Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicYou see them talking about attachments being bad, and striving to "only think about others", but the reality is as Palpatine points out, they still operate in ways beneficial to themselves. To a viewer, that adds more uneasiness about everything. If the Jedi's virtues aren't as solid as they should be, then the Jedi are fooling themselves. They are more and more allowing the ends to justify the means.
Notice in the beginning of ROTS, the crawl talks about how there are heroes on both sides, and that evil is everywhere? Lucas talks about how the Jedi had become fundamentally corrupted
George Lucas: The Jedi are always fighting this reality that they're, in essence, diplomats. they sort of persuade people to do the right thing... but their job really isn't to go around fighting people, yet they are now used as generals, and they are fighting a war, and they are doing something they really weren't meant to do. They're being corrupted by this war. By being forced into being generals, instead of peace makers.
I don't condemn Anakin for loving Padme, I don't condemn him for wanting to save her, I don't condemn him for wanting to bring his concept of "peace" to the galaxy. I condemn him for crossing the line to meet those goals. Where exactly did Anakin cross the line? Was it when he slaughtered a tribe of Tuskan Raiders that had kidnapped and tortured his mother to death? Was it when he killed DooKu after disarming him and having him under control? Was it when he disarmed Mace Windu to prevent him from illegally killing an unarmed prisoner? Was it when he pledged himself to Sidious' teachings? Certainly by the time he was slaughtering innocent younglings there was no question about it anymore. The line had been fully crossed.
Interesting, but that quote from George does not show that he intended that plot point to be used as a justification for what we’re actually discussing here. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you agree with me that PT-Jedi virtues were hypocritical and impossible to follow, but I don’t believe George sees these particular Jedi virtues in the same way that you and I do. At best, that quote only proves that he wanted to show the war corrupting the Jedi away from their “universal” values and not that their universally-oriented values were flawed in the first place.
It makes no sense to claim that our devotion to personal values must contradict or be balanced with our devotion to universal values as if the two kinds of values apposed each other. The personal and the universal are perfectly compatible; they overlap perfectly; they aren’t mutually exclusive qualities. It is when our personal values or universal values are evil and the other is good that we begin to find them in conflict. It is good and evil that are truly apposed to each other (not the personal and the universal). Personal values do not automatically lead to evil anymore than universal values would.
Oh, and I’m glad you condemn Anakin for killing younglings and showing no empathy for them or remorse over his action. His personal values and universal values became screwed up enough for him to then desire the purposeless deaths of little, innocent children and that’s neither commendable nor understandable.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicI'm not sure I follow. You mean that in every case we have a personal desire, we can choose to either act on it or not depending on whether or not pursuing that desire would have a negative impact on universal values?
Yes, to a degree, but that’s only if we assume that the “universal” values that we personally hold to are good in and of themselves (I forgot to specify that in my last post). I can believe that a given rule for my life values goodness on the universal scale, but that rule could be revealed contradictory and perhaps even totally evil if correctly examined from a truth-seeking standpoint.
And, yes, I agree with your observation that people can “kid” themselves and pretend they have properly analyzed their values (“personal” and “universal”) when they, in actuality, have not. Such is the nature of human beings though. We never make any choices with perfectly ethical intentions. But, that fact does not mean we cannot strive to do the best job we can when it comes to making judgments. Some actions, like senselessly murdering innocent children, have ethical flaws that should never be missed (even when movies make such actions seem confusing with their dramatic music and imagery).
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicIf you don't know ahead of time that he will just leap into the abyss, then that development is heart breaking. You root for him to pull his head out of his ass so long, and then he crosses that line.
Ahh, good, at least you now agree with us that Anakin had his head up his ass all during the prequels. Maybe you still liked him despite those qualities enough to find his “leap into the abyss” a “heartbreaking” outcome, but I could not. Or, perhaps you liked him precisely because he was a jerk, in which case I would argue that your artistic values are upside-down and wrong.
I liked Anakin in the first film, since he was a pretty good kid, but he became a totally different person in the second movie and I can’t connect the two (beyond some very vague generalizations about fear and shit like that). I suppose I also liked Anakin in terms of the love and care he had for his wife and friends in the third film (I thought he had grown), but then I learned that all of his love and all of his care were based upon the totally selfish desires of a psychopath and I had to stop liking him on that basis. (The love and care of a psychopath is not
real love and care, therefore nobody should share or even bother understanding Anakin’s feelings.) All in all, he’s not a likeable character.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicI never really worried about Luke turning to the dark side at all in the classic trilogy on it's own. Sure things got hairy, but like most movies I had seen, the hero pulls it out of his ass at the last moment. Of course Luke throws down his saber, of course Luke does the right thing.
You can’t worry about a hero even when you know it’s unlikely the creators of a given story will have him turn to evil? That’s really sad if you ask me. I don’t even understand how you can claim to be a fan of the original Star Wars with an attitude like that. Caring about our heroes despite having faith in their ability to win is precisely what makes Star Wars so incredibly entertaining for just about everybody who is a fan of the series.
Oh well, either way, even in terms of a depressing and not-so-entertaining tragedy, at least Luke’s fall to evil would have been understandable and heartbreaking for me. He actually faced some truly tough circumstances and felt torn and confused. Anakin had no moral confusion challenging his mind though; it should be clear to all that he was a psychopath who lived in complete devotion to his petty desires and cared about nothing else.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicOriginally posted by: TiptupHeh, so you agree with me that the line ("Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.") was logically stupid, but you enjoy it because it then shows that Obi-Wan is evil too?
I don't think it makes him evil, it just highlights his self righteousness as a point of view.
So are you are saying that Obi-Wan’s personal “point of view” was right or wrong in your estimation? Clearly it was hypocritical and illogical, and when a person knowingly believes or supports a clearly contradictory line of thinking he or she is committing evil if you ask me.
It’s clear that the movie was not communicating that Obi-Wan was corrupted by evil. I simply believe George Lucas is dumb and didn’t see the flaw in the line he invented for Obi-Wan (either that or Obi-Wan was intended to be an unthinking boob). There’s nothing to debate as far as I see it, but you’re welcome to continue here, Go-Mer.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Anakin has had the issues clouded to the point where it's not so easy to see from his perspective. The Jedi's virtues are in question, Sidious is obviously evil, the Senate is obviously ineffective, does Anakin see what's right in the moment, or is he always looking away to the future, to the horizon? To him he sees a future where all this BS brought on by the Sith and the Jedi and the corrupted Senate would just be gone. He then rationalizes his horrific actions in the present as being justified by the end goal.
Not according to the movie. In the movie he committed his horrific actions because of an emotionally-troubling vision that might possibly have occurred in his future. Beyond that, the movie showed him rationalizing none of his actions. In fact, Anakin didn’t care at all about the obvious possibility that an evil man was lying to him. He didn’t care at all if the murder of a bunch of innocent children had anything to do with preserving the life of his wife or preserving just government. Anakin did not care about the future or the present beyond his own messed up desires and fears. Anakin was a psychopath and should not be identified with in any artistically pleasing way.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I didn't say he was cool for being evil. I'm just saying that this story is a character study of how someone who is good can end up turning evil. It may not be likable, but it's a part of human nature that is worth considering.
The existence of evil within all of us may be worth considering, but it is not something to dwell on. In a general sense, art should be about that which is uplifting and beautiful. I don’t think anyone should
enjoy contemplating evil or ugliness (it’s not entertainment by definition).
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicSo if the [Darth-Vader/Father] scene is still amazing without it being a surprise for you, then what's the difference if it's that scene or the prequels that tips you off to that truth?
Heh, you still don’t understand what I’m talking about, do you?
When you watch Empire Strikes Back with the original Star Wars as the only context, you can be emotionally wowed by the “father” reveal every single time. The reason is because you can empty your mind of what comes after a scene and react to the movie in the moment. I come at the movie in the way it was intended to be experienced. I do it all the time and enjoy myself quite a bit.
However, if we start with the prequel trilogy as our context, then supposedly we’re supposed to know ahead of time that Anakin is Luke’s father according to the intended configuration of the movies. That was never meant to be the intended context for Empire and it totally ruins its artistic revelations except from a few weak perspectives. I can’t forget the knowledge as a whole from this perspective since that’s supposedly not “intended” anymore. I’m supposed to be thinking about Anakin’s shitty behavior from the PT, wondering about when his children will somehow “resurrect” him, and not thinking about what the actual movie presents to me. The PT adds no depth to the plot or drama of the OT (as it should), it only detracts and distracts.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicI'm just saying (as you even acknowledged) that the "I am your father" scene works even when you know the surprise going in.
The surprises that -are- ruined in the classic trilogy by watching the prequels first, are all one trick ponies for a first time viewer only. There is only going to be one time that someone is going to be surprised by Vader saying he's Luke's father, by suddenly realizing Yoda is Yoda, or by Luke piecing together that Leia is his sister.
Again, as I have said before, it dramatically works, despite knowing what will come, because I can anticipate what will come while enjoying the film for what it is in the moment. In other words, I go with the contextual focus of the film and enjoy it to the end from its intended starting point, even if I’m contemplating and/or anticipating everything up to the ending based upon a previous viewing at the very same time.
Almost everyone who enjoys a given movie more than once will do exactly what I am describing here, Go-Mer. It’s not strange in the least. I believe that you actually do it as well. If you can’t do this though, then I must believe you’re pathetic and feel sorry for you as a result.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicOriginally posted by: TiptupSecondly, what do you mean “one surprise”? You
seriously believe the OT has only one surprise?!
I may not have considered them all, but so far I am thinking about "I am your Father", the fact that Leia is Luke's sister, that Yoda is really Yoda, and that Jabba really looks like Jabba. Have I missed some?
Just a few from the beginning of the original Star Wars: The amazement of the Star Destroyer and the little blockade runner are ruined by the PT. The intense invasion of the Storm Troopers is ruined by the PT. Darth Vader, the awe-inspiring, black-suited villain, has his dramatic intro ruined by the PT. The appearance of Ben Kenobi, the old wizard, is ruined, and so is his identification as Obi-Wan Kenobi, by the PT. There are even more in just those first few minutes of the first movie. Star Wars is an entire experience of dramatic revelations. Get off your high horse, Go-Mer.
George Lucas should have been careful about what he revealed and didn’t reveal in the PT so as to not damage the contextual, dramatic impact of the original films (if he believes they should be watched starting with “episode I”), not blinded by his ability to earn more cash (which I believe it was clear he was).
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicBut it is just that Force users tend to have a lot of them. That doesn't make them mutants any more than a taller than average person.
They’re mutants if their bodies can tolerate more of this kind of bacteria than other bodies.
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicI think a lot of people mistake the midichlorians as what makes the Force or that they -are- the Force. They are just a component of all living cells. It's just they happen to be the antennae through which all life is connected to the Force. The higher the concentration, the better a life form's "reception" of the Force, or so the best scientists believe.
