logo Sign In

Tiptup

User Group
Members
Join date
4-May-2006
Last activity
26-Apr-2012
Posts
1,696

Post History

Post
#262555
Topic
Your favorite version of the Thief
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262555/action/topic#262555
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Tiptup, try Google video. You can even download it in mp4 format. No, not the best quality, but you can at least get the gist of how it is.


Very interesting. I watched the first half and I'll have to watch the rest later. I love the animation, but the story seems a tad weak and some of the voice acting is also not the best (though Vincent Price does an awesome job). Overall I like the film. Its too bad that Warner Brothers fucked it over. They deserved to have lost a lot of money after what they did.
Post
#262553
Topic
Transformers: The Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262553/action/topic#262553
Time
Ahh, crap, I have a feeling this is going to be bad. Based on that trailer I am forced to assume they are going with an uber-serious, suspense-and-action approach and I can't imagine that working with Transformers. They're freakin' cars and planes that TURN INTO ROBOTS! It's totally campy and cheesy by default. I have toruble imagining that working as a serious special effects thriller. Plus, what about all of the original story elements that I loved so much? The plots to Transformers were always about robots and not people.

Oh well, we'll see . . . .
Post
#262428
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262428/action/topic#262428
Time
I found the following text on an uber-left-wing website, but it perfectly illustrates why a "support for everything" approach doesn't work:

A method of resolving conflicts:

Hawaii probably has the greatest diversity of religious expression of any state in the United States. If it were not for the aloha spirit, one might expect the greatest potential for conflict would occur here.

There has been some friction. Over a decade ago, former Mayor Frankn Fasi founded a spectacular Honolulu city Lights display on the City Hall lawn. It was originally a secular display. Then, in 1992, a member of a Pearly City persuaded Fasi to add a nativity scene featuring the birth of Christ. In 1997, the American Atheists threatened to launch a discrimination suit because a Buddhist booth which celebrated Bodhi Day was being discriminated against by having been given a less desirable location. The Atheists and the city administration reached a compromise: a lottery would be held each year for the available locations.

horizontal rule
The 2004 display in Honolulu, HI:

In 2004, Santa, elves and massive toys make up the secular City Lights display. Thirteen non-profit groups applied this year for adjacent spaces. The five winners were:

1. The Wahiawa Door of Faith Church sponsors a Christian nativity display. A a sign over the crèche says: "Happy Birthday, Lord Jesus."

2. The National Assembly of the Bahá'í Faith has a "Garden of Humanity" with flowers representing diverse human cultures. This represents the Bahá'í belief that God provided a succession of prophets, from Noah to Jesus Christ, Mohammed, The Bab, and Baha'u'llah.

3. The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church portrays the legend of the candy cane. Its curved shape is symbolic of a shepherd's crook -- a link to Jesus.

4. A political action committee Stand Up for America installed a map of the United States with a banner rejecting Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Humanism and other non-theistic religions by proclaiming "One Nation Under God."

5. Another political action committee, the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values constructed a wedding cake topped with male and female figures -- presumably a just-married couple. The Honolulu Star Bulletin newspaper describes the "underlying message [as] being opposition to same-sex unions." A sign includes two lines from "The Wedding Song," which paraphrase text from the Gospel of Matthew: "The union of your spirits, here, has caused Him to remain; for whenever two or more of you are gathered in His name, there is Love." A beautiful thought. But, a cynic might suggest that the "two or more" could actually refer to an opposite-sex couple, or a same-sex couple in Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands or Belgium, or even a group of polygamous spouses.

So, now, instead of having some beautiful displays reflecting our most common culture and our most popular traditions, we end up with lame, crappy-looking anti-atheist displays and other politically divisive displays? Is that solution really better than offending a few people by limiting religious recognition to that which is most popular?

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that not every religion has to be represented in a limited time and space so long as multiple religions are represented at the same time and so long as "secular" symbols (like Rudolph) also get displayed with them. Call me crazy, but I think this is an incredibly ridiculous and rather stupid ruling.

If a small town somewhere is almost totally made up of Muslims, they should be able to have an Islamic display in front of their local town hall if they so choose. Just because there may be a few Christians in same the town is no reason that we should require that community to put up crosses or nativities. Same thing goes for requiring secular symbols simply because we believe some "right" requires them. I mean seriously think about it! Do we really believe that all human beings have the innate "right" to see a Rudolph display?! This is an absolutely silly way to look at our laws. It’s certainly not what our founding fathers intended (thankfully they weren’t that stupid).

That's not to say that I believe the majority in a local area should callously leave out other religions, since that would obviously be disrespectful, but I am saying that there is no such thing as some kind of human "right" that requires a schizophrenic recognition of religion at every turn. There's no reason why we should ultimately be forced to start instituting lotteries for public display space just so we don't offend anyone with an actual, intentional decision. I say we just let some people be offended because those people are probably idiots. You seriously can't make everyone happy.

So long as citizens are not denied the right to exercise their religion freely, the majority can decide to have a government that is biased in the way it recognizes religion. Nobody’s rights are being hurt by that.


Originally posted by: JediSage
Another example of the state sanctioned neutrality police in action (and of the state successfully enforcing free speech abridgements on public property, no need to thank me, this one's free)...

In January of 2002 a kindergartener in Saratoga Springs, NY joined hands with two friends at a snack table and said "God is good. God is great. Thank you, God, for my food." The teacher disciplined the child, the principal sent a note home to the parents saying the behavior was inappropriate and would not be permitted. The local school board then issued a press release saying the child would not be allowed to do this again. A suit was filed via a public interest law firm and the child's parents, the case was successfully settled out of court, with the school board acknowledging the child's right to prayer at school so long as it was not "disruptive", and of course refuting that they did anything wrong.


School officials trying to prevent a girl from personally praying over her meal would be a clear violation of the first amendment on so many grounds that it's not even funny.

However, if you were implying that your above example directly applies to what you and I are arguing about, then you'll forgive me if I state that you are incorrect. Elected representatives deciding against the placement of a particular nativity on a piece of public property would totally be their right. No sane idea of religious exercise is being burdened or hindered with that choice; it's simply a group of politicians deciding policy within the extent of their authority. (Though, I will say that if they claimed that the nativity should be prevented on the basis of "the separation between church and state," that would be a completely false excuse.)

It's our duty to keep stupid and unreasonable politicians out of office and it is our duty to supervise government bureaucracies from making idiotic decisions, but it is never our duty to whine and pretend that our rights are being hurt just because we don't get to see our nativity on public property! I want the crybabies from every political faction to simply go away! They should shut up, stop being offended by every little thing, and let the most popular aspects of our culture be recognized, when and if the majority wishes it!
Post
#262310
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262310/action/topic#262310
Time
Wow, I must say, I’m impressed by your use of the quote tags, Jedisage.


Originally posted by: JediSage
That is where the government's management of the resources in question comes into play. Part of the responsibility that comes with managing them means making sure that group 1 is not holding an event on the same day/time as group 2.

Oh my God, that’s brilliant! How could I have missed such an obvious solution?!

Oh, wait, sorry, what about when fifty different religions all require a display all at the precise, same time in accordance to their religious traditions? Since public spaces are generally not infinite, are you going to discriminate against some of them by saying they cannot have a display put up on their “special” holy day? Wouldn’t that contradict your principle?

Plus, what about the amount of time you give to a particular group? Clearly you believe that differently sized displays are unfair and wrong, but what about displays that are up for a week (like for some kind of holy week), does then every group get a week of time to present their display on public property? (To keep everything fair?) Or would you discriminate and allow one group to have more display time than another?

Plus, might I inquire how you would schedule time for the normal, usual use of a public space? If every possible religious group can take up a road or a park at any time it wishes under your principle, because it is religious and every religion must be given access to public resources at all times, then how would we have any time left over for people to use a road for transportation or use a park for picnics?

I apologize for giving you so many of my questions, Jedisage. I’m sure you’ll consider them very stupid and not worth your time, but they are very troubling to me and I would hope that I am not too presumptuous in asking you for enlightenment. I should inform you, though, that I am aware of the Supreme Court’s most recent decisions as it relates to limiting the problems that I have brought up to you here (and their decisions are decisions that I happen to strongly disagree with), but your scheduling principle seems very novel and interesting by comparison. I’d love to learn more!


Originally posted by: JediSage
How are they NOT offended? Religious displays/gatherings are constitutionally protected speech, and have been since the day the Bill of Rights was passed.

Well, I know it’s probably very stupid of me to contradict you, but as far as I know, the free exercise of things like religious displays and religious gatherings were constitutionally protected from positive government action. In other words, people were free to express their devotion to God or express some other kind of spirituality in an unhindered manner so long as government had no compelling reason to interfere. I’m almost certain, based upon my knowledge of our history as a nation that this was the original intent behind the first amendment to the constitution (as it relates to religion anyways). I know that modern courts have ruled in favor of a “separation of church and state,” but I consider that to be bad law and a complete misinterpretation of anything found in the Bill of Rights.

In terms of particulars, discreet behavior limited to private property is perhaps the best protected form of religious exercise since a number of protected rights overlap in that instance. Unless a group is doing something that the governing authority deems too dangerous, too disturbing to its surroundings, or too immoral, it has no right to interfere with that private practice. In terms of public exercise on public property, things get more complicated because a number of basic actions are to always be protected when they are aimed at the government (such as “petitioning” the government), and yet, beyond that, at the same time, the federal government is allowed within limits to decide how its resources shall be used in society and by whom (plus the capacity for causing a bad disturbance or creating danger might be greater on public property). Thus I believe that we can conclude that our government may often have many compelling interests to prevent a publicly religious observance.

Now, that said, nowhere does the constitution, as far as I know, declare that a government authority must provide public resources to facilitate religious expression. Free religious expression is protected from positive interference, not from the lack of positive support. Again, perhaps you can educate me and tell me why the government is required to support each and every religious display from each and every religion, using public property, but I know of nothing in the constitution that states such.


Originally posted by: JediSage
George Washington declared a national day of prayer and thanksgiving the day after it was enacted into law.

So, how exactly does that prove that every religion has a “right” to access public resources despite the will of the government? (Again, I’m sorry if I’m not as quick as you.) As far as I know, your religious “right” has not forced our government to make Hanukkah into a federally recognized holiday yet.

It would seem to me that your example is actually supporting my argument. You’re showing me that government can have religiously oriented policies whenever and however it chooses. There is no requirement for government to treat every religion equally and thus officially declare a holiday whenever a particular religiously oriented outlook wants one (as I’m guessing you would have to support for the sake of consistency).


Originally posted by: JediSage
If it wants to allow a marathon supporting cancer research while banning a KKK rally in those same streets, it is capable of making that decision without offending any rights or principles.

100% disagreement. A KKK rally is by definition a free speech exercise, repugnant as it may be, and they have every right to freely assemble under the First Amendment so long as the assembly is peaceable.

Yes, the governing authority can levy a fee, run them through mountains of paperwork, etc; but in the end the authority in question cannot legally deny them the right to assemble on public property.

So, first, the government can give one ideological group tons of paperwork and fees that another ideological group is not required to endure? Isn’t that “unfair” and unequal in your world? Doesn’t that violate your understanding of our “rights”?

Second, I’m guessing that you actually have heard of obscenity laws, correct? In my understanding of our history, our rights in this country were never intended to be protected to every extreme we could imagine. That would be madness (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater). If we decide as a society that parts of the KKK ideology should be considered obscene by our government, we can forbid it from being openly presented upon public property. Nowhere are we stopping people from committing that same obscenity on their own private property in this instance. A KKK rally can still freely assemble via private resources; they just won’t get positive government assistance. The exact same principle should be allowed to prevent a rally from displaying a giant sign with the word “FUCK” over Washington D.C. or prevent a sexually obscene “parade” from being held on the streets of New York. Is my point of view here making any sense to you?

Though I wouldn’t want you to misunderstand me; I do believe that I understand your desire to curb oppressive government laws and protect our freedoms. Oftentimes our government regulates every little detail of our lives simply because it thinks it has a “clear interest” and it too often does not. However, deciding where the line should be drawn between too many laws and not enough laws is no easy task (the same goes for every law we make in our society), but that does not mean we should give away our duty to decide these laws to unaccountable judges. If they can invent new “rights” from nowhere, then they can un-invent old rights just as quickly. It is our duty to clearly define what our rights are and how they should be protected and if those rights must make sense.


Originally posted by: JediSage
Government makes decisions with unfair preferences all of the time. It’s the way a society works. We provide economic incentives to encourage people to serve in the military while ignoring other roles. We currently give tax-breaks to heterosexual, married couples because our society believes that such families are benefit to our nation more than other kinds of families would be. We often preserve the state of our environment by preventing people from utilizing private resources in any way they would wish. Each of these decisions naturally discriminates against their alternatives.

None of the examples you cite is a First Amendment issue.


I’m sorry, but according to your view of the world, it seems to me that they would be. You’re saying that government has an obligation to support every ideological observance with public resources. Therefore, it seems to me that an anti-military, peace group should be able to get official status for peace activists within the federal government with the same kind of economic incentives as military jobs. After all, we can’t have government discriminating and favoring one ideology more than another, correct? A pro-military group’s ideas shouldn’t have more sway over our government than an anti-military group, should it? Wouldn’t that be unequal in your view of the world? Shouldn’t every possible ideology in the universe receive an equal response from the government?

Or, are you somehow saying that sometimes our government can discriminate in favor of one ideological group over another? Do you actually believe that we can sometimes decide to give government resources to certain groups and behaviors more than others? If so, then on what principled basis? (Again, I’m sorry if my questions are below your great intelligence, but I truly am curious to know how you’d respond to them.)


Originally posted by: JediSage
Though I believe it can be safe for us to say that while common access should be equal and fair, uncommon access should not. If we decide to give an unusual amount of access to one group (like in the case of a nativity in front of a town hall), there are no “rights” requiring us to give that exact same level of unusual access to every other possible group that might want it. Tell me where the constitution says otherwise.


Free exercise rights are not a question of commonality vs uncommonality, but since you brought it up, how do you define uncommon access in light of the fact that displays of this type were never an issue until relatively recently?


I’m sorry, I must have been unclear. I never said that free exercise rights were an issue of “commonality” versus “uncommonality.” I was talking about how government can decide how and when public property is to be used. Under that system (which I firmly believe is the traditional system in our country), I propose that we can then recognize that certain traits are common to all people and to all ideologies. Then, on that basis, whenever our government decides that objects with certain traits should have automatic access to public property, it should not then consider acting to prevent that access for a particular object so long as it remains within the common use that other objects with similar traits have automatic access to. In the event that it does go beyond that “common use,” our government can decide if it should be allowed or disallowed.

For instance, if a government declares a road to be used by the public freely for the transportation of people and private property, in my mind it should not be able to discriminate between kinds of people or between kinds of private property in any fundamental sense (where common traits overlap). Private property and private beliefs are not under the jurisdiction of the government unless they are being clearly presented in an indiscreet (public) fashion (or if they constitute a clear danger or nuisance to society of course).

If a government, on the other hand, declares a “rally” or a “marathon” to be an unusual use of those same streets, then it can decide which of these unusual events to allow and which of these unusual events to disallow on a case by case basis as they are presented. There are no laws that I am aware of that should prevent our government from discriminating between ideologies when deciding which unusual public uses should be allowed.

Now, if a KKK member wants to transport racist leaflets in his car on public streets, he should be allowed to do so. Transporting literature is a part of the common purpose of our public streets and we should not be able to prevent his literature from being discreetly transported on it simply because we find it to be abhorrent. However, a KKK rally could easily be considered by a government as an action that disturbs the ordinary use of a street and therefore not automatically allowed. The government does not need to tolerate the unusual use of its public streets for a hate-filled rally if it doesn’t want to. On the other hand, a marathon to prevent cancer would also be an unusual use of those same streets, yet our government can decide it to be a beneficial disturbance and allow it on that basis.

I suppose, boiled down to the simplest terms, a common use of public property is something that is allowed by default and an uncommon use of public property is one that has a very unclear status or one that must have proper permission before going forward. (I’m not claiming my ideas here are perfect though. As I said before, there are no easy answers on this subject, but these in particular are my own and you can analyze them in whatever way you wish.)


Originally posted by: JediSage
Our country has been discriminating in the favor of Christianity since it was founded. Even Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the least religious founding father, oversaw many government actions that actually endorsed Christianity with our federal government! So long as private religious observances were not hindered by an action, this kind of public favoritism was totally compatible with the constitution as far as our founding fathers were concerned.


You lost me here.


Oh, I’m sorry, if one so knowledgeable as yourself is confused, the mistake must be mine, correct? Let me see . . . .

First I was attempting to bring some of our country’s history to your attention. I then sought to use that history to prove that government has always been allowed to be unequal when it came to supporting religion. Judaism and Islam were never given an equal amount of attention as Christianity. Your “rights” (as I understand them) did not force the government to give equal time or space to every other religion in our country, and therefore I concluded that the “right” of every religion to have equal public support doesn’t exist.

If that doesn’t help clear things up, then perhaps you could inform me of what might exactly be confusing you? In that case I can quickly try to correct any mistakes I made with my communication.


Originally posted by: JediSage
Check out the story about the dung covered portrait of Mary in NYC a few years back...


I’m well aware of that event. What is it from that story, exactly, that you believe I should keep in mind?

As far as I’m concerned, that portrait should not be considered “publicly” protected speech. If we do not wish to publicly fund that particular idea of “art,” or have it displayed in public spaces, we should not be required to do so by any kind of a supposed “right.” Do you disagree with my assessment here?


Originally posted by: JediSage
The United States is what's called a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. This means that the power of the government and it's people are curbed by laws. The notion that the government can deny rights to it's citizens (rights that are explicitly protected in the country's founding documents and the writings of it's founders) places waaaay too much power in the government's hands and paves the way to even more totalitarianism than we're already dealing with.


And who here is advocating that we “deny rights” to citizens?
Post
#262184
Topic
Should Yoda Have Been Part of the "Conspiracy"?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262184/action/topic#262184
Time
Interesting. If I had to resolve this question, I would say that Yoda still believed the twins might have been a hope for the galaxy, but didn't want to give either of them actual Jedi training. Sort of like how he recognized how Anakin may have been the "chosen one," while still deciding not to train him.

Still, it would have been best if Lucas could have at least tried to keep the PT consistent with all of the things that Obiwan had said. The poor old dude is such a total liar now. It's best to pretend the PT doesn't exist.
Post
#262181
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262181/action/topic#262181
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
The PT fan will look at Obi Wan walking up to Chewie in the cantina and say "he knew Chewie would help because he knew the wookies helped the Jedi long ago and maybe Yoda even mentioned Chewie's name since they were combat comrades in the clone war"--but the OT fan will just stare back in bewilderment and say "what the fuck are you talking about?"


Hah, exactly!

Oh, it’s all so lame. I never imagined, back in 1995, that the special edition rumors would lead to a version of the Star Wars trilogy that would seriously try to replace the original, or lead to a "saga" that would try to drastically change our perception of the entire series. Star Wars deserves better. It was an amazing film series for me to love while growing up.

I agree with CO. If Lucas had given both versions of the original trilogy an equal amount of support (at the very least), the OT fan base and most of the strong dislike for Lucas probably wouldn't exist. As bad as the PT is, and as stupid as the "saga" perspective makes the OT, the fact that I know George wants to erase the original films and all notion of the original perception of them is what truly upsets me.
Post
#262116
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262116/action/topic#262116
Time
Originally posted by: JediSage
I do not advocate representing 1 religion at the expense of another. I just want that one religion to have fair and equal access to public resources and freedoms that most other philosophies and interests (including secularist) enjoy.

Again, where does that stop? Do you know how many different religions you can find in the United States? You really want them all to have “equal” access to public resources? How would you stop a public space from being overrun with hundreds of equally-sized religious displays?


Originally posted by: JediSage
And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.

So, free exercise rights end where public property begins?

Hardly. Good Lord. Sid you even read the above-quoted paragraph before trying to reply to it?

I was informing you that the free exercise of religion is completely unaffected by the ways our public officials decide to manage public property. If a town allows a nativity while preventing an Islamic display, the free-exercise rights of Muslims are not being offended. If that same town then decides to allow an Islamic display and prevent the nativity, the free-exercise rights of Christians are not affected.


Originally posted by: JediSage
The word "public" carries with it certain cannotations, meaning that the "public" may use it within certain guidelines, ie: so long as they don't disturb the peace, have people walking around naked, murder, assault anyone, perform human sacrifices, whatever.


That’s not true at all. The government has every prerogative to limit access to public property in any way that it deems fit. If it wants to charge a fee for people to gain access to a public park, it can do that. If it wants to allow a marathon supporting cancer research while banning a KKK rally in those same streets, it is capable of making that decision without offending any rights or principles.

Government makes decisions with unfair preferences all of the time. It’s the way a society works. We provide economic incentives to encourage people to serve in the military while ignoring other roles. We currently give tax-breaks to heterosexual, married couples because our society believes that such families are benefit to our nation more than other kinds of families would be. We often preserve the state of our environment by preventing people from utilizing private resources in any way they would wish. Each of these decisions naturally discriminates against their alternatives.

That is not to say that there are not issues where equal access to public property is important for protecting our freedoms. There are no easy answers when it comes to things like this (I’ve studied the issue for many years). Though I believe it can be safe for us to say that while common access should be equal and fair, uncommon access should not. If we decide to give an unusual amount of access to one group (like in the case of a nativity in front of a town hall), there are no “rights” requiring us to give that exact same level of unusual access to every other possible group that might want it. Tell me where the constitution says otherwise.

Our country has been discriminating in the favor of Christianity since it was founded. Even Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the least religious founding father, oversaw many government actions that actually endorsed Christianity with our federal government! So long as private religious observances were not hindered by an action, this kind of public favoritism was totally compatible with the constitution as far as our founding fathers were concerned.


Originally posted by: JediSage
We now read the 1st amendment as covering everything from dung-covered pictures of Catholic religious icons and art exhibits with human cadavers that MUST be protected, yet a nativity scene is bad.


That kind of speech is not to be protected by the government as it relates to public property or public funding. If we decide to prevent such exhibits from getting government assistance, then we have every right to do so.


Originally posted by: JediSage
We're not talking about inventing "new" rights. We're talking about protecting existing rights that were respected for over 150 years, that have, in the past few decades, been taken from us in whole or by piece. If "the country" wants to change it then they should do it via amending the First Amendment, not through judicial fiat.


The “right” to put a religious display on public property when the proper authority is apposed to that action is not a right that has ever existed in our country. Sorry.
Post
#262025
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262025/action/topic#262025
Time
The non-religious nature that a religious holiday can have is the perfect example of why the government cannot separate religion from all of the other ideologies that exist in our world. To invent strange laws based upon something like a separation of church and state, is ridiculous enough in the first place. To the point where it is today, where we have an incongruous medley of religions being officially represented at every turn, while trying not to offend anyone at the same time, is pure madness.


Originally posted by: JediSage

We're believing that it should not be prevented from being represented, displayed, or talked about in a public forum, and that the people doing it should have their free exercise rights protected.

Then where does that logic stop, exactly? Does every last, little, stupid religion in this country get its own display of the same size? Should a public forum accommodate anything and everything the "public" may want to place there? No restrictions whatsoever?

And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.


Originally posted by: JediSage

If the "people in authority" thought it was a good idea to stone people for over-due parking tickets it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.


A country is not allowed to dictate its own policies or determine its own laws in your mind? Should we simply invent new "rights" in response to each decision that you happen to personally disagree with?
Post
#261968
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261968/action/topic#261968
Time
First of all, Go-Mer, do you really expect me to believe you’re stupid enough to seriously propose these last few arguments of yours? How can I believe you’re expressing honest opinions if you simply spout the first piece of shit that pops into your mind? I know for a fact that you’re smarter than that, so it makes me wonder what your intentions are. You only want to contradict people for the sake of contradicting them and getting attention. Go-Mer needs sick love . . . .

In general though, for anyone who’s actually that stupid, I analyze the failures of the prequels because I wish to protect something more valuable and entertaining than they could ever be: the original trilogy in its original form. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that. I’m on the defense here as a fan. I’m working to convince people of what is better.


Originally posted by: CO
Anakin turning evil should have been because of the Clone Wars and getting 'caught' up with all the politics of the galaxy.

Wars bring out the best and worst out of people, and there are many grey areas when looking at a war. Is the Iraq war worth it? Was the war in Vietnam worth it? Should the Americans dropped 2 Atom bombs on Japan in 1945? Lucas could have challenged the viewer to actually consider Anakins stance in the Clone Wars, and maybe think it was wrong, but understanding he may be right.

CO, I basically agree with all of your sentiments, but these are particularly notable. I can understand Vader working to help destroy Alderaan in the original Star Wars, and I see him as taking the only course of action he thinks he can take in his war. His war is to enforce his iron will over all the galaxy, and destroying an entire planet in the course of a war may seem justified to him. His motivation would then be unethical and unfair from a philosophical standpoint, but I could see a person deluding himself enough to hold that viewpoint and still perhaps be redeemable.

In addition to that sort of moral decline though, I didn’t mind the idea of the dark side of the force enslaving a person’s mind. The idea of enslavement made sense to me in Jedi because I believed it couldn’t override Anakin’s ability to choose good or evil. In other words, the more he was enslaved, the more he had to have made choices in the past that would have lead to his enslavement. Therefore, when under his master’s control, the dark side would torment him and hold him to the evil he compromised himself to embrace.


Originally posted by: zombie84
I don't think the PT failed strictly because of the turn. Personally i felt that the emotional angle of Anakin's turn-- an obsession to save a loved one from death which results in him selling his soul to protect Padme, only to have this very act kill her and thus leave him transformed into a monster--is the most brilliant stroke that Lucas came up with since he made Vader and Father Skywalker the same person in 1978.


I wholeheartedly agree. The beginning to RotS was “brilliant” for the most part. Strangely enough, even the dialogue was decent and the acting was good for some strange reason (maybe Lucas wised up on this end). That part of the movie was way, way too long and filled with too much useless crap (like General Grievous acting like an idiot, and most of the simple-minded, political bullshit), but I was actually finding myself attached to Anakin and Padme. I was actually beginning to think I liked them.

However, zombie, Lucas made a gigantic mistake when he kept most of the original “turn” scene. Suddenly, Anakin’s convincingly portrayed care becomes seen in a new and terrible light. Based on the following actions (like murdering innocent kids), Anakin cannot be a person who loves others in a way where he empathizes with them. He only feels hurt when his own selfish desires are in jeopardy. Clearly when we saw him loving Padme so tenderly it was only because she made him feel good in a personal sense. The minute she angered him to even the slightest degree, what did he then do? He senselessly choked her to death. This is just sick.

Unless the force somehow, magically enslaved Anakin after the turn, his psychopathic behavior in the later part of the movie means that all of his love was psychopathic. And, if the force’s enslavement is magical (as I think George intended), then the force becomes incredibly lame. There can be no “good” or “evil” since the force doesn’t allow someone to make free choices. One day, someone can be perfectly fine and loving, and the next day the force will irrationally take over his mind and cause him to murder little children.

So, I’m left with a dilemma, is Anakin a psychopath, or is the force a retarded and self-contradicting concept? I prefer to say that Anakin is a psychopath and then pretend the prequels don’t exist in the same universe as the OT.
Post
#261724
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261724/action/topic#261724
Time
Originally posted by: CO
Tiptup, I actually didn't have a problem with the Anakin character til ROTS, then I started to ?????????????? what the fuck Lucas was trying to say?

I agree for the most part. The idea of Vader as once being a good kid worked for me totally and, as annoying as he was, I could still accept Anakin in AotC. The worst part about Anakin in AotC is how he is so whiny and his dialogue so atrocious, and in those aspects I cannot transfer them to Vader. But, yeah, overall I could still understand his actions. It’s the RotS Anakin that I cannot identify with in any worthwhile way. So we basically agree.


Originally posted by: CO
When I see Anakin as a force ghost in ROTJ now, whether it be Shaw or Hayden, and I think about it in the context 1-6, I don't think he should be there for what he did. I understand he redeemed himself by saving his son and killing the sith, and his last scene should have been with Luke as he dies with his mask off. By never seeing Anakin after that it says this moral message after 6 movies, "Good people do bad things, good people can do awful things too, and in the end, even if you do good at the end of your life, it still doesn't erase the horrors you put on people for many years." By Anakin not being a force ghost, and only Kenobi & Yoda staring back at Luke, it says that Anakin was able to see his son as the good man he was, but he will pay a price for his horrors as he can never become a force ghost.


That would have been an interesting direction to take the ending. (It would be more meaningful than saying that the younger, good version Anakin was “resurrected” as George now claims.) Still, to the degree of our own will, I firmly believe that it’s possible to commit the most heinous crimes and still have the possibility of redemption. Of course, the more evil we commit, the less likely it is that we have any desire for goodness, but our hearts are not rigidly predictable and we may have the possibility of turning away from our own evil. RotS Anakin, however, shows us someone so evil that I have an almost impossible time imagining him ever rationally desiring goodness. He’s evil to the core as far as I can tell. Perhaps I can identify with that, but I would never enjoy it.

What I wanted in PT was two things: Anakin having a tragic, but understandable fall into darkness (involving small steps) and an explanation for the enslavement that the dark side of the force had on Darth Vader in RotJ.
Post
#261682
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261682/action/topic#261682
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
No it's hollow for redeeming someone we were never introduced to.


Hah, Go-Mer, I love how you make idiotic replies just to rile people up. It makes me wonder if you truly believe the SE and the "saga" are better. If you can treat truth and reason so lightly, then how am I to believe you are even expressing your honest beliefs and your actual reasoning? Heh, whenever your idiocy is answered, you immediately drop that logical point and bring up yet another. I already know that you spout shit just because you like provoking people, but perhaps that is the end you actually seek. (If you're not allowed to change the topic you simply run away from a conversation.) It's funny. I now believe that there's a good chance that actually you prefer the OT and hate the saga.


You bring up an interesting discussion point though: the meaning that the original form of Vader's redemption had. Darth Vader had no need to be introduced any further than he had already been for us to care about him. It was gripping to know that a man who had fathered Luke (and Leia), had elicited warm memories from Ben, and had fought for the side of good had also somehow fallen into evil and become a monster. But it is a great spiritual truth that no man can know the heart of another completely. The question of whether or not Luke could reach out to Vader’s goodness was an unknown to the other characters and particularly to the audience. Would Vader turn from evil? Could he even if he wanted to?

When Vader saves Luke by killing the emperor, we see that Luke had succeeded in his chosen mission. He took a stand and refused to kill his own father because he believed there was good in him. That's hardly hollow on its own (it gives me goose bumps) but another big question after that concerned the actual redemption. It's one thing for a monster to save the life of his child (he could simply be turning from one evil and embracing another). It's a totally different thing for a monster to have a complete change of heart. We didn't know if Vader would be lost forever or not. But, at the end, we see him standing alongside Ben and Yoda in light. That's very moving.

My point is that the redemption of Darth Vader is so gripping precisely because we know so little about him. Would Luke be able to appeal to his goodness? Could Luke convince him to repent? Would Vader genuinely turn away from darkness and would the good side of the force prevent his spirit from being consumed by it forever? We didn't know! It was fantastic, human drama precisely because we weren’t introduced to Vader in any close way.

I never believed that George Lucas could actually ruin this, however. I thought that no matter how the PT unfolded, Vader would still be a rational man who would make evil choices out of mistaken ideals and impatience. In other words, he would degenerate into a monster, but that the monster would be seen as one that still had the capacity for goodness. Instead, we got a very different kind of monster. We got a psychopath. We got someone so evil and self-centered that we can't even believe he was ever even good in the first place! Even when he seemed to act like a good guy, those actions had to have been only for his own, selfish, psychotic reasons (if the overall character is to make any sense). There's no true goodness to be found there. No real ability to repent. You have a heart that can protect innocent children in one second and then murder them senselessly in the next without any empathy or even a second-thought concerning the wisdom of it all. We weren’t given a rational descent into evil, one that still tried to be honorable and was tortured by what he had become. Instead we got a pathetic crybaby whose only tears were tears of selfish greed.