Mrebo

I also have a question. Does the -1 indicate you are bleeding internets with every post?

TV's Frink said:

doubleofive said:

How do you decide when to carriage return to the next line? Just eyeball it?

What is this, the "Ask The Negative Guy a Question" thread all of the sudden?

 

I'll bet he spent years developing a browser plug-in that does it randomly for him, btw.

Why do I feel like negative 1 is an inside joke I don't understand?

I hear so much about the gay community, where is it located?

So while I'm a fan of Lapti Nek, what sort of music do people have in mind?

Something like this?

Or stay closer to the 70s feel, but a tad grungier?

Haha, it's very true. I didn't know it was a meme and had the same reaction watching him yesterday.

Also gays serving openly in the military. Archie is breaking so many taboos!

Well I'm here, aren't I?

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

To illustrate my view that what is important is where one's views are anchored on this topic.

 Ugh.  I hate this topic, though I feel more strongly about it than most any other.  I just know how these "friendly" discussions tend to go.  But here I go, jumping back in when I'm trying to actually spend less time at this site.

I know what you mean but overly contentious debates tend to put me off a forum. I do hope the article will inspire those pro-choice people with philosophical underpinnings on the issue to reconsider their view at least a little. I feel hopeful when I read a prediction that the current attitude and laws on abortion will one day be viewed as one of our society's greatest moral failings. This thread is a good example of how intractable the debate is.

 should we move the legal age for "abortions" up to 4 years of age?

For my college newspaper I wrote an article on post-natal abortion. There were quotes from fictitious individuals praising its value and exclamations about how it truly protected a choice by giving women the opportunity to see if the child actually does create hardship, rather than having to guess. It was entirely political incorrect. Though it was written for April Fool's Day, I was really surprised it did not inspire some outrage on the liberal campus.

I teach my sons to respect the ants around our yard and not to kill them.  Many liberals are completely in favor of the rights of animals, creatures who don't even have a chance at gaining personhood.  Why, oh why do we find the life of an embryo or fetus (terms that in many ways dehumanize what is really a developing child) so relatively meaningless?

I like the not-killing-ants :)

Your question is a big part of what motivates my view.

I know I can be long-winded in this topic, so I'll stop with one last thought: I do sympathize with mothers who did not intend to get pregnant.  It is a scary thing, it causes changes to one's body and alters her life forever.  But I see no reason for her ability to choose to be so much more important than the child's.  I am pro-choice: choose not to have sex unless you're willing to have a child with that person.

I struggle with precisely how the law can handle these issues. But I agree with these principles. I thought the journal article might be eye-opening for those who think the slippery slope is not real, that the killing of infants would never be considered intellectually defensible.

To illustrate my view that what is important is where one's views are anchored on this topic.

Little is known about the enigmatic Bob Ross. According to Wikipedia he was born, but the names of his parents is not known. He was in the Air Force but I can find no photos of him during that time - pictures that would be in high demand, no doubt. Is/was he a secret agent, undercover while painting happy little trees?

TV's Frink said:

That's not a skill one can acquire, you must be born with it.

McFlabbergast, any need for engineering skills?

I like how the humor builds. In Padme's quarters when everyone is introducing themselves, I was on the edge of my seat waiting for Anakin to ask if she were an angel after she had already called herself a Senator. That was my only suggestion. I look forward to more.

Paramecium302 said:

Ouch. What a warm welcome to the forum.

Firstly, this site does require a sense of humor. Not sure if it's in the rules.

Secondly, you should expect mocking when one of your first posts on a forum discussing preserving Star Wars is...'you people don't really like Star Wars, do ya?'

To answer Frink, while I try very hard to hate Star Wars I just can't do it. I shake my fist at Kenner for producing so many poorly made toys in the 90s (which I bought) knowing they would sell like hotcakes no matter what and only now produce higher quality toys (cloth and vinyl accessories, detailed sculpts) in an apparent effort to appeal to the more mature and diehard fans. I shake my fist at Lucas for refusing to preserve and release my favorite movies. Even the atrocious PT hasn't put me off Star Wars!

Baronlando said:

Paramecium302 said:

Been reading some stuff on this site for a while now. Never seen anything that looks like someone likes Star Wars. 

Read harder.

Seriously.

So many threads cover elements we liked in the OT, in the PT, and edit discussions bring up passionate arguments about what we love.

Perhaps this is a question you would like to ask George Lucas. He is the one trying to purge the original movies while constantly altering their remains.

Made me think of the Lady Antebellum autographs I got on a blank page of a used law book! They were supposed to be a gift but now I can't remember where I left it.

McFlabbergasty, I'm also intending for Anakin to meet his fate at the end of EpII, although everyone will seem to believe he is dead. EpIII will show further development of the Empire and allow for a young Obi/Vader duel. Speaking of LOTR parallels...I almost had Owen as Samwise Gamgee for awhile :P

xhonzi, good example.  It will take great care to make Anakin an admirable hero who gives into evil temptations and violence. Lucas really took things to extremes, I mean how can one not love a little kid? (Obviously it's easier than one might think :p)

When Anakin turned evil, it was only because he was so troubled and maybe we were supposed to sympathize with his slaughter of Tusken younglings. And he slid completely into evil because he just loved way too much.

To get to know him, like him, and understand his descent is a tall order. I suspect it is less troublesome to dispatch Anakin if he is more on the scale of Han than Luke. If Luke had suffered an uncertain fate aboard DSII and then we had a sequel trilogy in which Leia fought evil forces only to find out at the end that Luke was the villain all along...I don't know how that would play. Or whether that is really analogous. I must continue to ponder.

Part of my difficulty for Bail is that he is involved in government, while Obi Wan is not. Obi Wan is out forging a relationship with Anakin, and Anakin with Mother Skywalker. I'm not sure how to insert Bail into that situation and take him away from his role as diplomat and policy-shaper. Maybe it's fine to have him mostly stay in his own realm, until needed to lead military efforts.

One thing I'm doing is using R2 and 3PO (owned by Bail), which causes me the issue of keeping them away from Obi Wan without it being a ridiculous inside joke of near-meetings.

O: What if Bail Organa were a Bothan! That could clear up all kinds of issues ;D

zombie84 said:

Actually, I'm doing an interview with a right-wing newspaper this week, which normally isn't my thing, but they did a piece on this and they made a very good point about the factual inaccuracies. TPM and AOTC were both written and filmed before George Bush was ever in office. Lucas has admitted that any similarities to contemporary politics in those films is coincidental, as the only American politics those films referenced was the Nixon administration, and that was just one source of many (e.g. Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, etc.). ROTS tailored itself to the politics of the time, but only a little, as the story was already in place by 2002 and the writing was begun before the war in Iraq existed.

To be fair, I think he was suggesting that the the PT was better because it reflected more modern and complex ideas of good and evil - however unintentionally. I think he used the Bush era as examples of what kinds complexities he has in mind. He is imposing his worldview upon the movie and calling it brilliant on that basis. I think his characterizations of the Bush era and his allusions to the Cold War or WWII are oversimplistic, if not flat out wrong. Lucas is an avowed liberal who certainly knew about complex notions of good and evil in the wake of Vietnam War. That he didn't include such ideas in 1977 but did include them in 1999 doesn't indicate brainlessness in '77 and thoughtfulness in '99. It just goes to show how easy it is to read what you want into something so jumbled.

As I continue to think things out, go back and read/watch critical reviews of the PT, and write out some scenes, I'm starting to think it would be best to not make this the Tragedy of Anakin Skywalker.

I think RLM had a point that it should have been the story of Obi Wan Kenobi. In the OT, Obi Wan was there to pass the torch. It is more impactful if Obi Wan was the central heroic figure of the PT rather than the mentor of the hero. Especially if Anakin as main hero ends up being reckless, weak and ultimately villainous (or dies an ambiguous death for those of us trying to preserve OT surprises) before simply being cool villain in the suit for most of the OT.

Anakin will be a tragic figure no matter what, at least when unveiled in ROTJ. But to delve into his downfall for 3 movies, just to spend another 3 movies to get to the resolution, to me, falls flat. Should we be led to dislike Anakin as central hero in the PT or be rooting for Vader in the OT? Or have mixed feelings about the whole affair? Ultimately I don't know if the exploration of how Vader became Vader is that interesting - aside from him being the father of the OT's central hero, Luke.

Alternatively, the central hero could be Luke's mother. Her character is a blank slate. She could be a strong character, urging Kenobi to take her son away where he would not be found. It is through her that Kenobi gains importance as caretaker. [Not sure how to deal with baby Leia yet].

I agree very much with sentiments expressed in McFlabbergasty's last post. The PT should be able to stand on its own. In passing the torch, Obi provides the link between the two sagas.

I don't envision Palpatine leading the Senate or engaging in lightsaber duels. I think he will be spoken about, his manipulations implicit in the actions he takes and the power he gradually builds. I think I will show him rarely, if at all.

I'm struggling to deal with Bail Organa's place. I see his storyline as separate from those of the main heroes most of the time - yet he is an important figure.

SilverWook said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

Sevb32 said:

How dare anyone else have an opinion that isn't prequel bashing. Because it's a fact that the prequels are bad, not a subjective opinion. ;)

Exactly right. Glad to see you finally figured it out.

 

Chances are you don't even remember these words of Darth Maul: "Fear is my ally." One can well imagine that slogan scrawled across the office walls of men like Scooter Libby and tattooed across the back of Dick Cheney.

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't this line never actually make it into the movie? As I recall, it's a line from the trailer, right?

It's from one of the "tone poem" tv ads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-_1mqA3_tw

Huh. So a trailer holds a line more impactful than anything in the OT xD No wonder the chances are we don't remember that line.

It all begs the question why this guy cobbled this article together now. To use a contentious popular culture hook to revive a political narrative?

Can't find it now, but someone must be familiar with the behind the scenes video where the LFL cgi artist is working on Yoda for Attack of the Clones. In the video, the artist says he is trying to convince Lucas that Yoda can be done convincingly in cgi. It's as if Lucas has higher standards for Yoda or something. I don't remember Lucas acting all that resistant in the video. But it is very possible Lucas was more resistant since Yoda seems to hold a special place in his heart - he does not authorize exploration of Yoda's backstory or species, for example. It's one thing to respect him for!

Luke Skywalker: Zac Efron

Princess Leia: Emma Watson

Han Solo: James Roday

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Hugh Laurie

_____

It could work and have a fun chemistry. Granted I'm trying to stay close to the original characters. And while I generally have disdain for Efron (and his eyebrows), he does seem to have some ability for acting as a wide-eyed and eager kid.

I wonder how many heads you wanted to explode with this :p

I don't know if it really deserves much of a response, but I will. This Tim guy makes a lot of assertions about what the movie really was about and why that makes it ever so clever.

[Warning: Includes politics and more of a response than this guy deserves]

Tim writes:

The difference is that the original trilogy appealed directly to the simplistic moral perspective of an America above reproach and always on the side of right in global geopolitics, whereas the much more subversive prequel trilogy stands in defiant counterpoint to the much more dangerously simplistic moral absolutism of the Age of Bush.

This makes me think of:

There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere.

And then I think about how this wasn't at all shown on screen and what mushy nonsense the crawl was.

And unless you buy into his left wing politics, it's even harder to follow his argument.

Time writes:

The difference is that the original trilogy appealed directly to the simplistic moral perspective of an America above reproach and always on the side of right in global geopolitics, whereas the much more subversive prequel trilogy stands in defiant counterpoint to the much more dangerously simplistic moral absolutism of the Age of Bush.

...

The problem is that the post-9/11 world meant Americans also were forced to identify themselves with the Jedi in the prequel trilogy as well, and we don't like the face we see in the mirror. Let's face it, the Jedi don't exactly come off too swell in the prequel. This time around they are the guys in charge, and it is painful to watch them screw it up, especially when the way they hand over the keys to the Empire is so eerily familiar to a historical era defined by words like "signing statements" and "Patriot Act."

Actually, I thought most people thought the Jedi were pretty awesome. They had lightsabers. There was Kit Fisto. Yoda was confused. And members of the Council were just plain dumb. But as a whole, people who liked the prequels liked the Jedi. They were never 'bad. And they certainly never handed over any keys. They weren't a part of the political process and even confronted Palpatine when Anakin pointed out he was evil.

As for signing statements and the Patriot Act as the greatest evils of our day, Bush's successor has issued signing statements (granted a low number), relied upon one of Bush's signing statements to ignore a law, and has signed the Patriot Act into law again. That's not contradictory to what Tim's saying, but those who buy into Tim's argument are those who will conveniently accept what is done now by Obama. So it begs the question whether what Bush did was offensive to most people or whether people were riled up to believe it was?

I'm not taking a position on that question, just pointing out that he's singing to the (possibly very small) choir and not really making a case to anyone else. The movie did not depict a riled up public with strident voices in the Senate (*sigh* this is how democracy dies, etc hardly qualifies).

Is the evil empire now simmering while the complacent public accepts that a leader can circumvent congress to bomb a foreign nation (Libya, perhaps Syria in the future)? When nobody even thinks about Guantanamo and few complain about targeted killings of Americans abroad for very long? When drone attacks are prevalent. When the government hands over dangerous weapons to drug cartels in Mexico with no intention of tracking them?

You wanna know who handed the keys over in the PT?

It's-a clear desa seperatists made a pact wesa desa Federation du Trade. Senators, dellow felagates. In response to this direct threat to the Republic, mesa propose that the senate give immediatly emergancy powers to the Supreme Chancellor.

So, this guy's argument really isn't resonating with me on any level. The movie doesn't show what he claims it shows. And his depiction of Bush era politics is over-simplistic.

No more alarming scene exists in the entire "Star Wars" canon than the political conversation that takes place in "Attack of the Clones" between Anakin and Amidala when the boy-who-would-be Vader suggests the system is broken and needs to be replaced with something where one person in charge has the power to enforce laws he feels are for the good of the people. Amidala replies, rightfully, that what Anakin is talking about sounds like a dictatorship. And then these all-too-familiar words from Anakin: "Well, if it works."

Realllly??? How about when Anakin slaughters women and children and Amidala shrugs it off as normal? I found that far more alarming that Anakin's glib comment.

Yoda's observations about anger, hate, fear, and suffering are not said lightly; they may be the most prescient words spoken by a movie character in recent memory.

This guy really needs to watch RLM's take on that quote.

Chances are you don't even remember these words of Darth Maul: "Fear is my ally." One can well imagine that slogan scrawled across the office walls of men like Scooter Libby and tattooed across the back of Dick Cheney.

-_- what a compelling observation! If we just imagine these things, it must be true.

I suggest not dividing along political lines for the PT.

I agree that OOT + newest GL edit would do away with most of the grief.

I'd be annoyed if it were OOT + 97SE + 04SE + BluSE +etc

Some of the changes are truly so painfully dumb, poorly executed and based on an insulting premise I think there there would be residual bad feelings about "preserving" each awful iteration.

If Lucas wants to keep taking whacks at 'updating' or 'improving' Star Wars releases, I can go with that - in addition to the original movies! It's kind of cool for a director to go back and say 'this is what I would do if I were releasing the movie now rather than 30+ years ago.' That is different from this nonsense:

George Lucas said:

There will only be one [version of the films]. And it won't be what I would call the "rough cut", it'll be the "final cut". The other one will be some sort of interesting artifact that people will look at and say, "There was an earlier draft of this."

No telling when that one version will appear. Lucas leaves a trail of "artifacts" like discarded trash. Once the pretension is dropped, I can go along with OOT + GLOT. For historical purposes, sure save the various scene changes as special features material (which I suppose can be branched into the movie to watch it various ways, even if I think it's tedious).

They must be eating this up over at TFN. Not only are we stuck in the past, failing to realize that art is technology, but we want Han to be a cold-blooded killer. Not sure how slandering a large portion of his fan base is helpful.