to the Tusken Raider slaughter, Anakin knows what he did was wrong after he did it, so you could argue temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of having his mother die in his arms because of them.

As far as slaughtering the younglings and betraying the Jedi order, he did rationalize that even if only to himself:"I will not betray the Republic."

"My loyalties are with the Chancellor, and the senate, and with you."

"From my point of view the Jedi are evil".
Anakin had it all worked out in his head that what he was doing was for the greater good of the galaxy, but it was all really motivated by his selfish desire to save Padme from a potential death. His rationalization was just how he coped with that decision.
Post
#248685
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248685/action/topic#248685
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
It's just that to me some things like assuming Luke would be as strong and as powerful as fully trained Jedi in their prime seems so illogical, it makes me really wonder why other things that seem fairly easy to roll along with seem to make no logical sense to you. Alright, I’ll talk about force jumps again . . . .

In my mind, I totally agree with you that Luke wouldn’t be as skilled with the force as a padawan that has trained to use the force his entire life, like Obi-Wan had. I just thought that Luke would have still been fairly skilled enough that, combined with his natural affinity with the force, his jumps would have been somewhat close. Even Darth Vader was impressed with Luke.

Yet you express that it is so illogical to believe that it is extreme to have Jedi jumping twice as high all of a sudden? You don’t see how this could be odd to me? Not even a little bit? You can’t see why I’d prefer the subtle jumps of the OT?

Even as much as I love the original trilogy, even I can admit potentially problematic elements. First of all, I think it's great that you and I in particular are able to talk so civilly from entirely different points of view. I am not insulted by the way you perceive my comments, and I really don't mean to personally insult you.

About force jumps, I still don't see the problem. It's not like Luke's jumps weren't fantastic, and to me, most of the Jedi jumps in the prequels aren't all that much higher than Luke's. I understand -that- you prefer more subtle jumps. I don't quite understand why. To me, the Jedi in their prime have always been this mysterious thing I wished I could see, and now the prequels have delivered that to me. I never even had a moment where I said: "whoah, those Jedi are too powerful". I guess that's because I personally hadn't decided on my own how they would be. I -wondered- how it would be, but I never once took any of my assumptions for "the way it really was". I took the prequels at face value and just accepted it right out of the gate as "how it really was".

Obviously to you this is a fairly large deal, and one you have a hard time rolling along with. I don't mean to suggest you are wrong. It's just your problems with this never even occurred to me until I heard you talk about it here. To me this all follows a consistent logic across the board, because Luke isn't as powerful. When Vader says "impressive" it's because Luke is more advanced than Vader would have suspected, not compared to other Jedi in their prime.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I mean you went ahead and assume there must be -some- reason that a light saber stops at the end without something there to reflect or absorb it. Even going so far as to suspect it had something to do with the "Force".

No offense, but your stated assumptions about what I supposedly assume are hardly accurate at all. In fact, they are a little insulting to me. A word of advice: It’s not good to invent straw-man arguments, from whole cloth, in your head, and then attribute them to people for no reason whatsoever. That’s a good way to make enemies if anything. When you debate people, you should try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Nowhere did I ever “assume” that light saber’s having nothing to absorb or reflect beams of energy with. And nowhere did I tie the “stops-at-the-end” factor to the Force as a logical explanation in my mind. How on earth can you accuse me of those two, rather stupid assumptions? Considering how I have said nothing of the kind, that makes me a bit angry. No offense but you aren't exactly the most difficult person to make angry. Here is what I was keying in on that you had said in response to me explaining that light sabers don't make logical sense, because lasers wouldn't just stop at one end like that without something to reflect or absorb the energy.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Nonsense. Light sabers were always presented in a very logically beautiful way in the films. They were mysterious and magical weapons that somehow needed the force to work and, unlike what you claim, they were clearly different from the laser blasters in the film (please don’t make flippant points). All in all, light sabers are a very simple and acceptable subject from a logical standpoint, and very enjoyable from a logical standpoint as well.

Now, if we were to have logically delved deeper into how light sabers supposedly worked in the films themselves and talked about plasma and shit like that, sure that might well have been an unsuccessful addition, artistically speaking. There’s no way for us to know though, since the films never went that route. You think it's nonsense to question the logical veracity of a light saber, I think it's nonsense to question the logical veracity of Jedi that can jump twice as high as Luke.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
And if it is really so interesting for you to know what I actually assumed when watching Star Wars, then I’ll tell you: As a child, when I first saw the movies, I believed that light saber beams contained energy in some form. Like “light” or fire. I also believed that the force had something to do with how they worked, but that had nothing to do with reflection. I’m not some idiot who assumes that I “know” how a piece of technology works within a freakin’ science fiction fantasy story. What is the point to making assumptions about something that cannot, by definition, be understood in modern terms and is ultimately not even real? There -is- no point. But I don't think there's a point in making assumptions about how high Jedi can jump either. It's not like we have Jedi running around here on Earth, and it's not like Luke's jump wasn't also in defiance of how high people can jump here on Earth. So again we have what seems to me like a huge double standard.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Fucking light sabers are a piece of advanced, alien technology from a fantasy world! If you’ll forgive me, I believe it’s idiotic and stupid to absolutely “assume” that something is even being absorbed or reflected in the first place. Those ideas aren’t even stated in the film! They’re fucking, sword weapons! There was nothing presented in the first movie about light sabers that we could analyze as illogical in terms of their construction or technology. Forgive me, but I believe it's stupid to absolutely "assume" that Jedi in their prime wouldn't be able to jump as high as they ended up doing in the prequels.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Do you really believe that an energy-beam-looking sword is truly impossible, Go-Mer? According to your intellect, something like that could never be invented by anyone in the universe, ever? No I don't. I accept it as something that just goes beyond our society's current understanding. At the risk of making you repeat yourself, do you really believe that Jedi in their prime wouldn't be able to jump as high as they do in the prequels?
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Here, let’s even assume that light sabers work like a beam of light and need to be reflected back toward the hilt or absorbed at the hilt. (Those two ideas are stupid assumptions to ever be sure of, since, based upon the movies, you have no idea that reflection or absorption are even necessary for light saber technology, but let’s just assume that one of them is true for the sake of argument.) Even in that case, how can you assume that there is no reflecting or absorbing mechanism in the technology that you can’t see or understand? How? By not seeing anything there to reflect it, and knowing how lasers seem to work here on Earth, that's how I can assume that. Assumptions by their very nature rest on perception and limits of imagination, and are not dependant on facts.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Light sabers are so totally cool precisely because you can accept them readily without finding contradictions. You don’t need the “Force” to accept them either. Simple, sci-fi wonder will do the trick.
Exactly, same goes for Jedi Jumping. I never actually got hung up on light sabers, I was just explaining that they are no more logical than Jedi being able to jump as high as they do. Simple "sci-fi -FANTASY- wonder" will do the trick. At least for me it does.Originally posted by: Tiptup
I think you might need a lesson in logic, Go-Mer.
Do I now? I would suggest that you could use a lesson in fantasy.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Yet whenever someone starts talking about how something doesn't make sense in the prequels, and someone like myself says, "well that's the Force", people act like it's suddenly a huge cop out.
Hmm, well, I would say that providing the force as a reason why Anakin didn’t turn into a bloody pulp after crashing into that hover-car is a bit of a cop out. Are we to assume that Jedi can somehow make themselves invincible to that degree? If so, then that’s somewhat contradictory and discordantly jarring. Jedi are depicted as being far more fragile elsewhere in the movies.
Well we know Jedi have powers of telekinesis, it's not that illogical to me to assume that if they were falling, and they were concentrating hard enough on their landing, they could use that kind of telekinesis to help slow their fall before impact. In other areas where I can think of Jedi being far more fragile, they were falling from a great height while they were unconscious, which would handily explain this to me.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Sometimes it seems as though a lot of you had no problem effortlessly suspending your disbelief for the classic trilogy, but now it seems like you guys are expecting the prequel trilogy to be more perfect than the classic trilogy had to be.


I see how it could seem that way to you, but you’d be wrong. The logical hurdles I have with the PT and the “saga” are the internally contradicting or discordant concepts. If a concept that is expressed in a film contradicts other concepts expressed in that same film, then you’re damn right that I will consider that to be a logical hurdle and not accept it easily. If a film is internally hypocritical with emotions or motivations then I will also consider that to be a logical flaw. The original trilogy had very little of this compared to the prequels or the “PT+OTSE” perspective. The prequel trilogy is far less perfect from my point of view.
Quite honestly, it seems to me that you aren't having trouble with the way concepts are expressed, but with what you assume beyond what is expressed. Jedi jumping twice as high as Luke isn't a contradiction, because Luke is Luke, and the prequel era Jedi are prequel era Jedi. The only thing it's really "contradicting" is your personal assumptions based on what was presented that Jedi in their prime shouldn't be able to jump "that" high, which in and of itself is contradicting what has been presented in the movies (if you count the prequels).Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
But I think it's unfortunate that so many feel as you do, and it breaks my heart to know that no matter how much I try to explain my enjoyment to many of you, it won't help at all.

Well, to be honest, you and other prequel trilogy defenders don’t spend a lot of time talking about the positive elements of the films in terms of the perspective that makes them positive to you. Most of the time, you simply spend your time making endless excuses as to why a certain negative element shouldn’t be a problem for another person. Or, even worse, you try to attack the Original Trilogy equally by making unfair comparisons. And, when you rarely do talk about something positive, you usually state that you enjoy something that someone else finds un-enjoyable, and that simply re-ignites the cycle.
I'm the one making "unfair" comparisons? I'm just illustrating what I find to be a huge double standard here.Originally posted by: Tiptup
It would be best, if you actually stated why certain problems with the PT aren’t important to you from your perspective, instead of wasting the majority of your time pretending those problems don’t even exist.
Similarly to the way you pretend the logical problems with the concept of a light saber don't exist?Originally posted by: Tiptup
Remember that when discussing artistic points of view, IMPORTANCE is the key! You need to tell us what is important to you. For instance, I would like to know what the PRIMARY focus of Revenge of the Sith actually is from your point of view. From my perspective, the film teaches hypocritical morals, its story is messy and disjointed, and way too long. I do not enjoy the film precisely because I find little coherent value in it.
To me it's important to enjoy these movies as much as possible. The focus of Revenge of the Sith to me is the manifestation of the grey area involved with good and evil. The morals of ROTS are very similar to the morals presented across the entire saga. That love is better than hate, and compassion is better than greed, but also that life doesn't always make the right choices very clear.

On the one hand, saving Padme and Shmi are noble, compassionate things. Anakin strives to obtain the power to control these things, and is then consumed by the desire to control the plight of the entire galaxy, so he "can make things the way he wants them to be", but as Padme asks, "at what cost"?

It's an examination of what's "right" for an individual and at what point that becomes less important than what's "right" for the greater good.

I really don't see why you would say it's incoherent.
Post
#248170
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248170/action/topic#248170
Time
I do think I see where most of the rest of you are coming from, and I didn't mean to make you feel as if I couldn't understand some of the things you hold close to your heart.

It's just that to me some things like assuming Luke would be as strong and as powerful as fully trained Jedi in their prime seems so illogical, it makes me really wonder why other things that seem fairly easy to roll along with seem to make no logical sense to you.

I mean you went ahead and assume there must be -some- reason that a lightsaber stops at the end without something there to rflect or absorb it. Even going so far as to suspect it had something to do with the "Force".

Yet whenever someone starts talking about how something doesn't make sense in the prequels, and someone like myself says, "well that's the Force", people act like it's suddenly a huge cop out.

I really treasure the diversity of opinions on this planet, and part of the reason I came here in particular is because I really do enjoy opinions that are entirey opposite of my own.

As much as I respect all of your opinions, I still get this huge feeling like a lot of you don't like the prequels simply because they -aren't- the OT. Sometimes it seems as though a lot of you had no problem effortlessly suspending your disbelief for the classic trilogy, but now it seems like you guys are expecting the prequel trilogy to be more perfect than the classic trilogy had to be.

I know it ends up coming down to the fact that many of you feel there are far fewer of these "logical hurdles" to leap over in the classic trilogy, but at the same time I can't help but feel like you guys didn't want to jump over -any- logic hurdles for the prequels.

Tiptup, you say that the prequels "failed" to ignite that part of your imagination that really enjoys figuring these kinds of things out. Yet here I am telling you I for one found it to be every bit as engaging for my imagination as the classic trilogy was.

Is it really just that I have such a low expectation for quality that I would enjoy watching paint dry? Of course not. Is it rather that you have such an unmeetable expectation for quality that nothing would have done it for you? Of course not.

But I think it's unfortunate that so many feel as you do, and it breaks my heart to know that no matter how much I try to explain my enjoyment to many of you, it won't help at all.

I think you guys have been really great as far as allowing me to talk about this stuff with you guys. You have all been very polite about it and have gone to great lengths to explain why you all feel the way you feel.

Even if I can't change anyone's mind here, I at least feel I understand your position better than I did before.

Even if I have a real hard time relating to it personally.
Post
#248051
Topic
Star Wars Celebration Coming to Europe
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248051/action/topic#248051
Time
Iv'e been to Celebration II and III, and they were a total blast. Not only do they have autograph opportunities (I personaly don't worry about autographs myself) but they have presentations where some of the stars do a QA. I really enjoyed when they did that for Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, and "the bad girls of Star Wars" with the acresses that portrayed Aura Sing, Zam Wessel, and one of the girls in the background of the cantina in ANH.

The stuff with Nick Gillard and Ray Park was really cool. And so far there has been stuff to do each night, with one official Star Wars Celebration party, the 501st pary, and other fan organized parties. Not to mention the whole town ends up with stormtroopers walking around all over the place.

Then there's the costume contests. It's almost worth the price of admission just to see so many brave hot women dressing up as Slave Leia or ripped shirt Padme.

If you like Star Wars, it's really worth checking out, even if just for a single day.
Post
#247832
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247832/action/topic#247832
Time
By that rationale, we didn't even need ROTS.

By that rationale, all we -really- needed was ROTJ. After all they touch on the fact that there was a first Death Star by saying the one in ROTJ was the 2nd Death Star. They go over why Anakin fell to the dark side on Dagobah, and even recap why Luke was kept in the dark about Anakin.

I guess perhaps the divide here is between people who can't get enough Star Wars, and people who only want as much of it as is absolutely necessary.

A lot of your questions equate to "Who cares"?

Well -I- care.
Post
#247817
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247817/action/topic#247817
Time
Originally posted by: CO
This is a good point, and I think the one thing that made the OT great and still popular today is replay value of the movies. The OT are one of the few set of movies that fans can watch hundreds of times and they aren't some niche or cult fan base, they are the masses.

Many people love movies like Shawshank Redemption, they have built a following that the fans seem to love the movie more than anything in the world, but again it is a niche fan base. Although Shawshank is a great movie.

The OT movies have so much replay value I often wonder how I have never got sick of them? How can I watch Star Wars '77 again and again and never get sick of it, same with ESB & ROTJ. I love so many other movies, but I do need some time after I watch them or I will play them out, but the OT is different.

I believe the PT fan base won't be as big for that reason alone, the way the trilogy is structured as GoMer says, the Sith doesn't hit the fan til Episode III, so it leaves you with 2 setup movies to get to the real story. What I am saying is the PT movies don't hold up well individually, cause they were designed as a trilogy. The OT movies hold up as a trilogy and individually cause Lucas was making them by the seed of his pants hoping the success will bring him enough money to make the next one. Sure ESB doesn't have an ending, but no one was sure in 1980 there would be a third SW movie, so Lucas had to make ESB just as great as SW, cause if it failed, the end of the SW.

The PT was made knowing he was making Episode III, and that is why every PT fan I have heard from thinks ROTS is the best of the PT movies. One reason: Whether you like the movie or not, it has every plot point a SW fan could dream of, so Lucas really threw all his marbles in Episode III.

I just can't see a huge amount of saga fans in the future, and I think that will have a trickle down effect on the OT too, as I don't see as many diehard SW fans as the generation that grew up with the OT. I still say the 1-6 newcomer will watch the OT totally out of context and will only love the second half of ESB, and the Throne Rooms scenes in ROTJ, the other stuff they will say is all exposition, meaning the Han, Luke, and Leia stuff. The sad thing is that supposed exposition that coincides with the tragedy of Anakin’s story is the reason I am a diehard fan.
I think that ROTS is certainly the "payoff" movie in the prequels. But certainly it wouldn't have been able to do what it did without the previous 2 films to set everything up for it. It's important to understand how the political system works, it's important to understand how the Jedi order works. There ends up being a lot of exposition in the first 2 films that doesn't pay off until ROTS, but if they didn't do that, then ROTS would have had to have done it.

I know Lucas is quoted as saying he only had like 20% of TPM and AOTC figured out ahead of time and most of his original outline ends up being in ROTS, but that doesn't mean everything else he put in there is meaningless filler, it just means he ended up fleshing that much out as he went. It all still points to the conclusion of ROTS, and the entire Saga for that matter.

I am glad your brought up how re-watch able the OT is, because the "I am your father", "Yoda is really Yoda" and "Leia is my Sister" are all blown after the first viewing. So despite these surprises being blown, many of us still find these movies to be compelling enough to watch over and over and over again. So I don't see why having the prequels blow these three surprises impacts things for the OT in an irrevocable way. Sure now we don't even get that initial shock, which was substantial, but at the same time, those surprises were not the only reason we enjoyed the classic trilogy.
Post
#247810
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247810/action/topic#247810
Time
Man has this thread taken off well (I have yet to catch up, but I'd like to just respond to some things as I do).

Tiptup was talking about how the beauty of the classic trilogy is taken away because of the way the prequels reveal certain things that are revealed in the classic trilogy as surprises for the audience. Things like Yoda being Yoda, Vader being Luke's Father, and Leia being Luke's sister. It is true that these things uses to be surprises for the audience, but now that the viewer goes in with prequel knowledge, the Audience is not surprised by the details of the revelations. Tiptup was saying that the emotional resonance is now just gone with nothing to replace it, but to me there is a more substantial drama in waiting to see how this new information (which is still a surprise to Luke) effects him. With Yoda, we see how Luke reacts when he doesn't realize he is Yoda, and the audience now knows from the get go that Yoda is testing him. To me it underscores Luke's impatience better. Also, I think that without the setup in the prequels, the "Leia is my Sister" revelation was fairly hollow on it's own. I remember people back in the day complaining about "well who isn't related to Luke anymore"? Now because it's been there all along it's more substantial to me now. Before it seemed to be just a convenient way to tie everything up for ROTJ, now it seems like a solid backed up plot point.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Well, in Star Wars, you aren’t supposed to think about Darth Vader as Luke’s father, or Leia as his sister. You can call these ideas “depth,” but I call them a needless distraction. “Episode IV” becomes the weakest film out of the series because nobody can focus on its strengths anymore. We’re thinking about a bunch of other shit that makes everyone lame. Darth Vader is a whiny loser and an illogical psychopath, et cetera. The coolness of its story is irrevocably destroyed.

Also, most of the artistic emotional strengths of the original trilogy rely upon the viewer experiencing its story fresh, without knowing certain key concepts ahead of time. For instance, who is the strange and ridiculous little green creature that leads Luke around in Empire? Or, “Oh my God, that monster, Darth Vader, says he’s Luke’s father? Is he lying?” Are you actually telling me that you place no importance on those immensely great dramatic moments? You’re more worried about Anakin than Luke? You believe the prequel trilogy is important enough to demolish some of the greatest plot developments in movie history? To be sure the "I am your father" revelation" is one of the best revelations in cinema history. It really blew all our hair back when we first saw it, wondering if he was telling the truth between ESB and ROTJ. To a lesser extent, it was also surprising to find out that Yoda is really Yoda. These are some great surprises, but once you see them, they are over. They are like one trick ponies for the audience. To me the long-term dramatic value in these scenes really rests on how Luke will react to these revelations. If anything, knowing this information ahead of time puts more emphasis on Luke.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I agree he didn't -have- to make Jedi in their prime able to jump such amazing heights, but I don't see why it would be "bad" to have done so. The logic is that Luke isn't going to be quite as good as the Jedi we see jumping all over the place in the prequels. It also explains why their swordsmanship is superior as well. Are you saying this is a logic flaw or some kind of artistic flaw? The insane jumps are a logically artistic flaw when trying to tie together the 6-episode saga. If we start with Luke, considering his youth, his natural strength at using the force, his intense physical training with Yoda, and then Yoda stating that he’s basically learned everything he needs in RotJ, it seems silly to suddenly have every lowly Jedi that comes along able to dwarf Luke’s jumps by a mile. It was simply done for sensationalistic reasons so Jedi could jump like they were in “The Matrix.” I prefer artistic subtlety, thank you. The super jumps add nothing of value to the series, and the fact that viewers have to figure them out based on the earlier films takes away some fun for them.

Anyways, this is a small problem that most people don’t notice right away, including myself, so I don’t want to waste too much time talking about it. There are more important problems to analyze from an artistic standpoint. Luke started training when he was what 18-19, and ends up training for like what 10 years total by the end of ROTJ? To me it's more logical to assume Luke would -not- be as good as Jedi who had been training since at least 9 years of age, taught by a whole community of Jedi when they were still in their prime. Luke is a huge underdog as far as Jedi Hopefuls go, and that's another way the prequels augment the drama in the classic trilogy, by underscoring Luke's chances compared to fully trained Jedi.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
First of all, if I was worried about "logical beauty" I would have given up at the concept of light sabers. Instead of stopping at "well lasers wouldn’t just stop at one end" I rolled along with it for the sake of enjoyment. Nonsense. Light sabers were always presented in a very logically beautiful way in the films. They were mysterious and magical weapons that somehow needed the force to work and, unlike what you claim, they were clearly different from the laser blasters in the film (please don’t make flippant points). All in all, light sabers are a very simple and acceptable subject from a logical standpoint, and very enjoyable from a logical standpoint as well. Your assumption that light sabers needed the Force to work is unsubstantiated by any of the Star Wars films, and in fact, Han Solo uses one which pretty much disproves your assumption outright. But it is good to see you actively suspending your disbelief for this concept, because it will come in handy later on for other points I may make about the prequels.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Now, if we were to have logically delved deeper into how light sabers supposedly worked in the films themselves and talked about plasma and shit like that, sure that might well have been an unsuccessful addition, artistically speaking. There’s no way for us to know though, since the films never went that route. I agree, in cases like this one, less it certainly more.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I think the more thought provoking the Force concept has become, the better it's gotten. There is something to be said about showing both sides to any given coin, which is what the scientific perspective does for the more mystical side of the Force. Everything about this "whole saga" is about showing different sides to the same things. In the prequels we have the "Good" establishment and the "Bad" rebels (separatists). In the classic trilogy we have the "Bad" establishment, and the "Good" rebels. The prequels start out with 2 Sith Lords in hiding waiting to take the galaxy back from the Jedi, while in the classic trilogy we have 2 Jedi in hiding waiting to take the galaxy back from the Sith. Even the Jedi and the Sith are similar in almost every way... but opposite. The beauty of the full saga together is like the beauty of a yin yang. To me this is much more meaningful than either side of the coin on it's own.

To me that's the beauty and meaning I find in the "whole saga". That is an admirable element of the prequel trilogy’s story. I too thought that the parallels and opposites found in the films were an interesting path to take. The Phantom Menace used this concept the best. Unfortunately, even in that film, a lot of the elements were generic and boring. Midichlorians, as presented in TPM, are a third-rate science fiction concept. They add nothing enjoyable to the experience of the movie, except when they helped Qui-Gon Jinn to analyze Anakin. After that, the explanation of how they are the beings that actually connect a Jedi’s mind to the force raises too many pointless questions about the force that take you out of the experience. I mean, seriously, if the force is connected to everything, then it should be automatically connected to a Jedi’s mind as well. Why can’t a Jedi’s mind know the “will” of the force without mindless bacteria telling him first? Let's examine how people hear things. In any movie with humans, it is usually assumed that people just hear things. If a movie got into the idea that there are these sound waves hitting a membrane inside our ear which causes these little bones to resonate, which in turn allow us to perceive sounds, then nothing is really changed, it's just now we have this additional information that is usually assumed. Beyond giving Qui-Gon a way to show that Anakin is particularly strong in the Force, the Midichlorian concept serves Lucas' theme about Symbiotic relationships. The Midichlorians are an example of life forms that live with other life forms for their mutual advantage. The saga shows all these symbiotic relationships, and parasitic relationships to show how symbiotic relationships end up making better sense in the long term.

To me, the questions it raises about the Force are similar to the kinds of questions that are raised about religious concepts here on Earth with the study of Mitochondria. So it's not just some space bacteria Lucas made up, it's very much in line with the dynamic faced by our culture today with science and religion both in existence. To me this isn't "distracting" it's thought provoking. I personally think it's good to think about stuff like this. It's more important to think about it, than it is to actually answer any of the questions being raised. It's just something that's good for our development as a society, and I think it's great the way Star Wars puts deep philosophical concepts like this in front of children at a fairy early age so they can start thinking about concepts like this as soon as possible.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Anyways, the yin-yang concept was executed horribly in episodes II and III. One minute you’d have a concept be identical and then the next minute it would be opposite. But that contrast is what makes the parallels more meaningful than if they just repeated the exact same things.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
That and the parallels were often so simple that they insulted the audience’s intelligence. Like Obi-Wan saying “I’ll never join you,” or Anakin and “Padme” professing their love to each other while captured. Anyone could have come invented those generic and predictable copies of the OT within a few seconds. If they make enough sense to be predictable, why would you suggest Lucas is insulting your intelligence with them? The point of making a parallel is so the audience realizes there is a parallel. It's not like he was trying to sneak them by you, the goal isn't to make them so obscure that most people wouldn't notice them.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Anyways, with all of that now said, here we now reach the most important part of my post, Go-Mer. I look forward to your response regarding the following ideas. They express the heart of why I do not enjoy the prequel trilogy films. If you can at least understand my point of view here, then at least we have gotten somewhere.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Second, I really do enjoy figuring out ways apparent inconsistencies could make sense.
As do I. Yet, while I love spending the vast majority of my time on tough logical exercises, I do not like to do that in the middle of a film. A competent piece of art is supposed to focus the observer’s mind on the concepts its author intended it to communicate, and not distract the audience with needless complications or outright contradictions. In a film, that primary, communicated focus is usually the film’s story and all of the other neat concepts that are contained within a film hang off of that thread.
Well most of the time, you are just supposed to accept these things at face value. If you don't want to think about why something is the way it is, then all you have to do is -not- question it. Suspend your disbelief and roll along with it.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
so what are the logical inconsistencies you would have to look over to enjoy this as much as I do?
Every single, logical mess we’ve had to discuss in thread so far is what lessens my enjoyment of the prequel trilogy. Much of what CO, Scruffy, and others have mentioned for instance. These issues detract from the enjoyment of the films because they’re so convoluted, messy, and incomplete. Sure, you can explain them if you twist your reasoning around enough times, but that doesn’t make the films into good art. So much of what happens in the prequel trilogy’s story occurs for stupid reasons.
Such as?Originally posted by: Tiptup
Good art is capable of standing on its own. You accept what it offers without reservation because its artistic focus is well crafted. If that artistic concept is filled with an inordinate amount of annoying questions, there is less enjoyment on the part of an observer.
To me the most important component of Art is what the observer brings to the table. For a viewer like me who loves to wonder about stuff like this, this dynamic brings more enjoyment than if all of the concepts were wrapped up into a neat little package and sat on our lap with instructions on how we should feel about it.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I'm not sure I understand, you mean you are looking for a reason for Anakin to have slaughtered the younglings?
Yes. Every time I watch Revenge of the Sith I try to grasp hold of a simple reason for this. Either Anakin is a complete, psychotic monster, concerned with his own pathetically little fears, or the Force operates in the most contradictory and stupid ways imaginable. (Maybe it’s a mixture of both, which would be even more stupid.) Either way, the fact that I’m forced to wonder so much about his crucial point means that the movie’s story, as a piece of art, is easily substandard. The entire “saga” falls apart at this point for me as well.
If you prefer "standard" fare that's fine. To me Star Wars is more meaningful because it is so much more thought provoking than "standard" fare. Most movies present their themes in such a way as to tell the audience how they are supposed to feel about everything. Star Wars presents it's themes and then forces the audience to make sense of it.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Here is a quote from Lucas I saved from a while back about how Anakin turns to the dark side:

Lucas: The message is you can't possess things. You can't hold on to them. You have to accept change. You have to accept the fact that things transition. And so, as you try to hold on to things or you become afraid of -- that you're going to lose things, then you begin to crave the power to control those things. And then, you start to become greedy and then you turn into a bad person.

To me it's the reasons Anakin falls to the dark side. I'm no film scholar, but Lucas starts out with an almost overly virtuous Anakin in TPM, and shows how his inability to cope with the prospect of change ended up being his undoing.
Anakin: But I don't want things to change.

Shmi: But you can't stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting.

It's set up by his fear of losing his mother, ratcheted up a notch with his inability to save his mother from death, and delivered by his choice to turn to the dark side in an attempt to save Padme.
Ahh, how interesting. So, you believe that the selfishness of a complete psychopath is a meaningful way to communicate the concept that a fear of change can often lead to bad things?
To call Anakin a complete psychopath is to miss the humanity in his feelings of selfishness.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Sorry, Anakin’s desires don’t move me in the least. I don’t want to identify with a whiny little piece of evil scum and I wouldn’t want anyone else to do so either. That teaches the wrong message if anything.
It teaches us that evil can happen to anyone, even us. By relating to an evil person such as Darth Vader, we can see how even a person who sees themselves as "good" can end up making the wrong choices. It teaches us to be ever vigilant of the evil lurking within ourselves.Originally posted by: Tiptup
Otherwise, do you believe that it is wrong for a child to want to be with his mother? A child is evil for fearing that change? Or a man shouldn't want to save his mother from a horrible death? Or save his wife from dying if he can? The reason I ask these questions is because Yoda seems to imply that the basic emotion of fear in those examples is wrong for some reason. That's a dumb concept for George Lucas to preach. Certainly, fear can lead to bad outcomes based on how we choose to view our fear, but fear is often a good thing.
Fear is bad. It's debilitating. It only serves to make us unstable. Wanting to be with his mother is fine, being afraid of losing his mother is natural, wanting to save his mother or wife from death is natural. Fear is not a good thing, but it's a natural occurrence in the human condition. It's not the fear that's evil, it's the anger and hate that it can lead to that is evil.
Post
#247283
Topic
Lego Star Wars II
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247283/action/topic#247283
Time
I picked this game up along with my copy of the O-OT and it does rock. I had the prequel one from before, but I didn't really play it too much.

I played this new one for a little bit, and suddenly I had this urge to beat the first game before I really dug into the sequel.

Both of these games are a lot of fun, and it is really nice to see the OT story in a new game after so long.
Post
#247280
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247280/action/topic#247280
Time
I do agree that the prequels certainly had help from the drawing power of the classic trilogy.

I have no doubt some people went back to see it over and over again just because of their love for the classic trilogy. I'm not even suggesting there is something fundamentally wrong with doing something like that. Either people were hoping their opinion would improve, or they were making sure their opinion that it sucked wasn't just a hastey conclusion.

But I'm telling you, there are a bunch of us who just thought they were great. I don't like to admit it now so much, but I saw TPM 21 times at full ticket price and lost count once it hit the dollar theater. It was almost every weekend I would go see that movie the summer of 99.

When Christmas rolled around, I took great delight in seeing it again for the holiday re-release. Every time I saw it the theater was at least half full, there were a lot of kids, but some adults. It really seemed like the longer it was in theaters, the more the audience was made up of people who really got into the movie.

I remember kids and adults laughing at Jar-Jar, and getting excited when the pod race was starting, and cheering on the heros when they were confronted by Darth Maul.

We were all having a blast, and nobody was cringing at anything.