logo Sign In

Hey it's me.

User Group
Members
Join date
5-Apr-2013
Last activity
17-Apr-2015
Posts
743

Post History

Post
#640684
Topic
Star Wars prequels were mapped out in 1981, only nothing like the way they turned out
Time

TMBTM said:

What I find most interesting in this article is reading a G. Lucas having good point saying that Yoda does not fight because he's not really a Jedi but more a teacher, AND Kasdan answering that he does not like it (so basicaly Kasdan was okay for a Yoda fighting Vader scene in the prequels back then, and Lucas not). It's a bit of a shock to read.

Add to that the fact Leia losing her mother at 2 years old (makes sens in ROTJ context, but not in the actual PT's one) and the fact anyone can learn the ways of the Force (this does not "really" contradict the PT, but well, you better have good midichlorian's count if you want to be a powerful Jedi, all right) and you realize that Lucas knew very well what he was doing when he made the PT... and it was the complete opposite of what the younger Lucas wanted.

All I can suppose, if I still want to look at Lucas as an artist, is that when you think about making a piece of art for too long and stop thinking about it for some years, then when you come back to your first ideas... well, it's kind of boring of just using them as they always were. Know what I mean? Even if they made sens, even if they were the best: just using your 20 years old ideas is boring. You want to find new ones, I can understand that. It's either find new ideas or not making the movies. That's the only good excuse I can find for Lucas after reading this article.

 

Post
#640547
Topic
Star Wars prequels were mapped out in 1981, only nothing like the way they turned out
Time

Bingowings said:

Hey, it's me. said:

Fantasy is fantasy but it stills has to stay true to its own rules? So why is it never explained how the sword ends up embedded in a solid block of rock and no one can pull it out? Fantasy has no rules. Human EMOTION is what draws us into fantasy stories, I find it difficult you fail to understand this? We buy into the fantasy element and suspend our disbelief because of the human element to these fantastical stories. Jedi didnt ruin the fantasy of the force, TPM did. I agree, Jedi was weak but it didnt ruin the mystique of the Force. 

In fantasy it doesn't need to be explained how the rules work it just has to stick to them.

So if the rule is that only the King can pull the sword from the stone and someone else does and the story doesn't bother to come up with an interesting loophole it's bad fantasy.

The PT introduced an explanation for some of the mechanism keeping the sword in the stone which was extrapolated by ROTJ saying there was an actual mechanism.

In Star Wars and ESB there wasn't a hint of a mechanism it was implied that Jedi abilities were learned abilities and anyone who wanted to and was lucky to find a teacher could do it.

It then makes sense for Vader and the Emperor to kill the teachers and gain a monopoly on that knowledge.

ROTJ turns it into a lineage thing (like Paul and Alia in Dune) and the PT explains to a degree how the lineage thing works.

In my opinion both undermined the mystical aspects of the Force and diminished the tingly magical awe of the concept.

 

I understand your point, but the fact it was established Vader was Luke's father in ESB undermines that reason. I can't ever remember wondering, so is Vader REALLY Luke's father?, at the end of ESB. I just accepted it. It didnt make make me question wether the force must've been hereditary,like eye colour, because your talking about something fantastical. We were never given a point of reference in those terms so it is what it is. How it affects Luke, Vader emotionally, is far more pertinent than questioning, well is this reasonable? 

Post
#640538
Topic
Star Wars prequels were mapped out in 1981, only nothing like the way they turned out
Time

Fantasy is fantasy but it stills has to stay true to its own rules? So why is it never explained how the sword ends up embedded in a solid block of rock and no one can pull it out? Fantasy has no rules. Human EMOTION is what draws us into fantasy stories, I find it difficult you fail to understand this? We buy into the fantasy element and suspend our disbelief because of the human element to these fantastical stories. Jedi didnt ruin the fantasy of the force, TPM did. I agree, Jedi was weak but it didnt ruin the mystique of the Force. 

Post
#640523
Topic
Star Wars prequels were mapped out in 1981, only nothing like the way they turned out
Time

Heilemann said:

Having issues with the force being strong with the Skywalker family is having issues with fables, mythology and fairytales at large. Fate and destiny are as integral to Star Wars as they are to the King Arthur legend.

Not that that'll satisfy the ever present whiners, who keep hanging around here for reasons that elude me.

Hurray someone understands it.

Post
#640507
Topic
Star Wars prequels were mapped out in 1981, only nothing like the way they turned out
Time

Bingowings said:

Ben : The Emperor knew, as I did. If Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him. That is the reason why your sister remains safely anonymous.

That would seem to imply there is something special about Luke and Leia and their connection to their father that worries the Emperor but interests Ben and Vader.

The only real connection they have this point is blood.

The look of horror on Leia's face when she discovers Luke is Vader's son doesn't make it seem that affection for her absentee father is a threat Vader or Ben can use against Palpatine.

Though ironically Anakin's latent affection for his child is what defeats Vader and his Emperor.

Imperialscum said :

Actually being a good composer has very little or nothing to do with the ear (ie biological structure and so on). Being a good composer is all about mental capacity, perception and imagination which are not genetically linked.

What I was trying to tell you is that the quote doesn't necessary mean that Luke and Liea are storng in the force because of their father. Like I said, it can simply mean that they all happen to be strong in the force. An observation, nothing more.

An example: "my family is good at math"

There is a connection between the mind and genetics it's just not as simple as eugenicist Nazis seem to think it is.

If a family is strong in anything (including Maths) it is almost certainly having the right body and the right upbringing.

Luke and Leia have only their genes in common at that point.

Wtf are you going on about genetics for? It's a fantasy film FFS. The only thing that we connect to it through is the emotion of the characters. NOT the science of it. (Banging head repeatedly against wall)

Post
#640503
Topic
Star Wars prequels were mapped out in 1981, only nothing like the way they turned out
Time

But at that juncture the Force is still a mystical thing, not something that can be explained through science. The 'will' of the force is why Luke is strong with it. Not genetics. We're talking fantasy not a scientific documentary. For crying out loud remember the whole theme of the film! It's escapism, its fantasy! The only thing we relate to it is the emotion. Not the science. 

Post
#640484
Topic
Star Wars prequels were mapped out in 1981, only nothing like the way they turned out
Time

CP3S said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Although it's interesting to note that the "Seduction of power" plot element...

"(Papatine) was a politician. Richard M. Nixon was his name. He subverted the senate and finally took over and became an imperial guy and he was really evil. But he pretended to be a really nice guy. He sucked Luke’s father into the dark side."

...was fully filmed during principle photograhy on ROTS. But Lucas went back in during post-production and rewrote much of the dialogue and called his main cast back for pickups, to change Anakin's fall to be about losing Padme. All of this material is sitting on a tape somewhere in the Lucas archive but I doubt it will ever see the light of day.

Ugh, I haven't seen that movie in so many years, I was starting to forget about it. No I am remembering how ridiculous the turn was.

Somewhere in the depth of this forum we have a thread discussing good characters turning bad, and whether or not it is possible for it to be done convincingly. That was a fun thread, I thought of it sometime back while watching Breaking Bad.

You start off with Walt, an easy to sympathize with character and you grow attached to him. They put him in a dire situation and make him do bad things for a noble reason. So you still sympathize. As the show progresses, his dire situation turns around, and his bad actions slowly cause him to lose the noble reason for doing them. Eventually, when you take the time to think about it, you realize Walt is just a bad guy. But you still can't shake that sympathy for him that was built at the beginning. He continues to do these bad things, but is now driven by greed and pride, rather than the intended selfless sacrifice for his family that started him off on that path. It is the best story of a fall into evil that I have ever encountered. 

I don't think it is impossible, or even necessarily that hard, to make a beloved character sink into becoming the villain. We all loved Darth Vader before, but imagine how we'd feel about him now if George had managed to make Anakin a character we loved and sympathized with as much as Luke. Instead he was just a bitch from the beginning that you couldn't wait to see Obi-Wan smack around a bit before he finally grew a pair and donned his leather suit.

It should have been the story of a good man led astray, instead it was a character who was marketed heavily as being a hero for a very young audience (who ran around with his action figures and dressed up like him) ultimately doing some very stupid, sick, and sadistic things, all the while seemingly having never made up his mind about what kind of a person he really was or wanted to be. Anakin as portrayed to us had no character to be put to question, he had no ethics or moral code. He was an immature kid in one film, an annoying jerk of a teenager in the next (where he is already committing mass murder), and a creepy conflicted psycho in the last one (who isn't sure if his mentor admitting to being evil is a big deal or not, and is easily convinced that slaughtering a classroom full of small children is necessary). Gah, that movie isn't only awful, but it is actually kind of disgusting when you think about it.

 

I remember seeing a characters 'redemption' told properly in 'The Mission' with Robert de Niro. A very moving piece of filmmaking. I remember some good anti-hero characters (Riddick in Pitch Black) but for the life of me I'm struggling to remember a characters fall from grace portrayed convincingly? Shrug.

Post
#640475
Topic
Star Wars prequels were mapped out in 1981, only nothing like the way they turned out
Time

Being good at something or talented isn't inherited. Just because your father or mother was particularly adept at say, drawing, doesn't necessarily mean you will be. If you take an interest in what they do when your younger and are actively encouraged to do so then you may develop a talent for it. Eye colour etc are inherited. Not talent. 

Post
#640107
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

KesselRun said:

Originally I was hesitant to embrace Abrams as a director for new Star Wars, but my surprising enjoyment of his first Trek installment gave me hope. After seeing Star Trek Into Darkness last Wednesday I'm extremely worried/anxious about Star Wars VII. At this point I don't feel like it can or will be good.

Of course I'll have tickets the second they're made available and will take off work to see the first showing - because I'm a sucker for Star Wars and Disney knows no matter what they do they'll rake in my money.

I find it hard to understand people's undue pessimism when it comes to Abrams being VII's director. He has already stated that Star Wars is a massive deal for him as he's a serious fan. Disney have A LOT riding on this one film alone being a massive success, because it will be the springboard for the rest of the trilogy and any future spin offs. The people who are working behind the scenes are far more pivotal than Abrams himself. And it appears Disney have assembled a pretty spot on team. And I don't think you can gauge the Star Trek films as a conclusive barometer for his talents as a director. Have faith.

Post
#640093
Topic
<strong>STAR WARS: REBELS</strong> (animated tv series) - a general discussion thread
Time

Yeah in a perfect world it would be hand drawn. But, more than likely it'll be CG. And considering the era between III and IV were 'dark times' hopefully the series will follow ths tone. Nothing cutesy and fluffy please. One of many thoughts that spring to mind is wether we'll see the transition of the 'Clone Troopers' to the conscripted 'Storm Troopers' of the OT? 

Post
#639987
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

georgec said:

Hamill doesn't look the best here, but there's still time I suppose. :)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4933402/Luke-Skywalker-actor-Mark-Hamill-rummages-through-a-rubbish-bin-in-the-street-for-a-used-cigarette-end.html

Yeah I saw this picture in a 'rag' today and was immediately concerned. Particularly the part where he was spotted fishing a dog end out of a bin and was seen smoking it. Not really the image of someone that's been ordered to get themselves in shape for the beginning of next year? Mind you saying that, he may have been of the mind that, 'well f*** it, another week of being a schlub and then I'll knuckle down.' Who knows?

Post
#639971
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Kids being in a bar/restaurant is fine, as long as there's a kids section for them to be in. And as far as I'm concerned having kids in a bar/restaurant at that time is lazy/irresponsible parenting. No matter what race, colour or creed you are. Children need routine and its better to get them used to being in bed at that time. I live in a maisonette., which is a house basically split into two flats. And the couple who live downstairs have 4 young kids who are just allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. Now and then they'll be berated but they are extremely unruly and are generally a pain in the arse. This is bad parenting. Children need discipline to help them later in life.