logo Sign In

Tiptup

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

Post History

Post
#261616
Topic
R.I.P. Peter Boyle
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261616/action/topic#261616
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan

Yes. Now Clyde Bruckman has truly met his final repose. Time to work on that closing technique once and for all.


Heh, yeah. That episode is in my top five X-Files episodes precisely because of Boyle. He was so passively frank and so depressingly fatalistic that he really got you to feel sorry for him. A truly skilled actor. He could handle a number of very different roles and emotions. I was laughing today about Young Frankenstien (I need to see that movie again).
Post
#261615
Topic
Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261615/action/topic#261615
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
And Anakin's "redemption" at the end makes much more sense when he finally gets the courage to stand up to his master for the right reasons rather than finally enacting his generation-long mutiny plans, which just happen to be for the right reasons.


The redemption of Anakin at the end is actually a "resurrection" now. George changed his mind (due to his simplistic understanding of Buddism) and decided that an evil man can never be redeemed. Instead, a good man can be randomly and illogically replaced by an evil man (in his head or something) and then that evil man can be randomly and illogically re-replaced by the first, good man, so long as he has a child who is willing to try and reason with the bad man that has replaced him in a way that . . . .

I give up.

Your points about Vader being totally loyal to Palpatine are correct though, Gaffer. If George had intended Vader to perhaps be rebellious in Empire, he had totally erased that concept for Jedi. We can only conclude that Vader was lying to Luke or, at the most, that he was expressing wishes that could not be fullfilled (because of his level of enslavement).
Post
#261387
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261387/action/topic#261387
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Tiptup, I'm not sure I properly conveyed the gist of my question. I understand when a war is considered "just" vs. "unjust" (despite some very gray areas) ... but I was wondering when, in your view, the civilians of a society can be held responsible for the war acts of their ruling regime .. and thus be legitimate targets of military attack ... whether for coercion to surrender or as direct "assets" to wipe out?


I thought I was being pretty clear that I believe civilians to be a legitimate target when they have satisfied two criteria. Namely, when they are mobilizing to support a war effort and when the war effort they support is unjust. At that point we can coerce them to surrender and even kill them if need be, just so long as we don’t attack them beyond that which we try to wisely determine as needful. Our “need” in this context is to discourage an enemy “civilian” population from supporting a war, and/or destroy their physical ability to support it. (A secondary “need” is to do this in ways that will simultaneously preserve the lives of the people from our own nation.)

A society is responsible for supporting a war if they support it, it doesn’t matter in what way. Certainly if their chosen support for a war is low (as may be the case under a totalitarian regime), we should take that into account and be less inclined to target them. Still though, even in this case, support for an unjust war is still support (whether physical or mental), and if the best wisdom we can muster decides that it is best to attack that civilian population, to the degree they support it, then so be it.


The civilians in Iraq should be targeted to the degree they support evil actions and illegitimate authority. And, in terms of WW2 Japan, I believe the atom bomb attacks would not have worked as mere demonstrations only. By using them to destroy actual military targets (mobilized cities) they were far more compelling. That’s not to say that pure demonstrations of power cannot work under certain circumstances, and shouldn’t be considered, but with the Japanese of that time, I’m convinced that such an approach would have solved practically nothing (even with the two bombs attacks, we were barely able to convince them to surrender).
Post
#261319
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261319/action/topic#261319
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

How does one determine when any particular society is pertrating an evil war?

Basic ethics will do. The idea of a “Just War Theory” has existed in the western world for a very long time. For instance, legitimate authority is usually a very important concept. To rebel against a proper authority or to clearly invade its realm without the defense of human rights and the pursuit of justice as a priority, that would generally be considered an unjust war. In basic terms, if a country perpetrates injustices (or attempts to perpetrate injustices), based upon a common understanding of good and evil, we can then take just action to stop it (so long as the response fits the injustice).

In terms of specifics, the US was not “unprovoked” in the most recent Iraq war according to any reasonable evaluation that I know of. And in terms of totalitarian-controlled societies, their ability to function is still, sadly, a valid war target if they support an unjust war.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

I guess I'm just not clear on when civilians are fair game, in your mind. They rarely are in mine. Even if it were determined that civilian infrastructure had to be taken out for legitimate war goals (i.e, a bridge taken out to disrupt economic activity as opposed to disrupting military transport), would you rather bomb the bridge, or the TV station, or the airport in the middle of night, to minimize casualties? Or is killing as many civilians as possible a legitimate war tactic?

If so, is it legitimate as a tactic of extortion (such as a nuclear strike on a metropolitan area) or is the killing of civilians for the express purpose of wiping out a population ever allowable?


Appropriately moderating a response in comparison to a threat is never a clear subject and human beings will always make mistakes. We often go too far when attacking an enemy, or, as is also often the case, not far enough. Directly attacking a civilian population should generally be a last resort. In the case of Japan, convincing the Japanese that we now had the power to utterly defeat them, by detonating atom bombs above two of their cities, might have been the wisest move to make. I am generally of the opinion that it was.
Post
#261277
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261277/action/topic#261277
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
I have to respectfully disagree, Tiptup. The 9/11 attacks, though they dastardly killed over 3,000 innocent civilians, primarily had a very disruptive effect on the entire U.S. economy. Thus, this particular act of terrorism was not merely the type of extortion we usually ascribe to these acts (i.e., attempting to coerce political change).

I don't know if bin Laden was really that saavy, but the 9/11 attack was not merely symbolic or extortionist ... it had a true and significant detremental effect on an entire nation via attack on civilian targets.

The effect of destroying the World Trade Towers on our country was terrible, but it did not threaten our ability to continue functioning in any truly fundamental way. The attack accomplished no clear goal of war that would lead to our "defeat." It was primarily an act of murder and terrorism.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

Tiptup, are you in any way suggesting that attacks on civilians which actually cause a nation to sustain damage are legitimate acts of war? Please clarify, if you wouldn't mind. As the only person participating in a civil discussion on an adult basis, I would hate to put words into your mouth.


Yes, awhile back I said that attacks on civilians who are important to an enemy war effort would be justified so long as the war itself was justified. There's nothing innocent about a society that supports an evil war, and the greater the degree to which it supports an evil war, the more it should be targeted with appropriately measured attacks.
Post
#261246
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261246/action/topic#261246
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

You realize, of course, that claiming the Japanese citizens were - in essence - enemy combatants (to use the modern term for non-military fighting force) is tantamount to a rationalization of terrorism itself - - i.e, seeing civilians as legitimate military/political-objective targets.


This thread has totally degenerated.

I just want to say, quickly, that terrorism does not target a civilian population in any way where damage is sustained. It cannot, by definition, win a "war" since at best, it can only seek to influence free populations through random fear. This kind of behavior delegitimizes a terrorist’s chosen targets in the first place. When you start considering the hypocritical and evil goals of the prominent terrorist groups in our modern world, you can see to an even greater degree how their targets are not legitimate.
Post
#261075
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261075/action/topic#261075
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

Oh, and fantasy-oriented though it might be ... when it comes to war and peace and honor and violence, would it not be appropriate around here to ask WWYD? (what would Yoda do?) That's all. Peacenik Out.


Well, around the survivors, a perimeter he'd create. Then he'd scream and bounce around swinging his lightsaber.


Oh, the OT Yoda?
Post
#261074
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261074/action/topic#261074
Time
Originally posted by: JediRandy

The OOT is on DVD and, if it's as in demand as it's made out to be around SW message boards, it'll be available once again with the proper aspect ratios, etc... if LFL has proved anything its that they'll release anything as long as there is a demand for it.


"If" it's as in demand? "If"?!

I'm guessing you don't really understand how large the Star Wars fanbase is. Even if the poeple who would like to own a high-quality, dedicated release of the theatrical versions comprise only a small minority of Star Wars fans, you're still talking about easy money. Of course, this assumes that George Lucas would give a shit enough to put his stamp of approval on something with effort and care put into it (which a dedicated, nerdy fanbase would require). DVD technology is capable of a lot, and the theatrical release of Star Wars and its two sequels deserve what that technology that can give us.
Post
#260983
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260983/action/topic#260983
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

Wouldn't you use Star Wars as a money making machine if numerous companies depended on the brand to survive?


No, not if Star Wars was no longer particularly interesting to me. I would pass control of the franchise onto other artists and see what they want to do with it. (Or, better yet, I would invent new films and new ideas to hopefully make money with.) I doubt I would analyze every detail of the franchise according to what makes more money or less money. I'd value the art first.

Oh, and just to be clear, I don’t fault a man for altering his art in light of a pursuit of money (even if I would try to do otherwise). If you want to know why I'm displeased with Lucas, Jumpman, it’s not because of how he’s changed Star Wars (though I do find that sad). For years George promoted himself as a genius whose singular, intentional vision is what bestowed Star Wars upon the world and I believed that bullshit. I thought George was one of the greatest artists of our modern time.

Then, as time went by, I began to see how much the prequels sucked and I began to question the image I had acquired of Lucas. Then George began to ignore the original versions of the OT to the point where I could only conclude that he desired to erase them, and I became perplexed by George's motives. And, lastly, the 2004 DVDs are released with outright offensive changes and I lost all of my previous respect for the man. So, now with great reason to be skeptical, I went back and researched his true role in the original Star Wars and discovered that, aside from some generic concepts he was able to use in fresh ways, Star Wars owed most of its artistic achievement to all of the other people that George worked with (people like Ralph McQuarrie). George Lucas, at most, helped organize everything brilliantly according to the groundwork he devised. That’s hardly a single-handed achievement, and if the man is going to lift his image so high, then he deserves a rough landing when people discover the truth.
Post
#260932
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260932/action/topic#260932
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

I can explain it by the fact that he was financing The Empire Strikes Back with his own money and the fact that Kurtz was going way over budget. Empire had more riding on it than just continuing the story. He wanted to make a great film first, but he had plans for the profit that Empire was to generate. He is an artist but he's a businessman. And for me, he never sacrificed one for the other. From where I stand, he's done a perfect balance when it comes to the Star Wars brand.


His plans for using Star Wars as a money-making machine actually proves that he was more detached from the artistic side than he was with the first film. There was a recent interview posted here (done before Empire was released) where George specifically said he wasn't all that interested in making Star Wars movies and simply wanted a way to make his film pursuits become fincacially secure. Detached.
Post
#260845
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260845/action/topic#260845
Time
Obi, this is almost painful. I greatly respect your views on the Lord of Rings and Star Wars, and now I’m seeing some rather extreme opinions from you. I know I have extreme opinions of my own, but it’s still odd to find myself disagreeing with you so strongly here.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
I cannot equally judge the actions of another era with the morals of our own. Not to say that Lincoln was right, or that slavery wasn't totally and utterly wrong then and now ... but I hope you get my drift that what may have been acceptable yesterday is not so today. Likewise, I hope some terrible things acceptable today are not accepted in the future.

Hmm, interesting perspective. Though I would then contend that your attack on the Bush administration’s actions still seems extreme in light of it.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Funny, I thought our rights were "inalienable," not granted to us by ANYONE. That's the whole point of the United States of America - - recognition of inalienable rights. And please feel free to point me to anywhere in the law where non-citizens have unequal rights to justice.

Nobody is claiming that non-citizens don’t have equal rights as human beings. We are talking about equal protection for those rights. It is an automatic assumption in our collection of laws that non-citizens are not given the same protections. It is the duty of their own government to protect them. This fact hardly means that we are moving towards totalitarianism. It’s been this way since our country was founded. It’s common sense.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
And if war is declared to be permanent, what time limit should be placed on these extraordinary powers?

I don’t see how we’re in a “permanent” war or how the wartime powers our country is currently discussing (such as listening to totally suspicious phone calls) are so extreme that we can’t allow them for ten years or however long the goals of the war take.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
If I wasn't crystal clear that I'm disparaging purposeful human acts of violence against other humans, let me be so now.


I know what you meant, but in a fundamental, physical sense, there is no difference between the violence perpetrated by human beings and the rest of nature. You cannot simply talk about the results of violence in vague terms as if it is all horrible and then condemn the United States for wielding such violence (as you did). The question must be if violence is justified.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
And I would generally agree with that. Hence my point about two nuclear bombs not being a measured response - in my hardly unique view.


There’s nothing unique or extreme about believing the nuclear bomb attacks were uncalled for. It’s easily a minority position among most Americans, but the issue is complicated enough to warrant reasonable disagreement.

What is extreme, however, is to make no moral distinction between the people of Japan and the people of the United States, and to say that an attack on one (during the prosecution of a war) is morally equivalent to an attack on the other.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
The Japanese supported their country's war effort, and the Americans supported ours. The Japanese people were no more a legitimate target of war than the American people were.


Again, I find that revolting. The Japanese people were not innocent. Their actions supported an unjust war. As such an important and powerful part of the war effort, their day-to-day functioning was an important target. I would argue that an attack on them was legitimate. Certainly it would have been more legitimate than an attack on our civilians (seeing as how we were on the just side of the war).