logo Sign In

Tiptup

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

Post History

Post
#257213
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257213/action/topic#257213
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
The only thing which all sources claim, is that Lucas really suffered making the first Star Wars. A lot of pressure was put on him during the whole production. He could indeed have done things differently than he really would like to have. On the other hand though, this IS what created the film in the first place. This whole atmosphere influenced the creative process, apparently positively. Otherwise, the original movies wouldn´t have had this succes. Lucas and lot of his supporters fail to realize this important point.


Very true.
Post
#257212
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257212/action/topic#257212
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I find more often than not people tend to contradict themselves on a regular basis.

Is that wrong? I really can't say I know.


If a person truly contradicts himself or herself, then I would definitely say that is wrong. But, sometimes it may look as if a person is operating in a contradictory manner, and yet they are not. It's almost always difficult to tell, and I don't mean to sound as if I have the right to tear someone down for their partialities. (We are all predisposed towards making mistakes after all.) At the very most, I will vigorously attack opinions that I understand as wrong, but I’ll try to not accuse people of them in definite ways.


In my example the puppy lover enjoyed seeing puppies on film while completely failing to recognize the hateful aspects of the movie he enjoyed. However once he had the contradicting aspects pointed out to him, he then had options with regard to how he would then respond to that information. Pretending the problems don't exist by completely ignoring them or rationalizing them away shouldn't be among his possible choices though.

I believe it is best to focus on the good and enjoy films in light of whatever we deem important. That means that there can be flaws, such as contradictions, but that we can then try to overlook them and enjoy what we see as long so the flaws do not destroy any parts of the film that are actually important to us. (Importance, I believe, is the key since that best describes particular points of view.) If the movies produced within our culture have progressed to the point where we then begin to expect a certain level of quality in certain areas, then those aspects are important to us. If a film is found to be lacking to one degree or another in that way then we will most likely express displeasure. However, there may be points of view that do not give that much importance to those same aspects, and in that case we can find honest disagreements. An individual with the latter point of view can then acknowledge the possibility for real flaws in something he or she may enjoy, but then clarify that those flaws are not actually found in anything important to his or her enjoyment and that the flaws can therefore be ignored in a sense.


Anyways, most of the greatest philosophers and artists in history have believed that there is structure and unchanging principles to be found in every possible kind of beauty, at least to some degree. I believe it is best that we are never arrogant enough to believe that beauty can only be found within our own subjective minds. We don't have the right to define everything for ourselves like that. At the very least we can say that some things are objective and that we should seek out truth whenever we can.
Post
#257126
Topic
Chronicles of Narnia (The movie) striking similarities with The Lord of the Rings (the movie)(s)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257126/action/topic#257126
Time
Narnia was a very generic movie, true, but it wasn't bad.

I suppose what I disliked was how the pacing of the book (which was slow and tame) was replaced with cheap thrills meant to heighten the suspense (like the wolf chase or making the Witch seem so evil right away).

Narnia's story was supposed to be about the kids if you ask me. It was supposed to be about their experience of some amazing events. That was almost totally lost in all of the cinematically forced emotions and the overabundance of combat sequences. Aslan seemed so unimpressive squashed between all of that.
Post
#257123
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257123/action/topic#257123
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
When did anyone claim to love nothingness?

There are definitely people in this world that claim to love nothingness according to their expressed tastes. Have you ever heard of nihilists? What about people who have such negative attitudes about certain forms of art that they'd throw out all of the good with the bad? In that limited sense there are people that prefer nothingness if they find no good alternatives.

Either way, Go-Mer, are you saying that you believe that someone is wrong if they prefer nothingness?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Go ahead and call me stupid, I feel taste is subjective.


I see no need to call you stupid just yet, but thank you for the permission.

Otherwise, where did I claim that taste is not subjective? I devoted an entire paragraph to that fact in my last reply, Go-Mer. I guess that makes your previous post very stupid.

Why didn't you respond to my puppy-lover example?

We weren't arguing if taste is subjective, Go-Mer. We were debating if taste can be objectively understood and then judged as right or wrong. Those are two different things and if you need me to explain the difference for your benefit then I'll be glad to do just that.
Post
#256765
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/256765/action/topic#256765
Time
Chewy, for whatever reason Go-Mer is terrible at following the logical progression of arguments. So, unless you can be patient and force him to stick to the actual arguments, I wouldn’t suggest arguing with him.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Tiptup, in matters of taste, I don't think anyone's crazy.

If that is truly the case then you’d have to be stupid. I don’t think you realize what you’re saying there. For instance: if someone prefers darkness, soundlessness, and bodiless nothingness, then how would that “taste” not be crazy by definition?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

To me artistic preference is an opinion, not right or wrong.


Then you’d be wrong.

If you have an opinion, then it must be the result of real, objective circumstances on some level. All truth meets somewhere, Go-Mer, or else there would be no scientific coherence between your reality and mine. If you have a unique point of view (which you obviously do), then that point of view can be described and distinguished from my point of view to at least some degree, or else it would be impossible to argue that it is unique. Then, if a point of view is analyzed in that way, I can guarantee you that we will find things that are “right” or “wrong” about it.

Let’s look at an example: A guy loves puppies. He loves everything about them. He thinks they are adorable and wants be around puppies as long as he lives. Then he sees a movie that tears apart endless acres of real, living puppies limb from limb. Now, this film has a hateful attitude towards puppies, horribly killed endless numbers of real puppies, and expresses a point of view that probably wouldn’t care if puppies were erased from existence. Yet, let’s say that our puppy lover enjoyed this movie because, from his perspective, he loved how the movie had lots of puppies in it (and boy does he love puppies!). I’m sorry but there’s definitely something very wrong here. The very reason he likes the movie contradicts what the movie is about on the whole!

Don’t even try to give me the bullshit that artistic expression can’t be right or wrong. It can be all the time. Even I can admit that my most beloved forms of entertainment aren’t perfect. Everything made by people has mistakes and wrongs in it. To deny that fact is to deny who we are. Yet, on the other hand, some forms of entertainment are better than others and there’s nothing wrong with seeking out the best art we can find in an objective fashion.

Now, of course choice is always involved in this process, and we can always choose to be fond of things that do not deserve fondness. I don’t want to pretend that our points of view are enslaved by our perspective of our environment. Sentimental attachment is important in this regard, and if someone wants to argue for their preferences on this basis, despite admitting glaring faults or inferiority, then I can be totally fine with that. But, let’s not be idiotic enough to fool ourselves into thinking that there is no objective truth relating to beauty.

If you love the prequel trilogy, Go-Mer, then tell me your point of view and argue for it. If I then point out my problems with your point of view (problems that prevent me from seeing things the same way you do), don’t pretend like my problems don’t exist and simply be ignored! Try to argue why you don’t believe they are problems! If you can’t argue them away, then admit that they could be problems, but that you can ignore them. I would accept that from you.

If the puppy lover from my example is honest and fair enough to admit that his movie should have problems being liked from his perspective, then I’d be happy with that. Then the film’s negative attitude and treatment towards puppies is simply something he can ignore, and he can love how it shows him lots of puppies despite that clear problem. In that case he’d no longer be “wrong” because we both agree about the objective state of things. His puppy loving perspective ignores the puppy hating aspects of the movie and therefore works.
Post
#256331
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/256331/action/topic#256331
Time
I was one of the people who thought Darth vader was totally awesome. He had a kickass outfit, he had mysterious powers, and he was a mystery. But, we knew at the very least that he was very evil. He was a monster who would do very evil things to achieve his goals. The stories were never about him. The stories were never about Darth vader's achievements. They were always about what the hero, Luke, could accomplish. Even at the end, when Darth Vader tosses the emperor over the edge, that wasn't a very difficult action, it was Luke who reached out to him and convinced him to turn from evil. Even after he died, and I saw his body being burned by Luke, I still saw him as an evil monster.

For George to claim that Darth Vader's story was ever "originally intended" to be the focus of the original trilogy, at any point, is laughably ridiculous.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I certainly know what you are talking about, I'm just suggesting that in a debate such as this, where I clearly represent a minority view, the idea that "most" fans disagree with me is a moot point anyway.


Not if you are communicating the attitude that it's crazy to dislike the prequels because they're perfectly equivalent in quality to the original trilogy. You act as if it should be clear as day to us as you offer scant reasoning to back up your statements. Considering that the majority of people that I have run into in casual circumstances believe the PT was inferior, it would be nice if you at least acknowledged that your point of view is actually difficult for most people to identify with.
Post
#256265
Topic
A New Hope HDTV screenshots
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/256265/action/topic#256265
Time
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker

I must say i agree that you can definatly see a difference. But if your telling me that this difference is worth a) buying new equipment to watch stuff in HD b) repurchasing all your DVDs in HD or c) just paying the prices for the equipment and DVDs alone, your out of your mind.


I've been specifically not buying DVDs I wanted in anticipation for the HD formats (specifically Blu-ray). otherwise, the equipment upgrade is worth the increase in visual data.
Post
#256263
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/256263/action/topic#256263
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I just think that there is really no use in being objective. No matter how "objective" either of us try to be, it ends up being futile right?


Futile? Hardly.

I believe in truth. I believe in science. I believe that everything in this universe can be known or understood to some degree. There is nothing that cannot be tested or analyzed in some way. Everything that truly exists can be known to exist if we properly look for it.

Aesthetics is a science that has existed for thousands of years and beauty is its primary concern. That is the point of this thread. I want reasons for why you can enjoy the prequels. I want to know why you find them beautiful in precise terms. I don't want to waste my time listening to unsupported opinions or wild brain farts. Some forms of entertainment are objectively better than others and some things are objectively ugly.

Majority opinions do not equal concrete evidence that a given work of art is bad or good. The reason for this is not because beauty is subjective, but because the sources for our sample opinions are flawed. However, in this case, if our opinions are sampled from people who generally give films a fair chance, enjoyed the original Star Wars for what it was (at the very least), and have an intelligent approach to art all around, then a majority opinion would carry a lot of weight. Certainly, we would always be required to doubt this opinion since we can't perfectly know if these people are being objective or to what degree, but we can at least say that their opinions have value on some level. Doesn't that sound reasonable, Go-Mer?
Post
#256155
Topic
morals
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/256155/action/topic#256155
Time
John Lennon was a very weak philosopher if you ask me. He was a good composer of music however.

I have always been my own primary teacher since I don't fully trust anything if I can't figure it out in my own way. The pursuit of truth is my life goal. After that, I respect the lessons found in the Bible and the logic of Solomon and the Apostle Paul the most by far.
Post
#256150
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/256150/action/topic#256150
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I'll grant you there were a lot of people who didn't like them. But I don't see how that makes them a "mistake" on Lucas' part.

I'm just saying that no matter what Lucas did, there would have been some fans that didn't like it. I'm not being unreasonable in that assumption am I?


What? Where did I attack the reason of your assumption, Go-Mer? Are you really this stupid or do you simply enjoy arguing about topics that nobody is arguing about?

No, Go-Mer, as far as I'm concerned, your "assumption" there is an obvious fact. Is it not obvious to you? I actually think you're being an asshole for assuming that people need to even be told that. Nobody here, that I'm aware of, is that stupid. Even if someone here were that stupid, your statement has no relevance in this thread as an argument, Go-Mer (which is what I'm trying to tell you).

We are all very much aware that there will always be the odd, strange person who has a messed-up view of reality and might actually hate something wonderful, or enjoy something that clearly sucks. In fact, you remind us of that fact with practically every post of yours.

How would you like it, Go-Mer, if I responded to each and every one your posts with, "Well, no matter what George Lucas did in the PT, there will be fans that will love it no matter what"? Would that be a good argument to your reasons for liking the trilogy? Would you have liked it if I dismissed you as crazy and insinuated your unfairness with every reply I ever gave to you?
Post
#256137
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/256137/action/topic#256137
Time
Go-Mer, stupidly repeating the phrase "you can't please everyone" is not a valid argument in this thread whatsoever. I'm getting annoyed by it. Beauty is not invincably subjective. If someone happens to enjoy something, then there must always be an objective way in which they enjoy it, so argue on that precise, analytical basis.

Otherwise, arguing based upon public opinion can be very important. If the vast majority of people who watched Episode I were of the opinion that midichlorians were "dumb" (at least in the way they were presented in the film) then it would be more likely that the concept didn't entertain. It doesn't mean that they are correct of course, or that there aren't rare perspectives where midichlorians were fantastic from the start, but the likelyhood that they are correct is greater if they are in the majority.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Tiptup, I can see what you are saying, but my point is, can't you assume Lucas intends it in the way you prefer until he actually says that's not the case?


I do that to a degree already. That doesn't mean I can't guess what he considers official based upon what he presented. I don't have to pretend that George intended it the way i wanted him to just to feel better. My life does not revolve around Star Wars and the mind of George Lucas. Does yours?
Post
#255774
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255774/action/topic#255774
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I went back and checked, and, yeah, while it didn't register with me before, that is pretty much what you said, so sorry I missed that.


Well, you were different in the sense that you were focusing on midichlorians being drawn to a host by his sensitivity and I was focusing on them being drawn to living things that the force "is strong with." So the similarity was not huge. I mostly just wanted to communicate that I was in agreement with you.

And, Go-Mer, maybe George intended it to be vague in order to imply that their connection to the force should be doubted (and that's why he never expands upon them), but my hunch is that he considers them solid truth. And, in the end, what he decides is officially true for the Star Wars universe so I don't like going beyond what seems likely. But, you could possibly be right.
Post
#255672
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255672/action/topic#255672
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I just thought of a way that midichlorians could not only make sense in their job but not ruin people's preconceived notions of the Force. What if midichlorians weren't inherently present in a human being's (or any life form's) body with Force sensitivity dependent on their existence but were drawn, rather, to Force sensitivity? So people with high midichlorian counts would only have high midichlorian counts because they were, for whatever reason, strong with the Force?


Uhm, yeah, that's what I originally thought (and said above), but did George intend that? I don't think so.
Post
#255671
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255671/action/topic#255671
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

See the part of your case I am having the most trouble with is your insistance on calling force sensitives "mutations".

All life has midichlorians. It's just that they noticed a higher concentration of midichlorians in particularly force sensitive beings, which is why the Jedi have adopted midichlorian testing as a way to pick out Jedi hopefuls before they are old enough to demonstrate pronounced force ability.

The fact that they are based on Mitochondria (according to Lucas himself) tells me that he's not considering force sensitivity a mutation, just that some beings have a stronger innate ability with the Force.

It is precisely because their foundational concept is the mitochondrion that I call Jedi mutants. All human cells that contain mitochondria will tolerate a specific amount of the bacteria. To possess more mitochondria means that the cell must be mutated and abnormal. Therefore, to have more “midichlorians” growing in symbioses with a Star-Wars person’s cells, they would need to be physically capable of that; mutants.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Before the Midichlorians, there was a stronger case for force sensitivity being a mutation, because for whatever reason, the Force ran strong only in certain family lines, or at least that was strongly implied by the end of the classic trilogy.


No, because you could attribute that to hereditary willpower; minds more inclined to have to have faith and meditate on the force. You didn’t need physical mutation. Also, it could have been based upon destiny, more power with the force followed a family because that was their destiny, and not their arbitrary mutation.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I think the Midichlorian concept clarifies that all beings can tap into the Force to verying degrees based on both their midi-count, and their discipline. Someone like Han for example could potentially use the Force if he took it seriously and leanred the art and put a lot of effort into perfecting his skill.


Maybe, but Han wouldn’t be able to do as much as a Jedi since his count would be so low. He would only have an ordinary amount of the bacteria growing within him after all. (Maybe he was a mutant with even less midichlorians than average considering how skeptical he was.) All other things being equal, Han would be weaker with the force.
Post
#255663
Topic
Anyone see ER last week (11-02-06)? RE: Padme's death
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255663/action/topic#255663
Time
Originally posted by: Wesyeed

In padme's case, it wasn't just that, but everything about Padme from eps 1 to 2 shows she's not one to die so easily and supposedly cares about things greater than just her and anakin. she even says "you're going down a path i can't follow" right? I can't remember exactly... haven't seen that movie in months. So her just going dead after fighting wars, surviving assasinations, and having two healthy kids just seemed ridiculous and completely against who she was supposed to be to me. In the end, I conclude that time was short and GL was in a rush to end everything in five minutes... A veteran of the clone wars dies not fighting for anything, just giving up. Kinda sad really but not the way it was intended.


Exactly, she was a powerful warrior and then she just fizzles out? It wasn't even from a quick shock like that ER episode, or an old person falling into despair and becoming sick. It was silly.

The only emotionally moving part at the end of Sith was how hard Obiwan took Anakin's betrayal. That was well done and it made sense.