TheBoost

stossmo said:

eriously, any time Yoda has a lightsaber battle with a Sith, I feel like I'm watching the dali lama and Osama bin Laden have a knife fight.

really?  my version doesnt excise the lightsaber fight.  He explained in the commentary that he worried removing it would take too much from the movie and he ultimately kept it.  Ide be interested to see the version you have if that could be arranged.

 

 

If you click on the "phantom editor" symbol around that part it takes you too a cut where he removes the fight.

ah, thanks.  I cant believe I missed that.

 

In the shooting script for "TPM" the Yoda lightsaber fight is described to be much more meaningful. Dooku decides they need to fight with lightsabers, and Yoda takes his out and with the extreme minimum of motion effortlessly blocks all of Dooku's attacks. Like Mr. Miagi at the start of Karate Kid II. It's only after being frustrated by Yoda's Zen Lightsaber Master defense that Dooku uses the force to endanger ObiWan and Anakin.

I think if it had been shot this way, character based, and less 'badass,' we would have found the seen much less objectionable.

rcb said:

AxiaEuxine said:

Yeah those snakes and gila monsters have got to go, that always bugged the crap out of me, why not a kitten and a bunny too?

 

 they better not go!

It never occured to me that the snakes and lizards were at all out of place. Like was said, if Luke is a human, why cant there be snakes? There are also ravens on Endor (Go "Ewok Adventures!") I don't know if the scene would be improved by the addition of feathers on the snake, or the gilla monster have eight legs.

MaximRecoil said:

 

No, that is not correct. Any evidence to the contrary is not automatically discounted. However, you may just find that there is no evidence to the contrary to be found. An example of evidence to the contrary would be something like a scene with Yoda trying to move an object and failing because it was too large, and some dialog to explain the inconsistency (for example: "I guess I wasn't as strong in the force as I thought I was"); so we know it is not just a case of the writer forgetting things which had been previously established. All you have provided are baseless rationalizations; which are not evidence.

 This is the disagreement we're not getting anywhere on. See, I see the six movies, where the Jedi clearly show they do not have the power to crush Death Stars with their mind, as evidence that they do not have the power to crush Death Stars with their minds.  Since you assume, based on one line of dialogue, that they must have that power, every single example where they don't is therefore not evidence. I would posit that the reason we don't see Yoda fail at moving anything is because a 900 year old Jedi Master might already know his reasonable limits, but that no doubt is a baseless rationalization.

MaximRecoil said:

 

Yoda made a claim and then lifted a ship. He did not demonstrate the ability to use unlimited telekinetic power. At no point did he back up the claim "Size matters not" with quantifiable evidence of unlimited power. That he had unlimited telekinesis is an extraordinary claim, and I don't see any extraordinary proof in the films.

 

Extraordinary claim relative to what? This is a fictional universe defined by the writer. The idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, applies to the real world, not to fictional worlds. A writer can make any claim he wants to; as he is the creator of that fictional universe. However, when there are inconsistencies, you may end up with plot holes, or at the least, characters which come across as stupid.

 

 

Let us assume, given the single most impressive feat of telekinisis evident in the films- Yoda stopping the metal thing Dooku dropped on Obi and Anakin. That effort made it impossible for Yoda to stop a fleeing Dooku, and apparently took a great deal of concentration and perhaps some physical strain judging from his expression. Is that the upper limit of the most powerful Jedi in the films? It's possible. He certainly never does anything like crush the Death Star. Non-existence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence, but given Yoda's character, goals, and apparent wisdom, him not using this power if he had it seems unlikely.

 

The problem here is you are trying to rationalize everything, which means you've discounted the possibility of something far more simple to explain inconsistencies; i.e., bad writing.

Also, in this scene, Yoda wasn't simply dealing with the weight of the metal thing, but he had to counteract Dooku's use of the force (that stuff didn't break/fall due to natural causes). The same thing applies in ROTS when the emperor was throwing those senate seats (or whatever they were) at him.

 

As to why Yoda didn't throw whole droid armies around, perhaps theres a fundamental difference between lifting something with the Force and Force pushing things in combat. I don't know, I'm not a Jedi.

 

Or, a more obvious explanation is that the character was written with too much power which makes it next to impossible to invent dangerous situations which he could not easily overcome by using that power.

 

And that's still not begging the question. I never assumed the Jedi can't be morons, just that given a choice between all Jedi being morons, or beleiveing that the way you describe a Jedi's power being inaccurate, it seems more likely that your claim that Jedi should demonstrate unlimited telekinetic power is innacurate.

 

You're discounting the possibility of bad writing; i.e., you're assuming that the writing is fine (and that is the question); and using that assumption as your basis for trying to rationalize the inconsistencies; hence, you are begging the question.

This could have been fixed with some writing changes. For example, don't have Yoda claim that size doesn't matter if the writer actually intends for size to matter. Don't keep using the whole "dropping the light saber" thing as a plot device when it is already established that even rookie Jedi can will the things back into their hands at a moment's notice; etc. When you are writing super powered characters you need to give them certain limitations and be very creative with the dangerous situations that you construct for them. Otherwise, you end up with characters that look stupid.

 Here's the crux of our disagreement. I'm not 'rationalizing' anything. You blame bad writing for what you percieve as inconsistencies, and I see perfectly reasonable in-universe explanations where no such inconsistencies even exist. It's not even hard.

Let's look at the lightsaber thing. Given the concentration it takes under most situations to use the force (Luke pulling his saber from ice, Yoda lifting the ship, Vader hurling debris at Luke) perhaps being on the back of a moving speeder Anakin was unable to spare a moment to concentrate to telekinetically retrieve it. For me, the half-second of thought it took to come up with that consistent in-universe explanation is more satisfying that throwing disbeleif out the windy and saying the writers suck.

Let's look at Yoda. From the abilities he displays in the films, we can infer that Yoda is a Jedi master with impressive telekinetic talent, but his power is limited enough that he can't crush the Death Star, and that when he said 'Size matters not' he was either a:) A 900 year old backwards talking philosopher and what he said wasn't meant to be taken as a literal refrence to unlimited telekinesis, or b:) A literal refrence to the nature of the Force, not to his own individual abilities. I think either of those consistent, in-universe explanations are superior to discoutning huge sections of the films with 'bad writing makes Yoda stupid.'

By using the 'bad writing' argument, any evidence to the contrary is automatically discounted. Yoda said 'size matters not' and that's taken literally, so the fact at no point in the movies does this claim appear to be true is completely discounted as 'bad writing'.

I would agree with the bad writing argument if there were not interally consistent reasonable explanations for these so-called 'inconsistencies' that don't violate the reality of the films. However it seems to me that these explanations exist, have large ammounts of evidence to support them, and are not hard to come up with.

I'm not sure that Ewok-hate exists on the level necessary to motivate that kind of mass effort.

Also, how could you create the necessary scenes and dialogue to forward the radically different plot.

Fun idea and all, but frankly, I like Ewoks. ;-P

MaximRecoil said:

 

 

 

Obviously individual Jedi have limits, as evidenced by Luke's failure to fully lift the ship. However, Yoda made the claim and then demonstrated the claim; which establishes that size doesn't matter to Yoda's use of the force. There were many opportunities for Yoda to do some heavy, decisive moving in the PT and he didn't bother. Why not send the droid armies flying? Even if he had to do it in X-Wing sized sections of weight, that's likely a few hundred droids at a time.

 

But, if my options are either every Jedi in either trilogy are hopelessly stupid (including Yoda, who made the claim you're hanging this all on) or that the understanding of the Force you propose is somehow incorrect, Occam's razor points me fairly clearly to one of these options.

 

You're missing the point. Yes the examples imply stupidy on the part of the Jedi, and the writing is to blame for it. Write it so the power isn't unlimited, and write scenarios that can realistically pose danger despite the powers-as-defined.

 

(ps. I wasn't 'begging a question'. At the very worst I might be accused of suggesting a false delimma.)

 

There was no false dilemma. You were begging the question. You were assuming that the Jedi couldn't have been [written as] morons (which is the question), thus Yoda must not have meant his statement literally. You can't assume (beg) the question in order to establish the conclusion. You need to give actual evidence of your claim that Yoda was not being literal, because without that, it is simply a case of bad writing; and bad writing tends to make characters look like idiots by default.

You state yourself obviously individual Jedi have limits. Because they have these limits, there is no reason to assume they are stupid. Given the difference between what you claim the Force should be able to do and what they actually do with it, it makes much more sense to chalk that difference up to their individual power limits than it does to their stupidity. Since it is obvious from the films that Jedi have limits, the writing did not imply the Jedi had unlimited power.

Even if we assume the Force is a source for unlimited telekinetic power, knowing that Jedi have a limited ability to access this answers the questions about why they don't do certain thing much easier than assuming they're all dumb. I know my toaster is attached to a power grid that powers most of the San Juoaquin Valley, and yet I don't think my toaster is stupid because it doesn't heat my entire house. I understand it's obvious limits.

Yoda made a claim and then lifted a ship. He did not demonstrate the ability to use unlimited telekinetic power. At no point did he back up the claim "Size matters not" with quantifiable evidence of unlimited power. That he had unlimited telekinesis is an extraordinary claim, and I don't see any extraordinary proof in the films.

Let us assume, given the single most impressive feat of telekinisis evident in the films- Yoda stopping the metal thing Dooku dropped on Obi and Anakin. That effort made it impossible for Yoda to stop a fleeing Dooku, and apparently took a great deal of concentration and perhaps some physical strain judging from his expression. Is that the upper limit of the most powerful Jedi in the films? It's possible. He certainly never does anything like crush the Death Star. Non-existence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence, but given Yoda's character, goals, and apparent wisdom, him not using this power if he had it seems unlikely.

As to why Yoda didn't throw whole droid armies around, perhaps theres a fundamental difference between lifting something with the Force and Force pushing things in combat. I don't know, I'm not a Jedi.

And that's still not begging the question. I never assumed the Jedi can't be morons, just that given a choice between all Jedi being morons, or beleiveing that the way you describe a Jedi's power being inaccurate, it seems more likely that your claim that Jedi should demonstrate unlimited telekinetic power is innacurate.

MaximRecoil said:

then we have to assume all the Jedi are complete morons. 

Yes, and it is the fault of the writer(s) of course.

Or we can assume these Jedi Masters actually know how to use the Force but that there are some practical limits to the Force, both in quanitifiable means (how heavy an object you can move) and practical means (why not make your lightsaber instantly fly back to you, why not use the force when flying a starfighter), even if the exact and specific limits are unclear.

BTW, the "exact and specific limits" are not unclear; at least not with regard to the size of an object that can be moved with telekinesis. The size doesn't matter, as stated by Yoda in ESB. I know you think Yoda was just making stuff up, but there is no evidence of this. Making a claim along the lines of: "Well if Yoda really meant what he clearly said, then that would mean the Jedi were morons," is not evidence that Yoda didn't mean what he said; it is simply "begging the question" on your part. 

1-Why doesn't Yoda just crush the entire Droid Army with his mind at Geonosis?

   a) There's some limit to his telekinesis.
   b) He's stupid.

2- How did Anakin drop his lightsaber?

   a) Maybe he was focused on holding on the the spaceship he was outside of.
   b) He's stupid.

3- Why didn't Qui-Gon just singlehandedly stop the invasion fleet of Naboo when he first saw them?

   a) Even as a Jedi master there are limits to what he could hope accomplish even with the Force as his ally.
   b) He's stupid.

4- Since he could knock a couple robots down with a force push, why couldn't Obi-Wan just push the buzzdroids (and all droid fighters) away from him during the space battle above Curoscant?
   a) Perhpas flying a fighter took too much concentration, or it would be too much effort to push all of those different droids.Or they were holding on too tight.
   b) He's stupid.

5- Why doesn't Vader just use the Force to stop the Falcon from escaping Hoth?

   a) He lacked that level of power.
   b) He's stupid.

6- Why didn't Luke just rip the cage door off with his mind,  pick Jaba up telekinetically and hurl him like a slobby bullett against the rancor?

   a) He couldn't
   b) He wouldn't... because he's stupid.

Is it easier to answer "B" to all of those questions than it is to think that Yoda's "size matters not" was not a statement of scientific fact that meant "capable of generating infinite numbers of kilowatts the Force is" but might have been a deeper statement regarding an aspect of the nature of an ill-defined pseudo-magical mystical force.

I never implied Yoda didn't mean what he said, it just don't think he meant it as a literal claim of unlimited telekinetic power. Or at the very least, perhaps size does not matter to the Force, but individual Jedi have limits, most apparently far less than Yoda.

I would argue that the films give us very little clear understanding of the nature of the Force. Why does an energy field generated by all living things grant telekinesis? Why is Watto immune to the Jedi mind trick just because he's greedy? Why does doing evil turn your eyes yellow? What is the nature of the 'haunted' cave on Dagobah? How can you move fast enough to block a blaster bolt but get caught with a little rope thing from Boba Fett?

But, if my options are either every Jedi in either trilogy are hopelessly stupid (including Yoda, who made the claim you're hanging this all on) or that the understanding of the Force you propose is somehow incorrect, Occam's razor points me fairly clearly to one of these options.

(ps. I wasn't 'begging a question'. At the very worst I might be accused of suggesting a false delimma.)

MaximRecoil said:

How many times have we seen a Jedi drop or otherwise lose his light saber and not instantly retrieve it with telekinesis? That should be an extremely simple task, and indeed it is one that is often seen done, yet there are examples when they either don't do it at all, or wait a long time to do it. For example, when Anakin drops his light saber in AOTC (while he's on top of the flying car), he doesn't pull it back at all; and he was in a situation where he really needed it. He wouldn't have gotten it back if it hadn't have been for Obi-Wan miraculously catching it.

So yes, apparently they are stupid, which is what I was getting at in the first place. That's the problem when a writer makes his character too powerful; it makes them look stupid when they are in dangerous situations and don't use their powers effectively or at all. Since you need dangerous situations for a story of this type, you need to place limitations on their powers in order for the dangerous situations to even seem plausible; i.e., not make the character look like an idiot.

There are plenty of other examples too. Why didn't Obi-Wan use the force to nudge Jango Fett's ship; or at the very least, the missiles that were tracking him; into an asteroid during AOTC? Even if you want to speculate that the series established a limitation on the size of objects that can be moved with the force (which it actually didn't establish at all; quite the opposite in fact), we know that a small fighter craft, and especially, smaller missiles, can be moved by a Jedi.  

Do Jedi not use their powers "efficiently," or do we as fans not have a clearly defined explanation on how their powers work and what the use of them requires?

We can think that the Force is an unlimited and effortless superpower despite the fact that at NO POINT IN THE MOVIES does it appear to be this. If it is indeed unlimited and effortless as you suggest, (apparently based entirely on one line), then we have to assume all the Jedi are complete morons. 

This option has the advantage of making us feel both smarter than Lucas ("I wouldn't have written it that badly.") and smarter than Jedi ("I'd use the force better than stupid Yoda.")

Or we can assume these Jedi Masters actually know how to use the Force but that there are some practical limits to the Force, both in quanitifiable means (how heavy an object you can move) and practical means (why not make your lightsaber instantly fly back to you, why not use the force when flying a starfighter), even if the exact and specific limits are unclear.

MaximRecoil said:

Well, I think your confusing the philisophical 'size matters not' Yoda says with a quantifiable statement of power.

What is "philosophical" about it? Yoda's claim that the size doesn't matter was a direct reply to Luke's suggestion that the size of the ship did matter. What if Luke then pointed to an object larger and heavier than the ship and asked him to lift it. Would Yoda have said that he couldn't because it was too big? That would have made him look rather foolish considering what he'd just said about the size not mattering.

There are clearly limits on what the Force can move (I'm only talking the movies here).

According to Yoda there are no limits. Additionally, there are no scenes that I know of where Yoda tries to move something and fails because the object is too big. Where are these "clear limits" established?

Given utter peace and quiet the greatest Jedi master (Yoda) managed to quite slowly pick up a spacefighter.  That's the single most impressive example of the power in either trilogy.

There is nothing which establishes that peace and quiet are prerequisites, and there is nothing to establish that Yoda was moving the ship as fast as he could. There are various reasons that he could have been moving it slowly, e.g., for effect (letting the effect soak into Luke); not wanting to damage the craft; or simply because he wasn't in a hurry.

And that is not necessarily the most impressive display of the power in either trilogy. Dooku broke some structures from the building in AOTC, and I would guess that their load bearing capacity exceeded the weight of an X-Wing fighter.

There's no reason to beleive he could 'crush' the Death Star

He claimed that size doesn't matter in reply to Luke's suggestion that the ship was too big to move. He did not say that size doesn't matter, as long as it is no bigger than an X-Wing fighter.

 Let's look at two possible scenarios.

1- Size does indeed not matter in any quantifiable sense to Jedi, and they have nigh unlimited power capable of easily slinging the Death Star around. All through the Star Wars saga Jedi refuse to use these powers because apparently, they are stupid.

OR

2- Yoda's 'size matters not' comment carries with it a grain of truth, but not as a definite measurement of Jedi telekinises, but as some kind of statement about the relationships of things to the Force. Jedi telekinises should not be limited by self-induced weaknesses based on object's sizes, but otherwise does have clear physical limitations at some level, which explains why they do not in fact, hurl Death Stars around and crush planets.

I tend towards #2

MaximRecoil said:

Does anyone think they made the Jedi (particularly ones like Yoda) too powerful, to the point that it makes them look stupid every time they are in a "dangerous" situation?

So we have Jedi with telekinetic powers. We know that Yoda can easily lift an X-Wing which has to weigh several tons at least, and even says that size doesn't matter. Well, with a power like that (being able to move any object regardless of size), that = "game over" for anyone who opposes them; or at least, anyone who is not also a "force user".

So there is a "Death Star" ... so what? Yoda could fling it anywhere he wanted to; or better yet, crush it. The only match for Yoda's established "irresistable force" is an "immovable object", and the Death Star was certainly not an immovable object. So your ship is being attacked by another ship? Simply use "the force" to send it hurling into an asteroid; or of course, just crush it. A droid army? Fling them into outerspace; or of course, crush them all onto a large ball of twisted scrap metal.

 Well, I think your confusing the philisophical 'size matters not' Yoda says with a quantifiable statement of power. There are clearly limits on what the Force can move (I'm only talking the movies here). Given utter peace and quiet the greatest Jedi master (Yoda) managed to quite slowly pick up a spacefighter.  That's the single most impressive example of the power in either trilogy.

There's no reason to beleive he could 'crush' the Death Star, or for that matter do anything like Mace Windu does in the first Clone Wars cartoon or nameless guy does in the Force Unleashed game. 'Size matters not' is more about understanding the nature of the Force than it is about measurable telekinetic powers.

Rhikter said:

If any of you touch 3PO I will cut you!  *Produces Butterfly Knife*

j/k

I'm also opposed to losing any of 3P0s lines. He's part of the family. I don't think they ruin the mood or pacing at all.

His "Captain Solo, still encased in carbonite." line in ROTJ seems like its there to remind people (who hadnt seen ESB in three years) what the hell was going on.

"Star Wars" was actually my parents first date, but I wasn't born until 1980.

My earliest memory is talking about "Star Wars" with my brother. We were both really little, and we had a battered taped-off-HBO VHS copy of "Empire Strikes Back" but we both vaguely remembered "Star Wars" that we must have seen on TV or something. Our young minds tried to piece together bits we didn't recall, especially about Luke's mom and dad dying and how could Darth Vader be Luke's dad when we saw Luke's dad's dead body (we were small and couldn't remember that they were his aunt and uncle).

Monroville

It is not so much the "flashback" stuff I would include or comment on, but the end fight between Luke and Vader (4:33 to 5:08).  Whether Luke's eyes go "Sith" (at least until the Emperor confronts him and he regains his composure) or not, SOMETHING has to be done to explain Luke being able to overpower Vader.  Hell, it also looks like David Prowse just LETS Luke womp on him!

 The angry look on Luke's face, the passionate fury he fights with, the scary dramatic music, the constant imploring for him to 'give in to his feelings' doesn't let you understand what's going on, but getting goofy yellow eyes will?

(and nitpit, David Prowse doesnt do that fight :) )

Davnes007 said:

thunderclap said:

4.) When Vader tells the Emperor Luke is on Endor with the revels the Emperor says it's strange he hadn't sensed him.  Yet a few lines later he tells Vader to go down and wait for Luke because he will go to him.  He knows this because he'd foreseen it.  It's always seemed like a contradiction to me.  One of these lines needs to be removed.

To me, the contradiction is meant to show us that the Emporer isn't all-knowing, and that he's starting to make things up as he goes along. 

Interesting. I used to figure Empy had forseen Luke coming to Vader, but didn't know when it was going to happen. When he found out Luke was on Endor, he figured this must be the time. He's more into the forseeing than he is into the sensing.

I'm expecting my first kid soon, and have given this a lot of thought.

We can start with Star Wars and the Clone Wars CGI cartoon (maybe Phatom Menace). They're the most kid friencly, and shows a heroic Anankin, which exactly matches what's said in Star Wars.

When she's a bit older we can watch Empire and Jedi. Once she (shockingly) learns the truth about Vader, we can go back and watch Clones and Sith.

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

If that's Lucas's intention that's dumb. The traditional view of balance (re good and evil) in fiction is that good and evil are both part of the natural order and both have a place. To talk about balance in the films while favoring a view of only-the-good-side-is-allowed is idiotic. If he wants to knock out the dark side entirely he shouldn't put in talk about balance. Balance is when you balance between opposing things, not when you have only one thing and eradicate the other. George, if you're not interested in balance don't talk about balance.

And there's identifying passion with the dark side. Passion is what makes us human. It's an essential part of life and human nature. To identify passion with the dark side while portraying the Jedi ideal as basically not feeling is pretty awful. That's a message that feeling is evil and that we shouldn't feel. Horrible message.

So balance is when the side that's associated with feeling is gotten rid of? That's a bent message. 

In the Star Wars universe,  the force IS the force. It is the balance, the energy field created by all life. It includes all things. It needs nothing outside of it to balance it. It's not just some standard of 'good,' it's the way the universe should be.

The pursuit of unnatural levels of control (preventing death, blowing up planets, "UNLIMITED POWER!") is inherently wrong. The dark side is an intrinsically UNbalanced thing that addcits, manipulated, and twists things. It's like a cancer.

To arbitrarily apply some outside standard that "good and evil" are two equally valid and important viewpoints (which I'm not sure where you're getting) to "Star Wars" seems invalid because that standard is not in the saga.

I don't think my wife is going to come up to me tommorrow and say, "I love you so much I'd be willing to kill a bunch of innocent children and perform other heinous and evil acts so that I'd never lose you." That kind of stuff is not the natural consequence of love. That's some twisted stuff.

But if she did, I would not respond with "Well, that seems pretty evil, but I guess I should be okay with it, since evil is a natural balancing factor of life and we need to balance things out for all the happy people."

Rhikter said:

Maul-Grievous is a damn good idea.  If they had used that as his backstory in RotS it would have added a hell of a lot more depth to his character.  For starters it would give Darth Maul some of a connection to Darth Vader.  Not only would he be a mechanical monster with asthma, but he also would have been cast aside in favor of a more powerful apprentice.

 

 I just don't see it. Greivous is a general, a sneaky tactician who hits and runs. Maul is a silent killer. I don't see why Maul would somehow suddenly become a leader because he's cut in half.

Also, I just don't like the idea of Maul living. He was in the movie, looked cool, killed a Jedi then died. It's not that he's the single most compelling character of all time who was taken from us too soon before we breached his emotional depths.

I would love to see a show just like The Clone Wars (CGI) but covering between Star Wars and Empire. Just simple adventures of Luke, Han, Leia and the gang, perhaps against Vader and some newly created 2nd string villains.

And after that, another series about Luke, Lando, Leia and the gang between Empire and Jedi.

C3PX said:

TheBoost said:

Anakin doesn't go bad for love. He doesn't even go bad to save Padme's life in any clear way (it's not like a special medicine is being kept from him in the Jedi Temple). He goes bad in order to achieve power to alter the natural order of things because he's unwilling to let go of his attachments. His hubris is what leads to his evil actions.

 

Hmm, interesting perspective. For my part, I don't think Anakin had anything like hubris. Sure he is portrayed in the films as over confident and cocky, but more often than not, I think we see Anakin questioning himself and being uncertian of things. I think his overconfidence was compensation for his self doubt. In his character I didn't see a man who wanted more than anything to be able to have great power and be able to stop people from dying for the sake of having great power, he wanted this power to protect the thing he loved so much he didn't think he could live without it. Anakin was scared of loosing the thing he held so dearly. Which is why the movie makes no sense at all. 

It was his desire for power 'that some would call unnatural,' not his pride in reaching for it, that was his undoing. Perhaps hubris was a impresisely chosen word.

 I dug your scenario by the way.

Tiptup said:

Thirdly, to the degree you can argue about who was right in Empire's plot line. Luke was the hero and more portrayed as "right" by the movie than Yoda was. In the end helped his friends and got away with his life. Yoda was only portrayed as right to the degree that Luke may have been taking too big of a risk.

But Luke didn't save anyone. He only got away with his life because Leia was wiling to put herself in greater danger after already escaping to rescue him.

double post

Vaderisnothayden said:

As for the Sith, logically if there's only 2 Sith and many Jedi and the Jedi are sitting pretty as the guardians of the republic and the Sith have to work in secret, then the imbalance is that the Jedi are too powerful. But I don't think that's what George meant by imbalance. 

The Dark Side itself is the imbalance. Jedi and Sith aren't two equally valid viewpoints. The Dark Side is intrinsically bad. The imbalance was that the Sith existed and had been growing in power and influence for 1000 years.

Tiptup said:

TheBoost said:

Do you turn on "Cops" and see some wife-beater and say "Love leads to wifebeating, what a screwed up message."

Cops doesn't have a clear authority figure like Yoda telling kids that loving attachment is bad. If George had Yoda teach that because he wanted to show that the Jedi were corrupt, then that's okay, but it confuses his moral message to have the top good guy saying something like that.

Yoda never said that Anakin needed to stop loving anyone. He said he needed to be willing to let go. Attachment, possesion, these things are forbidden.

Anakin doesn't go bad for love. He doesn't even go bad to save Padme's life in any clear way (it's not like a special medicine is being kept from him in the Jedi Temple). He goes bad in order to achieve power to alter the natural order of things because he's unwilling to let go of his attachments. His hubris is what leads to his evil actions.

Yoda was right. Anakin needed to be willing to let go. Yoda is so right that Anakin is even the one who caused her to die. Yoda was right when he told Luke not to go to Cloud City, but Luke did it because he was afraid to lose the people he loved.

On the Death Star in ROTJ, Luke also wanted to protect the people he loved, but he was unwilling to give into hate and anger in order to achieve the power to do it. It was Luke's compassion and surrender of power that lead to Vader's redemption.

Love wasn't the problem. Luke loved and he was okay. It was Anakin's fear and obsessive attachment that lead to a need for power and control.

ChainsawAsh said:

Yoda should NEVER be seen with a lightsaber.  Ever.

Neither should the Emperor.

 I agree with this. The sheer momentary thrill I had when I thought "WOW! Yoda is going nuts with that lightsaber!!" has been far outweights by how much that seemed to diminish the character.

I would rather Palpatine take out the Jedi with lighting, and choking, and stuff like that.

darthmunky said:

TheBoost said:

Honestly, I don't mind TPM, although about 60% less Jar Jar would be nice.

Or 100% less Jar Jar... You seriously enjoyed TPM more than AOTC? Wow, I liked Hayden Christensen like 5 times more than Jake Lloyd and he was soo annoying in AOTC. I found he was alright in ROTS though.

 

 Not to derail the thread, but it seems to me that TPM is a somewhat childish adventure story, and succeeds in that regard far close than AOTC succeeds to be a romance or a mystery.

Here's an idea... how about we find ANSWERS to the questions ObiWan investigates in AOTC. THAT would be a radical idea.