Mrebo

I saw the Secret of Nimh when I was a very young child. I was delighted when my kindergarten teacher gave me a Secret of Nimh book. I remember really liking it. Now, however, I don't remember anything about it. And I certainly didn't see the second one. But I cheer you on! And hopefully I'll be more inspired to sit down and watch it again one of these days.

The idea that a Vader style suit is worn by many jedi is intriguing to me. Vader's 'sad devotion to that ancient religion' and his status as 'the last of their kind' could be quite literal in that he is the only one still wearing the jedi costume. Also provides some cover for the idea that "Vader" killed Anakin, since Vader could have been any bad jedi.

I'm not sold on there being another Darth Vader. I think I'd need to see how it works within a story.

Here are my ideas which I've expressed to some extent in this forum (the following is mostly copypasted from another forum, where I recognize at least one member from here):

Let Anakin go off to the volcano planet to meet Palpatine, leaving his saber behind with Obi Wan to give to his still unborn child. It will be reminiscent of Luke going into the cave on Dagobah, except Anakin leaves his weapon of his own motivation. For the audience it may be ambiguous whether Anakin is joining the dark side or nobly sacrificing himself. We show Anakin confront Palpatine. Then the scene cuts to Obi Wan who, after some hesitation, goes to save his friend. I am leaning toward not showing a duel between Obi Wan and Anakin.

Later on Vader duels Obi Wan. Obi Wan double talks about Vader killing Anakin. In this way, Obi Wan's later explanation to Luke is seen as less of a jerky plot gimmick and more of 'this is seriously how Obi Wan sees the world.' Vader retorts that it was Obi Wan who killed Anakin (double meaning of 'drove him to the dark side' and 'literally sliced him up').

If many jedi wear Vader style clothing, it can be even more believable that Vader is someone other than Anakin.

As for this epic duel, here is something I wonder:

I think we all have it burned into our minds that Anakin gets the Vader suit following a duel with Obi Wan. Even those of us who have little regard for the EU. I can't remember if it's from the novelization? But I guess that is how it should be. What do you think?

xhonzi said:

Bester said:

11) "I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine" and then........nothing.

I spent a few minutes searching because I recall a decent conversation on this point a little while ago. Not finding it, I will quickly summarize:

Ben's death catalyzes Luke. That's what he meant, and that definitely came true.

It's an interesting point but I always thought it was even simpler than that. By more powerful, I always assumed Obi Wan was telling Vader that he will survive death and have greater but unknown influence through the Force. I never expected anything to happen. It's an insightful point that one way this could be accomplished was by catalyzing Luke - though that could have been done even if we never heard from Obi Wan again. Obi Wan did become more powerful after death (even if don't don't know exactly what he does all day in spirit form).

I don't get the confusion as expressed by Bester. In the OT, the Force wasn't about overt showing of powers. It was a force that helped guide one's actions. One could harness it to do amazing things - lifting a ship, for example - but that was never the main use of the Force. I never thought Obi Wan was going to turn into a flaming dragon and rise from his robes after Vader smote him or show up in ROTJ and throw the Emperor down the shaft. What I loved about the OT was the mystical nature of the Force. When Obi Wan told Vader "more powerful than you can possibly imagine" I thought he literally meant it.

Which is one of the most annoying inconsistencies of the PT: Jedi are superheroes constantly levitating things, sometimes speed running, and performing other superhuman feats. In the more quiet moments we learn about Midichlorians.

Re: Darth Vader "gargoyle" on the northwest tower of the National Cathedral.

twooffour said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I never really liked Palps delivery of that line.

Hey hey hey, hey hey, woah, woah, heyhey, woah!

I smirked. Slightly.

twooffour said:

Bingowings said:

When I read twooffour I read him as a self important, obsessive person who will pick any post to pieces even if it doesn't need to be.

Sometimes that's a good thing and it pretty much describes a large number of the people posting here, including myself.

It's my perception of his posting style and nine times out of ten I moderate my reaction based on that subjective reading of his style (which may not be anything to do with the actual person typing the words).

I think this sums it up pretty accurately.

A problem I've had is that you often fail to offer a argument to support your dismissiveness. After much back and forth, I tease out that it is just so totally obvious to you that OP (whoever OP happens to be at the time) is wrong that you feel you don't really need to make an argument. You will make contrary assertions along with personal insults and expect them to stand on their own. And you hammer away, usually with more personal insults. And it's usually on a topic that is not entirely factual or provable. But you want people to concede you are right about such non-factual and non-provable topics...

In most cases, people will rather listen to arguments said in a nice tone, because condescension and asperity are likely to activate defense mechanisms, and agreeing or complying begin to seem to come at a higher price.

"Defense mechanisms" is one of your catch phrases, a means of dismissing those who just aren't smart enough to come to terms with your correctness (yes, that is sarcasm). But this is where I think CP3S has something of a point with his colorful analogy. On its own, the above statement has merit. People are more reluctant to admit error when it feels like someone they don't like is "winning." But as I wrote above, the problem is that you often don't make an argument. You make a contrary assertion. You expect people to just see how it's better or more reasonable or something.

And ultimately, many/most just don't agree with you. Not necessarily because they don't want to but because you haven't convinced them. It is pure arrogance to think they do so only out of pettiness.

But that's really all I do - I easily get annoyed by stupid arguments, especially in the context of argument or sweeping statements, and I mostly just tend to spout it out without any filtering.

Yes, you often rant. Stupid is in the eye of the beholder, as you've experienced. Bingowings expresses that he moderates himself based on a certain open-mindedness and consciousness of the nature of internet debates. At the very least, perhaps you could learn something from that.

twooffour said:

All of 3P0's emotional reactions seem to be a bit distant and imitated, if you look closely.

He doesn't really mind telling the stormtroopers that the others went to the prison section (I think?); he kinda accepts serving under Jabba; he readily accepts "new masters" as soon as he's sold to someone else; he doesn't come off as terribly despaired after getting blown apart, and yes, he doesn't seem to be awfully sad about Han, either.
With all that, he obviously shows a lot of personality that could be described as annoyed, concerned, afraid, grumpy, self-centered, compliant, etc.

I agree with 2/4 about C-3PO. Throughout the movies his emotional reactions and observations are not entirely normal (in a human sense). That's the character. All the way from "the damage doesn't look as bad from out here" and on.

As far as telling the stormtroopers about the prison section, that was a clearly a ruse since 3PO already knew the stormtropers knew where Luke was and was pretending to be an imperial droid. But the basic point holds.

I really can't think of any line that bothers me much. Strikes me as odd when Luke calls the droids "robots" but not such a big deal. Little weird when Leia is talking to Wicket/herself saying, "trouble is I don't know where here is" but I don't mind that moment overall. Even the bad flirting lines in the OT work because they don't take themselves that seriously.

I watched the "Man in the White Suit" the other night. Glad they're preserving such films.

I see I've missed some excitement since annihilating my computer (broken hinge led to exposed wire which led to black smoke which led to faulty repair and ultimate demise - but happy to be getting a new one soon).

Natalie Portman and I are 99% intellectually compatible and 95% emotionally compatible! But only 60% physically compatible :/

Colin Farrell and I are 98% physically compatible but under 50% otherwise.

I don't know.

twooffour said:

xhonzi missed something obvious, and I caught on to something obvious.

Vice versa.

twooffour said:

Actually it is, if you have common sense, and if you'd have read my previous post.
Jokes like this are made CONSTANTLY, by A LOT OF PEOPLE. Most of whom probably wouldn't mind boobs, but play up their hypersexuality for purpose. It's just a common trope.

You're a common trope. I'm not denying such jokes are made often by lots of people. I'm saying, 'so what.'

So what's the more likely conclusion, that he employed that device, or that one of the most well-known critics read by a wide audience would accidentally slip his sexual fantasies about sex in children's movies in reviews read by a wide audience?

I don't think it's accidental.

You know what, doesn't seem like sarcasm to me. It reads like someone's genuinely confused by Ebert's "recent oddity".

I think you're just saying he was being sardonic so you can have a point against me.

I was mocking your line of reasoning. I assure you I have no concern with winning points against you. A picture of a dancing clown wins points against you.

Fink has you pegged.

But I don't know what to do with those tossed salads and scrambled eggs.

twooffour said:

Mrebo said:

 

twooffour said:

For those too thick to get it - this is just another instance where I'm not the one starting to post off-topic personal bullshit in someone's thread ;)

What twooffour started with:

twooffour said:

Xhonzi, you've been a weirdo since I first read your posts about raising OT children, and you're still one now.

If you wanna read crazy perverted sex fantasies into a few sardonic remarks about a topic made fun of all the god damn time, please continue to do so. Whatever floats your boat.

Now explained as:

twooffour said:

Yea, that was a few personal jabs in the context of an on-topic response. You just jump in randomly with nothing more to say than "oh this mean twofour, this mean twofour, he so annoying please go away, clownpicture".

Calling names and being dismissive is not the same as being on topic, twooffour. Your first post boils down to "You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

That's not responsive. Saying, 'it's not perverted, it's sardonic' is not an argument. It's just a way of saying, 'you're wrong and I'm right' and then you use that to say, 'so that's why I get to call you names.' And we've seen this from you time and again.

And then you claim you didn't start off-topic personal nonsense...except for calling into question one of xhonzi's approaches to parenting, of course.

I agree with CP3S that a person should be banned if they constantly drag the forums down.

Yes, I was rather appealing to common sense than any hard "logic", but then, common sense is the name of the game here, and I don't see what more is required.

A movie critic makes a few sardonic remarks about chaste romance in a few movies (also described as having bland romance by other people who've seen them).
A lot of people do that.
It's also connected to issues like parental guidance and pandering to different target audiences while making bucks, so that's an additional reason for it to be the butt of a lot of jokes.

Pretending to be a sex-obsessed maniac in contexts like that (I don't even have to reference the Filthy Critic for that), is a very common device, too.


So I'd expect anyone who's kinda been watching movies, participated on forums, or read through some internet reviews, to catch that sort of thing - or at the very least, consider the high probability that IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.

But this one, no, "he mentions sex so it must be genuine obsession, what else could it be??"
Well, common sense and basic experience says that it very well may have been humor. Roger Ebert is heterosexual, and probably doesn't mind boobs, and you don't need more of a "true core" for it than that.

What "arguments" do I need to make in addition to that? It's just common sense. Insisting on sex obsession despite all of that is weird and hilarious. Wanna argue with that?



As for the other issue, again, there's a huge difference between making a few provoking remarks (or references to earlier threads) BEFORE PROCEEDING TO MAKE A POINT ON TOPIC, and just jumping in to say how much a given user suxx0rs without caring about the topic, or what said user had to say about it.

And if you can't see the obvious difference, then you're lost.
Sorry, I'll be more careful to point out that "you were the first to derail this thread by making a post BUILT SOLELY AROUND FLAMING A USER", so you won't have to make any effort to understand what should go without saying for anyone with half a brain.

"You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

It wasn't phrased as an ad hominem. And yes, insisting on reading sex obsession into what most probably (and very often) is hyperbolic humor, is pretty weird.

 

xhonzi was clearly being sardonic. You're the one reading serious accusations of perversity into it (xhonzi merely raised the possibility that Ebert wants to see boobs). You don't have to agree, but wanting to see more sex in several family-friendly PG-13 movies is odd. This is common sense. Now I get to call you a fool.

Was Ebert just being sardonic about the topic of sex in several family-friendly movies? It's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't make it "common sense." Nor a "high probability." That others have addressed this topic has nothing to do with Ebert in the context of several reviews of family-friendly movies. That you want to give Ebert the benefit of the doubt is nice of ya, but not common sense.

You don't have to use impeccable logic, though your insistence that 'common sense is the name of the game' is just silly as common sense can mean whatever the speaker insists it means. What you failed to consider in this thread is 'the high probability that xhonzi MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.' He raised a possibility. You raised a competing possibility and called xhonzi names and dismissed his sardonic observation.

twooffour said:

Yea, that was a few personal jabs in the context of an on-topic response. You just jump in randomly with nothing more to say than "oh this mean twofour, this mean twofour, he so annoying please go away, clownpicture".

Calling names and being dismissive is not the same as being on topic, twooffour. Your first post boils down to "You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

That's not responsive. Saying, 'it's not perverted, it's sardonic' is not an argument. It's just a way of saying, 'you're wrong and I'm right' and then you use that to say, 'so that's why I get to call you names.' And we've seen this from you time and again.

And then you claim you didn't start off-topic personal nonsense...except for calling into question one of xhonzi's approaches to parenting, of course.

I agree with CP3S that a person should be banned if they constantly drag the forums down.

As concepts, midichlorians are infinitely worse than a wookiee Life Day.

But the Holiday Special simply isn't watchable. My local library had a VHS of it to loan (weird, I know) and I excitedly brought it home and I literally couldn't watch for more than about 10-15 minutes. Feeling anger about midichlorians is better than intense boredom.

I actually was reminded of the Holiday Special today as I stumbled across "Legends of the Superheroes" for the first time today and imagined it would be in the same painfully boring style (it's actually pretty funny).

skyjedi2005 said:

Well George has not completely had the novelizations rewritten for the original trilogy yet, he just had new junior novelizations made instead.

But well the original novelizations, comic adaptations, and first 2 radio dramas as well as the original screenplays pre special edition are no longer canon.

Canon should have very little meaning for Star Wars fans at this point.

If this is going to be continued in this rickrolling thread, can it possibly be resolved by a full explanation?

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

twooffour said:

Xhonzi, you've been a weirdo since I first read your posts about raising OT children, and you're still one now.

If you wanna read crazy perverted sex fantasies into a few sardonic remarks about a topic made fun of all the god damn time, please continue to do so. Whatever floats your boat.

It is Ebert injecting sex into critiques of fantasy movies not about sex. "Hehe", he thinks the characters aren't intimate enough or he likes to muse about slimy alien sex. It does appear to be something of an obsession for him. What topic do you think he is making fun of? American morality and the attendant rating system? Lacking reality of intimate relations (albeit in fantasy movies)? Ebert's commentary is overdone. Maybe Ebert enjoys watching "The Brown Bunny" all day long, but many of us don't find the topic so compelling it must come up in Captain America, Green Lantern, X-Men, etc. They are designed to appeal to children as well as adults. Maybe Ebert is ever so witty he raises the issue in reviews of Disney movies as well.

Judas rickrolled Jesus?

Good thread. I think PT Yoda might have had it backward when he said "hate leads to suffering."

I think back to May 19, 1999, I skipped school (my only absence of the year) with two classmates to see a midday showing. I sat there excited to see the new Star Wars. I walked out wanting to not feel disappointed, trying to process what I just saw. It just wouldn't make sense. I became more disillusioned after II, III, and the passage of time. I certainly hate Jar Jar. I resent what they did to Star Wars. I want to ignore them, wish they never happened that way. But they're still there. Over the years I thought maybe they could be salvaged by a fan edit but have come around to thinking that is a lost cause.

Still I can't say that I hate them. Not in the sense of feeling angry if I see them on TV or burning Jar Jar in effigy.

Worst was probably Anakin describing how he slaughtered Tusken women and children to which Padme unemotionally responds, "to be angry is to be human."

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Oh, and leave the C3-P0ns alone, they at least manage to bring out a chuckle or two... I think... the serious ones are just a drag ;)

*facepalm*

I never chuckled at anything C3PO said.  I just got mad.  Thankfully the best fanedits never let him leave the ship.

I'm quite beside myself.

RedFive said:

Mrebo said:

Went to the link and it played a Macy's commercial for Ralph Lauren denim. Watched that and then came back here before the advertisement ended. That was some nice rickroll protection.

If you get AdBlockerPlus you don't have those annoying ads.  Not anywhere.  Not on here either. 

It's awesome!

I never see ads on here, but I do use NoScript.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRFrNZ_Br94

Went to the link and it played a Macy's commercial for Ralph Lauren denim. Watched that and then came back here before the advertisement ended. That was some nice rickroll protection.

Darth Bizarro said:

It really sucks that this is what fandom has devolved into.  It seems like everyone is either a total hater or a total gusher and it really sucks to be floating in the middle drifting back and forth like a plastic bag in the wind from TFN to OT.com helplessly trying to find a place to fit in as the polarized world of Star Wars fandom rips itself in two.       

Darth Bizarro, I blame the prequels for the schism - not the fans. I agree with much of what twooffour writes for once. While you may not be calling for a united fandom, as you explain below, I don't think you can expect less passion from fans:

I don't see Doctor Who fans who prefer the old and new serials throwing jelly babies back and forth at one another.  They may not all agree, but they at least can get along and accept each other's differences in their fandom.

 There is a good example in Doctor Who as to the kind of split we're talking about. For purposes of analogy, imagine if there were only two series of Doctor Who. Imagine that fans got to know and love Doctor Who via Tom Baker. They were excited when the learned there would be a new series. And Colin Baker happened. There would be a rift between fans. There would be gushers and haters. There would be those who recognize the new series' flaws but enjoy the time traveling police box (despite its occupant) just as PT fans get excited by seeing lightsabers and Yoda.

The fact that Doctor Who is a TV serial which has featured many different doctors and many episodes dilutes that kind of fight. Even in a 2 Doctor universe, fans could have the realistic hope of a 3rd Doctor to redeem the show. Movies are a different kind of animal. Doing a movie episode wrong is different than doing a TV episode (or even series) wrong.