logo Sign In

Tiptup

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

Post History

Post
#249446
Topic
your buying the PT all over again in Blue ray !!!!!!!!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249446/action/topic#249446
Time
Both HD-DVD and BD are bound to drop in price over time (at least in the US and some other countries). Both formats have a high level of corporate push behind them. Laserdisc became the standard in Japan over VHS due similar corporate support.

And, even though I believe Blu-ray Discs are superior to HD-DVDs, I don't have a lot of hope that either format will "win." For a while I believed that Sony would kick Toshiba's ass with the Playstation 3, but they're bungling their next game system left and right. So, I have no idea anymore. If BD fails to win then I'm fairly certain that neither format will. In other words, I'm beginning to think that there's a chance that they'll exist side by side for the entire life of the other format to some degree. The only reason Beta failed so miserably was the fact that its technology was proprietary. Both BD and HD-DVD are open technologies with wide support.

Either way, I still intend to purchase a PS3 simply for the gaming console aspect at least (I'll share the cost with my girlfriend ). I might wait before buying any kind of movie library though. I also don't know if I'll wait a few months and hope the PS3's price drops or if I'll buy a "launch" system.
Post
#249178
Topic
Interesting tidbit about who shot first
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249178/action/topic#249178
Time
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
So Greedo was going to kill Han? Jabba didn't want Han alive? So why didn't Fett just shoot Han? Saves a lot of trouble, no? I don't want to hear that Fett was a superior Bounty Hunter than Greedo either, because he woouldn't have captured Han were it not for being in cahoots with Vader, and it didn't work out for him too well either, did it? Fett could've just killed Han like Greedo was "going to do" and like, 90% of Jabba's cronies would have survived, 'cause of the fatalities in the rescue attempt.

In other words, Han didn't shoot first. Greedo never shot.


I believe Greedo was a hot-head, according to the original script and just his stated intent in that scene. If Han hadn't shot Greedo, then Greedo would have shot him. In empire we had a very different bounty and an actual bounty hunter (not some trigger happy gang member). So, yes Greedo was going to kill Han, more likely than not.
Post
#249168
Topic
Interesting tidbit about who shot first
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249168/action/topic#249168
Time
In the actual movie you don't see anyone shooting. That was the superior version. All you saw was a big white explosion. It wasn't until the smoke cleared that you learned that Han Solo shot first.

Whether reading that book or seeing the actual movie, its pretty lame to believe that Greedo ever got a shot off, since Han would've probably been wounded in that case. Greedo was not aiming at the wall like the digital recreation in the Special Editions tries to depict.
Post
#248873
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248873/action/topic#248873
Time
Originally posted by: CO

You have 2 1/2 movies minus Bail Organa, then he suddenly has this big role in the last hour of ROTS, only cause he has to. Uncle Owen who has strong feelings on Anakin & Kenobi in SW, has about 5 minutes of screentime in AOTC.

Yeah, considering how much the movies revealed every major revelation in the OT, they sure shortchanged Uncle Owen and Bail Organa. Though, ideally, from my perspective, the PT should have kept most the OT plot a secret and shouldn’t have had either of those characters present in the films in any revealed way. I feel the same way about Yoda.

I also agree that the main characters of the prequel trilogy were pretty flat. In a basic sense they had roles, much like the OT characters, but those roles were never used to any great dramatic effect. And Go-Mer listed some transitions for those same characters, but those transitions seemed pretty empty as well. The prequel trilogy was so superficial that you never actually felt the character’s going through their major transitions in a personally visceral way. It was more like, “Okay, Annie, you’re a Sith Lord now . . . and that means you’re evil . . . Oh! Obi . . . you’re a dessert hermit now . . . Padme, you have a broken heart . . . yeah, I’m afraid that means you’re dead.” It was more like a dry checklist than a truly heartfelt portrayal of personally devastating consequences (more often than not).




Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I can see how you had an expectation for the Jedi to have similarly more subtle powers as Luke displayed, and understand how making them more extreme can approach "hoakie" status, I just think that the light saber is also fairly "hoakie" from the get go. It looks cool but there's really no logic behind it, it just is.

Well, the reason I believe the super jumps take on a cheesy nature is because they don’t really serve a purpose to me. Sure, we get how they’re uber-professional Jedi compared to Luke, and Jedi jumps are just cool in general, but, the smaller force jumps weren’t amazing enough? Do we need to make it so the Jedi can jump so high? It seems to cheapen the fine edge of frailty for the Jedi that I had always imagined.

And the lightsaber is hardly a corny or forced concept if you as me. If anything it was very cool and got my imagination very excited. Hell, lightsabers should excite the imagination of just about anyone. They’re just awesome! (Oh, and I love the cool stuff that Qui-Gon did with his lightsaber in Menace.)


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Okay, so it's not that it doesn't make sense that the Jedi are more powerful than Luke, you just don't like that they are. It's not "artistically" pleasing to you. I'm sorry it took so long to understand that.

Well, first, technically, we don’t know that Luke couldn’t have jumped higher since we aren’t really aware of too many situations where he wanted to jump higher.

The heart of this matter is that I’m a fan in this discussion. A fanatic. By definition I become extremely devoted to the way certain things are. Having Jedi powers depicted in the more subtle style of the OT is something I was really attached to. Therefore the Jedi in the prequels just seem too extreme to me. I know they were supposed to be even more amazing back in their heyday, and their skills were goose-bump inducing in the opening scene of Phantom Menace, but after that, over and over again, the endless portrayals began to seem cheap to me. It was as if Jedi powers weren’t really special to anyone making the films anymore. The Jedi could do a little too much if you ask me. Their capabilities became gratuitous.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I am altering it's meaning, pray I don't alter it any further.

Heh, alright.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I imagine it to be like a force push. You can't just levitate yourself, but you could lessen your impact if you were falling. To me it looks like Zam Wessel's speeder was impacted by Anakin landing on it.

Well, assuming Jedi can force-push themselves, if that is what Anakin did in that scene, I never noticed any clue in the film showing him doing that at that moment. Therefore I deem that scene to be overly sensational and cheap. :\


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

To me the point of watching a movie is to be entertained. The more I enjoy it, the more I have gotten out of the deal. For that reason, I try to work with the entertainment as much as possible. The Star Wars Saga is just where I happen to get the most enjoyment out of the deal when it comes to movies.

Also I'm not saying that I force myself to enjoy things that aren't enjoyable, I just strive to see what the filmmaker was trying to get across, and don't let my pre-conceived notions about "how it should be" get in the way of enjoying it for what it is. I don't spend a whole lot of time second guessing the film maker, and instead just enjoy what he has done as much as possible.


I understand that point of view. It’s good to at least try to enjoy what you spend your time and money on. But there should be limits to that. When you said that you try to enjoy movies as much as “possible,” I got the impression that you were arguing that you should force yourself to like everything when sometimes there are simply things in movies that are bad and cannot be enjoyed.

I too am always trying to understand where a filmmaker is coming from. I see no point in forcing him or her to meet my preconceived notions about what good movies supposedly should have. However, starting with that as a basis, sometimes a filmmaker can fail when it comes to communicating their artistic point of view. I personally believe that George Lucas failed to communicate what he wanted the PT to communicate in a way that is highly enjoyable for most audiences. Did he have enjoyable moments? Yeah. Are the movies horrible? No, they just aren’t very good.

Even worse for me though, is that Star Wars already had so much established content that was already very enjoyable, and his additions lessened my enjoyment of that content. His new additions didn’t heighten my enjoyment of what was already so masterfully communicated. He irrevocably altered what those films were already successfully trying to “get across,” in my estimation.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Could you be more specific as to what you find to contradict what I am seeing? To me Anakin's desire to save Padme from possible death is a good thing. It's personal for Anakin because he has a personal interest in keeping her around because he loves her. The path he goes down in pursuit of that goal pushes the whole galaxy into the dark times of the Empire. In that way, Anakin put himself above the rest of the galaxy and it ended up being bad for everyone.


No, what you are seeing there is totally accurate. The problem is when you try to say that personal values are somehow evil or less important than universal values. That is a simplistic and wrong concept even if you only analyze the motivations from the prequel movies. There were many, many times where prequel-trilogy characters acted from personal motivations to intentionally accomplish things that are good for everyone. They personally desired things that were compatible with and helped work for the greater good.

Seriously, how can you even value the “greater good” if you don’t value the greater in a “personal” sense? Also, did not Anakin of the prequels believe that his personal desires for power were for the greater good in some way?

In ethics, there is no clear distinction between personal values and universal values. The greatest goal in this regard is to seek a state where our personal desires are compatible with the greater good. Even the prequel trilogy teaches this in a straightforward sense, over and over again. The characters have personal desires that are good because they are on the side of the greater good. To have the movies preach an ethic that contradicts the ethic that is taught through its portrayed deeds and motivations seems a little pathetic to me. There’s no way you can say that the Jedi in the prequels throw away their personal desires or sentimental attachment. They just don’t. I can pick out numerous examples where they acted in personal ways.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes! (I love that line )


That line is actually dumb to me since Obi-Wan uses the word “only.” He can’t attack the use of absolutes by using an absolute. Plus, the Jedi talk in terms of absolutes all the time if you follow the prequel trilogy alone. It’s a totally hypocritical line of dialogue. I don’t know what George was thinking . . . he probably wasn’t.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Anyway, I don't see Anakin as a complete psychopath.

When it comes to the Tusken Raider slaughter, Anakin knows what he did was wrong after he did it, so you could argue temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of having his mother die in his arms because of them.

As far as slaughtering the younglings and betraying the Jedi order, he did rationalize that even if only to himself:
"I will not betray the Republic."

"My loyalties are with the Chancellor, and the senate, and with you."

"From my point of view the Jedi are evil".

Anakin had it all worked out in his head that what he was doing was for the greater good of the galaxy, but it was all really motivated by his selfish desire to save Padme from a potential death. His rationalization was just how he coped with that decision.


I see how that works. But that’s really stupid. Anakin would have needed to be completely retarded to ever believe that rationalization justified his actions. Its far too weak otherwise. I never saw Anakin’s intellect debilitated in that way though, so again, I believe we can only conclude he was a psychopath. Either that or George Lucas just messed up.
Post
#248763
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248763/action/topic#248763
Time
At this moment I would simply like to take a second to communicate my prequel trilogy experience and then quickly respond to some other good posts that I haven't had time to reply to yet.


Go-Mer seems to have the impression that I didn’t like the prequel trilogy simply because it wasn’t the original trilogy and that certainly wasn’t true for me. I’m guessing he thinks I couldn’t handle the differences or some such nonsense. In actuality, the way I liked and disliked the films was far more complicated and heartbreaking for me.

I wanted to love the prequel trilogy in a very substantial way. I badly wanted to love these films. I even desired to enjoy these films so much that I was willing to overlook fairly big flaws. I didn’t need perfection so long as the stories could work for me in one way or another.

Then, the first time I saw each of the prequel trilogy films, I thought they were actually great! Phantom Menace I liked a lot and I watched it nine times in the theaters. I don’t like it quite as much now that the newness of the film has worn off, but I still can find it viewable today. With Attack of the Clones I was bit less interested simply because the dialogue was so horrible and the acting was bad, but otherwise I really liked it the first time I saw it. The battle at the end was ‘awesome,’ I thought. It wasn’t until the second viewing of AotC came along that I began to have second thoughts. Then with Revenge of the Sith, I thought it was absolutely fantastic the first time I saw it. I even went so far as to say it was the best of the prequel trilogy films and I even felt it sort of saved the prequel trilogy and matched up to the original trilogy to a sufficient degree. The acting was good and so was the drama in a surface sense. Heck, even Hayden acted like Darth Vader should have acted (the whiny-ness was gone). Sure, maybe the “Noooooo!” at the very end was lame, but I was willing to overlook that. So, then, the question is: what happened to me?

How could I go from enjoying the scene where Yoda fights with a lightsaber to hating that scene? How could I go from enjoying the idea of Jango Fett to thinking he shouldn’t have even been in any of the films? How did I go from loving many of the small OT references to thinking they were way too overdone and convenient? How did I lose so much of the initial enjoyment I had for so many of the prequel trilogy’s concepts? I’d have to answer that the newness of having something related to Star Wars finally wore off.

Seriously, after growing up watching the original films endlessly, how could I not have loved seeing the episodes that were “intended” to come before them? How could I not have loved seeing Star Wars themes and characters in new adventures and with fresh content? And, why do I now find so much of the prequel trilogy films to simply be cheap and hollow sensationalism? Because they actually were all along. I just allowed myself to be blinded by my love of Star Wars at first. Like a kid who enjoyed some crappy cartoon show as a small child and then grows out of it, I realized that what I was watching wasn’t very good. That’s what brings me down the most about all of this. I wanted to enjoy the prequel trilogy and I actually did initially enjoy its supreme glitz and superficial drama, but when I began scratching beneath that surface I found the films to be very lacking.

With Attack of Clones, I even actually liked Anakin at first. Seriously, it was so awesome to finally see him and Obi-Wan in action! Yet, while my like for Obi-Wan in the film increased as time went on, I began to be annoyed more and more with Anakin. “‘I killed them!’ I see. ‘I killed them all.’ Mmmhmm. ‘Not just the men.’ Yep. ‘But the women’ Yeah I get it, you said “all.” ‘And the children.’ Yeah, shut up about it already!” Then Padme just stared blankly at everything he did! Uhg. It’s all just so hollow to me and I never wanted to envision Anakin as such annoying whiner. It makes Darth Vader into someone stupid.

Then with Revenge of the Sith, I had perhaps the most interesting transition. I was really into the moving dramatic scenes. I thought Anakin’s love for Padme was clearly evident and the acting was actually decent for a change. Then, after his change, Anakin almost seemed like the Darth Vader I had always imagined behind the mask in terms of the way that he spoke and brooded over his feelings in the film. I thought it was wonderful. So much of the film’s content really tugged on my emotions despite being stuffed in-between many long and boring sequences that were otherwise meaningless and pointless to me. For instance, the scene where he murders children didn’t move me in a good way or a bad way at first. It seemed so odd and un-relatable that I sort of just accepted it and didn’t think too much about it at all. If Darth Vader had a strong reason to kill children I knew that he could have gone through with it. But then, as weeks went by, I began to analyze the film in my mind, over and over again. It began making less and less sense to me. Without having the on-screen emotions and the music to make me feel as if I was empathizing with Anakin’s motives, I soon discovered that there was actually nothing for me to empathize with him about! He was a totally heartless murderer/evildoer and he committed his heinous atrocities over the most dubious of reasoning! It was sick and it was the very last straw for the prequel trilogy as far as I was concerned.

So, my favorite villain of all time was a whiny punk and a psychopath who basically murdered children like a coward? He even murdered his own wife (in a way) because his whiny selfishness was so powerful? What on earth was left for me to enjoy about any of the films anymore?! Darth Vader became revolting to me.



Originally posted by: CO

I always say that Lucas wanted it both ways with the PT, and that is why so many have not loved it, or chose to acknowledge as their saga. He wanted to tell a different story, with different characters, in a totally different time period, but still use the exact things that made the OT great, and that is why it came off so cheesy and cringworthy at times, and really just takes you out of the movie.

That’s true, but I believe you should even go further with that statement. The primary problem with the prequels is not just one between the lighthearted approach and the serious approach, but a whole host of incompatible concepts. In fact, with every new film in the series, including Empire, George Lucas has tried cramming more and more conceptual approaches into his films. It’s very interesting when you see what he’s done in this sense. It is as if George Lucas is man obsessed with so many different ideas, all fascinating on their own, but rarely does he stick to any one idea in a way where he does it sufficient justice.

The prequel trilogy suffers from this the most. Is Anakin a messiah or a monster, a tragic hero or a passionate victim, an innocent boy or a whiny coveter, a selfish megalomaniac or an altruistic warrior? Is Star Wars supposed to be a morality play using traditional mythological themes or an intentionally cheesy serial? Is it supposed to be a comedy incorporating wisecracking droids and a bumbling idiot or a serious drama delving into our darkest motivations as people? In the end, I don’t think George could keep his mind straight in terms of how to make all of the disparate concepts harmonize. At best, I’d imagine that he was only able to remember his favorite approach for disconnected scenes at a time and even then his attention could only care so much before becoming bored or lazy (if I had to guess).


Originally posted by: zombie84

Really, is it any surprise that in a series of 6 films, two are great, one is okay and three are below average? I think it is incredible that not just one is great but that two are.


Well, you make a very good point there. Yet for some reason it is very frustrating for me, as a Star Wars fan, to have seen the films fall to the place where they are now. I know they aren’t the worst films ever, but they could have been somewhat good.

Perhaps I believed Lucas’ own self promotion a little too much. Perhaps I shouldn’t have believed he was a genius who single-handedly built the original trilogy as he tried to claim (despite that no being true at all). Perhaps, then, the prequel movies and the SE wouldn’t be so frustrating for me now.


Originally posted by: vote_for_palpatine

Honestly, there is one PT moment that has the same amount of gravitas for me:

"Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic! To DEMOCRACY!!"

I wish they hadn't used "You were the chosen one!" in the trailers, or that might have been another moment I would have liked. But showing it in trailers let all the air out of that balloon.


Hah! Yeah, the “chosen one” line was definitely a moment for laughter in the way the trailer presented it. It seemed so generic and I thought it was going to be so cheesy. Then, in the movie, it actually made me very sad. The emotion that McGregor pours into that line is very potent.

Now that I think about it. Every truly memorable moment in the PT involved Ewan McGregor for the most part. He consistently acted well and the best story elements always surrounded him. That “Democracy” line was a good moment, but so were a number of the scenes where he took on the bad guys with good humor or intensity. Not only that, but the best OT references were from his character, like how Anakin would “be the death” of him or that “uncivilized” line about using the blaster. Just goes to make me believe even more that Obi-Wan should have been the central character of the prequels and not Anakin.
Post
#248760
Topic
Does anyone here watch Family Guy? They do a ton of SW spoofs!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248760/action/topic#248760
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I like Family Guy and appreciate all the references, but the show seems very random - it seems that merely including a pop reference is considered to be funny and clever. In the heyday of the Simpsons, movie references were well-thought-out and really made me laugh, but now with shows like family guy it's just 'hey, there's Boba Fett, hahaha'.


I can sort of agree with you there, perhaps. The show is very random. But I would say that randomness can be very funny. It's unexpected and wrong in its own ways. I often find that I laugh far more over an episode of Family Guy after I've watched it than during. Sometimes the jokes are just hard to absorb at the very moment you see them.
Post
#248719
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248719/action/topic#248719
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

Are we talking about the primary focus of Episode III pertaining to Anakin or the plot? Because, I thought the ideas expressed in the film, whether you agree or not, were pretty clear, from the Anakin arc.

And the reason Prequel "defenders" don't discuss positive aspects of the films (especially here) is because the debate is framed by Original Trilogy fans...which always veer toward the "suppose" negatives of the Prequels.


Well, I've heard you state what you thought the important focus of Episode III was. I also stated how I could understand that focus to be interesting and perhaps even enjoyable. However, when actually watching the film from my point of view, that focus was communicated in an unimportant and hypocritical way. Therfore, I would like you to describe or explain your point of view more. I want to objectively know what would allow you see that focus as the important, over-arcing theme of the film.

As for the debate veering towards negatives, I would think that is anavoidable. But, you can answer those problems in substantial ways if you were to describe the point of view where those problems become unimportant. In other words, if a problem isn't worthy of discussion from your point of view, then you don't need to defend it unless you want to.
Post
#248716
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248716/action/topic#248716
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

No offense but you aren't exactly the most difficult person to make angry.

Yes, thank you, I’m already well aware of that. I do like to let people know these things though. Helps smooth things over.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

First of all, I think it's great that you and I in particular are able to talk so civilly from entirely different points of view. I am not insulted by the way you perceive my comments, and I really don't mean to personally insult you.

I am not angered by your comments unless they accuse me of something for no provided reason. Thankfully you haven’t done that too often.





Good Lord. This is really getting retarded. Once again I am forced to talk about the force jumps. Oh joy . . .

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

About force jumps, I still don't see the problem. It's not like Luke's jumps weren't fantastic, and to me, most of the Jedi jumps in the prequels aren't all that much higher than Luke's. I understand -that- you prefer more subtle jumps. I don't quite understand why.

I see. So, this is still a very extreme issue for you then? Interesting.

I am truly sorry Go-Mer. I mean, I understand that you have a fixation upon this subject, but as I have already stated many times, I do not. The super jumps are not any kind of an extreme problem for me at all. I simply mentioned it off the top of my head in my first post. It was something that didn’t match up with the rest of the “saga” to me in a vague sense and that’s all. I’m now sorry that the Jedi jumps have now struck such a strong nerve with you. As I have already said before in this thread, and for many of the precise reasons you outlined in your last post, I am easily able to overlook this issue and pretend it somehow works.

Sure, I’ll admit that I still consider the super-jumps to be small flaw in the sense that the previous movies had already ingrained such a strong image of the Jedi into my mind. They moved like ordinary people for the most part and could only perform miraculous feats with great labor and concentration. Perhaps Luke was just an unskilled novice as you say, but I always got the impression that Luke was a pretty capable Jedi in terms of his physical capabilities. But, as you said, I never knew any of those things for certain, and I’m thus able to overlook and accept the super jumps.

What I’m unable to overlook or accept however, is your outright dismissal of my point of view. You have implied that I am supremely illogical for gathering the impression that I did. Apparently, to formulate a general concept of the Jedi, based upon what the movies themselves have made me accustomed to, is some sort of supreme crime in your eyes. I’m sorry but I find that odd. After all, I able to understand your point of view to a degree, and yet you somehow cannot even see where I am coming at all.

I get the impression that if George Lucas were to decide tomorrow that Jedi can shoot beams of radiation from their eyeballs and melt storm troopers in a single second with them, you would then wholeheartedly accept that concept. And, if I were to then express even the slightest reservation about that power, I can only guess that you would accuse me of being completely illogical and unfair.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Obviously to you this is a fairly large deal, and one you have a hard time rolling along with.

Uhh, no, I already said in this thread that this issue isn’t a “fairly large deal” to me at all. In fact, I have stated the opposite a number of times now. For crying out loud, the first time I watched The Phantom Menace, I didn’t even notice the jumps were as high as they were! It was not until a later viewing that I saw how extreme they were and, sure, became somewhat bothered by them. But still, it’s not this important to me. It is nothing to debate to the extreme degree you apparently want to debate it. I’ve been trying to dispense with the issue for a number of my posts now. I already stated that they can work from a different point of view.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I think it's nonsense to question the logical veracity of Jedi that can jump twice as high as Luke.

Hmm, once again, you have the arrogance to completely dismiss my point of view as “nonsense.” Is that what you call being open-minded Go-Mer? If so, then I’m impressed by your gall.

Again, the reason I had a small problem with the super jumps was because the previous films had given me a far more subtle concept of the Jedi in terms of their physical prowess. I’m glad that you are making me restate that so many times.

Quite frankly, it’s not an extreme problem for me. My previous concept of the Jedi was not that important to me and I’ve stated that many times now. I am able to accept the new jumps and overlook my previous concept. Can we move on now?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Forgive me, but I believe it's stupid to absolutely "assume" that Jedi in their prime wouldn't be able to jump as high as they ended up doing in the prequels.

Ahh, well I’m beginning to think that you are stupid for assuming that I “absolutely” believed Jedi couldn’t make super jumps. I never said that anywhere in this thread and I have even clearly denied that sentiment a number of times now. You have provided no reasons to accuse me of making such an extreme assumption and yet you keep accusing me of it. Why is that, Go-Mer?




Yay. Now I have the joy of dealing with Go-Mer’s lightsaber nonsense again . . .

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Here is what I was keying in on that you had said in response to me explaining that light sabers don't make logical sense, because lasers wouldn't just stop at one end like that without something to reflect or absorb the energy.

Originally posted by: Tiptup
Nonsense. Light sabers were always presented in a very logically beautiful way in the films. They were mysterious and magical weapons that somehow needed the force to work and, unlike what you claim, they were clearly different from the laser blasters in the film (please don’t make flippant points). All in all, light sabers are a very simple and acceptable subject from a logical standpoint, and very enjoyable from a logical standpoint as well.

Now, if we were to have logically delved deeper into how light sabers supposedly worked in the films themselves and talked about plasma and shit like that, sure that might well have been an unsuccessful addition, artistically speaking. There’s no way for us to know though, since the films never went that route.

Wow, so that’s where you were going with that? You’re so brilliant Go-Mer!

Of course, first let’s totally miss the fact that I have already communicated why lightsaber problems and my super jump problems are not similarly problematic, like fifty times. And, lets overlook the fact that I can overlook my problem with the super jumps, but let’s instead talk about how incredibly smart you are, Go-Mer.

Ahh, but wait, you said that you believe that lasers “wouldn’t just stop at one end,” Go-Mer? Well, in that “keying” text you quoted of mine, I actually stated why that was a clearly stupid assumption for you to make. Lightsabers are not laser guns! They’re lightsabers! According to the story, according to the way they look, and according to the way they are used, lightsabers are clearly designed to work like swords and not laser guns!

Your lightsaber problems are not directly comparable to my small problem with the super jumps. Again, over a long period of time, the previous films gave an impression of what Jedi could do, and from that artistic standpoint, the super jumps seemed to be outside of those capabilities. (Nothing more, nothing less. I have no extreme opinion on this matter.) Your problem with lightsabers on the other hand is based upon nothing in the films or anything in reality for that matter.

Why don’t you focus on a more difficult, prequel problem, Go-Mer? Are you afraid that you can’t defend them with your straw-man arguments as easily?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

By not seeing anything there to reflect it, and knowing how lasers seem to work here on Earth, that's how I can assume that. Assumptions by their very nature rest on perception and limits of imagination, and are not dependant on facts.


That’s PRECISELY why you shouldn’t rigidly hold to your assumptions, Go-Mer. As I said in my previous post, sometimes it’s good to approach something with wonder and NOT have a clear perception for everything that you experience.

I’ll state this once more: There was nothing in the films to intelligently support your assumption that lightsabers were “lasers.” There were also no intelligent reasons in the film to support your assumption that anything concerning lightsabers needed to be “reflected.” Therefore, to argue that lightsabers have a problem on either basis is far from intelligent.

On the other hand, my general concept of the Jedi and their physical capabilities does have a small degree of support in the actual films. Is it a super strong degree of support? No, and I never said that it was. Can I openly reject super jumps as illogical? No, I have never said that I could. I simply said that I don’t particularly like them from an artistic standpoint, not that I could reject them completely. I would hope that you can finally get that into your skull, Go-Mer.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Originally posted by: Tiptup
I think you might need a lesson in logic, Go-Mer.

Do I now? I would suggest that you could use a lesson in fantasy.


Yes I do actually think you might need a lesson in proper logic, in fact your last post was horrendous in this regard. And, I believe your suggestion is empty, since I am well versed in fantasy as a method, thank you.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I'm the one making "unfair" comparisons? I'm just illustrating what I find to be a huge double standard here.


Lightsabers are not a double standard for me. There’s no valid reason you can provide to prove that I am being hypocritical here. (Though, if it is not obvious to you and you need everything to be clearly stated, I will say that you have so far tried to present many invalid reasons in your attempt to label me a hypocrite, but that I have now explained why those reasons are wrong. If you are unable to understand my explanations then I would certainly be willing to help clarify.)


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Similarly to the way you pretend the logical problems with the concept of a light saber don't exist?


Similarly is an adverb.




Ahh, and now we finally have some real differences to analyze . . .

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Well we know Jedi have powers of telekinesis, it's not that illogical to me to assume that if they were falling, and they were concentrating hard enough on their landing, they could use that kind of telekinesis to help slow their fall before impact. In other areas where I can think of Jedi being far more fragile, they were falling from a great height while they were unconscious, which would handily explain this to me.


Hmm, that’s an interesting concept. I would ask, then, why cannot Jedi levitate? Or are you suggesting that Anakin used his telekinesis to alter the hover-car’s movement in order to lessen the impact? If so, then how come it doesn’t look like the hover car is being moved through telekinesis? And, either way, why doesn’t Anakin look as if he is concentrating on the force to use his telekinesis?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

To me it's important to enjoy these movies as much as possible.

The focus of Revenge of the Sith to me is the manifestation of the grey area involved with good and evil. The morals of ROTS are very similar to the morals presented across the entire saga. That love is better than hate, and compassion is better than greed, but also that life doesn't always make the right choices very clear.

On the one hand, saving Padme and Shmi are noble, compassionate things. Anakin strives to obtain the power to control these things, and is then consumed by the desire to control the plight of the entire galaxy, so he "can make things the way he wants them to be", but as Padme asks, "at what cost"?

It's an examination of what's "right" for an individual and at what point that becomes less important than what's "right" for the greater good.


First, why is it important to enjoy the prequels “as much as possible”? Do you say that with every movie or just with movies that are related to Star Wars? Do you say that with every TV show that happens to come along? Isn’t better to enjoy what you actually find enjoyable and not force yourself to enjoy a film simply because it’s a film or simply because it’s related to Star Wars?

Otherwise, I see how you could enjoy that focus from the prequels. However, I have trouble seeing that focus in the films. How are you able to overlook the many times that the films are clearly hypocritical in regard to that focus? I see many times where the films display the fact that what’s “right” for an individual is what actually determines what is then right for the greater good more than anything else. To me that clear display seems to contradict the focus you enjoy. Therefore, how are you able to overlook inconsistency? Why is that seeming hypocrisy unimportant to you?

I really do want to understand your point of view, Go-Mer. Assuming you can act with a reasonable mind.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I really don't see why you would say it's incoherent.


From my point of view, RotS is either incoherent or Anakin is a psychopath. Either way I can’t enjoy the movie. I’ve already told you this before and you totally failed to reply. Oh well, if you can’t understand my point of view even to the slightest degree, then you can hardly claim to have an open mind.
Post
#248658
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248658/action/topic#248658
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

It's just that to me some things like assuming Luke would be as strong and as powerful as fully trained Jedi in their prime seems so illogical, it makes me really wonder why other things that seem fairly easy to roll along with seem to make no logical sense to you.

Alright, I’ll talk about force jumps again . . . .

In my mind, I totally agree with you that Luke wouldn’t be as skilled with the force as a padawan that has trained to use the force his entire life, like Obi-Wan had. I just thought that Luke would have still been fairly skilled enough that, combined with his natural affinity with the force, his jumps would have been somewhat close. Even Darth Vader was impressed with Luke.

Yet you express that it is so illogical to believe that it is extreme to have Jedi jumping twice as high all of a sudden? You don’t see how this could be odd to me? Not even a little bit? You can’t see why I’d prefer the subtle jumps of the OT?

Even as much as I love the original trilogy, even I can admit potentially problematic elements.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I mean you went ahead and assume there must be -some- reason that a lightsaber stops at the end without something there to rflect or absorb it. Even going so far as to suspect it had something to do with the "Force".

No offense, but your stated assumptions about what I supposedly assume are hardly accurate at all. In fact, they are a little insulting to me. A word of advice: It’s not good to invent straw-man arguments, from whole cloth, in your head, and then attribute them to people for no reason whatsoever. That’s a good way to make enemies if anything. When you debate people, you should try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Nowhere did I ever “assume” that lightsaber’s having nothing to absorb or reflect beams of energy with. And nowhere did I tie the “stops-at-the-end” factor to the Force as a logical explanation in my mind. How on earth can you accuse me of those two, rather stupid assumptions? Considering how I have said nothing of the kind, that makes me a bit angry.

And if it is really so interesting for you to know what I actually assumed when watching Star Wars, then I’ll tell you: As a child, when I first saw the movies, I believed that lightsaber beams contained energy in some form. Like “light” or fire. I also believed that the force had something to do with how they worked, but that had nothing to do with reflection. I’m not some idiot who assumes that I “know” how a piece of technology works within a freakin’ science fiction fantasy story. What is the point to making assumptions about something that cannot, by definition, be understood in modern terms and is ultimately not even real?

Fucking lightsabers are a piece of advanced, alien technology from a fantasy world! If you’ll forgive me, I believe it’s idiotic and stupid to absolutely “assume” that something is even being absorbed or reflected in the first place. Those ideas aren’t even stated in the film! They’re fucking, sword weapons! There was nothing presented in the first movie about lightsabers that we could analyze as illogical in terms of their construction or technology.

Do you really believe that an energy-beam-looking sword is truly impossible, Go-Mer? According to your intellect, something like that could never be invented by anyone in the universe, ever?

Here, let’s even assume that lightsabers work like a beam of light and need to be reflected back toward the hilt or absorbed at the hilt. (Those two ideas are stupid assumptions to ever be sure of, since, based upon the movies, you have no idea that reflection or absorption are even necessary for lightsaber technology, but let’s just assume that one of them is true for the sake of argument.) Even in that case, how can you assume that there is no reflecting or absorbing mechanism in the technology that you can’t see or understand?

Lightsabers are so totally cool precisely because you can accept them readily without finding contradictions. You don’t need the “Force” to accept them either. Simple, sci-fi wonder will do the trick.

I think you might need a lesson in logic, Go-Mer.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Yet whenever someone starts talking about how something doesn't make sense in the prequels, and someone like myself says, "well that's the Force", people act like it's suddenly a huge cop out.


Hmm, well, I would say that providing the force as a reason why Anakin didn’t turn into a bloody pulp after crashing into that hover-car is a bit of a cop out. Are we to assume that Jedi can somehow make themselves invincible to that degree? If so, then that’s somewhat contradictory and discordantly jarring. Jedi are depicted as being far more fragile elsewhere in the movies.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Sometimes it seems as though a lot of you had no problem effortlessly suspending your disbelief for the classic trilogy, but now it seems like you guys are expecting the prequel trilogy to be more perfect than the classic trilogy had to be.


I see how it could seem that way to you, but you’d be wrong. The logical hurdles I have with the PT and the “saga” are the internally contradicting or discordant concepts. If a concept that is expressed in a film contradicts other concepts expressed in that same film, then you’re damn right that I will consider that to be a logical hurdle and not accept it easily. If a film is internally hypocritical with emotions or motivations then I will also consider that to be a logical flaw. The original trilogy had very little of this compared to the prequels or the “PT+OTSE” perspective. The prequel trilogy is far less perfect from my point of view.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

But I think it's unfortunate that so many feel as you do, and it breaks my heart to know that no matter how much I try to explain my enjoyment to many of you, it won't help at all.


Well, to be honest, you and other prequel trilogy defenders don’t spend a lot of time talking about the positive elements of the films in terms of the perspective that makes them positive to you. Most of the time, you simply spend your time making endless excuses as to why a certain negative element shouldn’t be a problem for another person. Or, even worse, you try to attack the Original Trilogy equally by making unfair comparisons. And, when you rarely do talk about something positive, you usually state that you enjoy something that someone else finds un-enjoyable, and that simply re-ignites the cycle.

It would be best, if you actually stated why certain problems with the PT aren’t important to you from your perspective, instead of wasting the majority of your time pretending those problems don’t even exist. Remember that when discussing artistic points of view, IMPORTANCE is the key! You need to tell us what is important to you. For instance, I would like to know what the PRIMARY focus of Revenge of the Sith actually is from your point of view. From my perspective, the film teaches hypocritical morals, its story is messy and disjointed, and way too long. I do not enjoy the film precisely because I find little coherent value in it.
Post
#248149
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248149/action/topic#248149
Time
I don't see a huge problem with telekinesis at all. I'm almost certain that Darth Vader used telekinesis to put the strangle on that whiny jerk in the original Star Wars. The only problem, and I do remember this as being odd in Empire, is the number of objects and the ease with which Vader threw them around. That seemed a bit extreme to suddenly have taking place and made me think twice as a kid. But, there was nothing in the earlier scenes or the previous movie that really contradicted this, and you could argue that there were no battles or situations where the power would have come up.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

To me ANH doesn't stand up to such strict applications of logic either, so it's all just more of what makes Star Wars what Star Wars is to me.

The original Star Wars (ANH) has a wonderfully solid story that works every time. If it didn’t, I still wouldn’t enjoy it as an adult as I did as a child. Sure, you’re right, it has many problems, and I even made a whole, very-long list of them a short while ago, but those problems are always small issues (like how did the exhaust port vulnerability come about?). There aren’t any major plot points that fall apart like with what we see in Revenge of the Sith. The basic concepts of the first film function at a sufficient level.

Beyond logical criticisms though, there is also emotional motivation. In other words, are the characters likable and do they feel about things in an authentic way? The original Star Wars has this in spades. Empire and Jedi are also very good with this. For me, AotC is the worst film of the PT in this sense. The dialogue, acting, and supposed motivations leave me with nothing to enjoy or become fond of. Revenge of the Sith, while it has the most genuine emotions and involvement with the characters, falls apart the minute Anakin goes psycho. That’s why the Phantom Menace is the highest on my enjoyment factor from the PT. It’s not a great film, but I can follow it and enjoy its lighthearted moments.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I appreciate fantastic things like these because they ignite my imagination to come up with other possiblities that could make sense of them.


I understand that. I have the same tendencies and I usually get that same enjoyment too.

The secondary reason I made this thread was to have you actually post the things you generally enjoy about the prequel movies and the “saga” and not just defend problems with the films. If you focus on the films in a way that is different from me, and enjoy them on that level, then I would want to understand that point of view. At the same time I would have hoped you could try to understand my point of view.

Oh, and I apologize, Go-Mer, if I seemed too critical in my latest posts. The ethics, morals, and religious ideas to Star Wars are what I value thinking about the most. The prequel trilogy, for me, is just insulting in this area (considering Anakin’s story). It’s as if George Lucas wasn’t even trying, unfortunately. That combined with how it seemed as if you were only nitpicking my values (and not trying to understand them) left me in an overly aggressive mood, I think.
Post
#247923
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247923/action/topic#247923
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Luke started training when he was what 18-19, and ends up training for like what 10 years total by the end of ROTJ? To me it's more logical to assume Luke would -not- be as good as Jedi who had been training since at least 9 years of age, taught by a whole community of Jedi when they were still in their prime. Luke is a huge underdog as far as Jedi Hopefuls go, and that's another way the prequels augment the drama in the classic trilogy, by underscoring Luke's chances compared to fully trained Jedi.

Again, for anyone that wants argue the specifics of Jedi-jumping, that is not my point. I’m not saying you can’t argue for what you’re arguing. It’s a complicated subject and I’m not saying that it’s obvious or clear. From my point of view, there are almost as many, if not more, reasons to doubt what you are arguing for and to argue for the opposite, but I just really don’t care enough about that shit.

The fact remains that this concept is artistically jarring from the original, subtle version of the Jedi’s physical prowess. The fact that we actually have to think so much about this complicated mess is problem with the harmony of the “saga.” There is a lack of simplicity here. It takes you out of the drama of the moment if you start with one concept or the other. None of you can claim to have pulled up an obvious answer for this difference from the movies alone.

Anyways, I find it strange that you all love this topic so much. I’m now sorry I brought it up in the first place. I just threw it out off of the top of my head. Seriously, even the original Star Wars had small problems like these (not as many, but it still had them), so it’s not that big of a deal. If any of you want to talk about it further and why it’s supposedly not a problem when we consider your convoluted reasoning, I’m not going to respond anymore. It’s an artistic flaw, a small artistic flaw to be sure, but an artistic flaw nonetheless and that is all I have to say on this matter. Thank you.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Your assumption that light sabers needed the Force to work is unsubstantiated by any of the Star Wars films, and in fact, Han Solo uses one which pretty much disproves your assumption outright. But it is good to see you actively suspending your disbelief for this concept, because it will come in handy later on for other points I may make about the prequels.

What the hell? Because, Han Solo activates a lightsaber, that “disproves” my assumption that lightsabers needed the force in some way? That makes no sense. Could you actually spend some time to explain to me, logically, how my statement is somehow disproven by that example of yours?

For crying out loud, even your beloved, behind-the-scenes reasoning for the Star Wars universe states that a lightsaber can only be built using the force. Does what Han did somehow disprove that idea for you?

In the original Star Wars we learn that the lightsaber is a “Jedi’s” weapon. That means a lot, but I always took that to mean the force was somehow involved in the way its technology worked. The movie doesn’t state that, sure, but, based upon what it says, how can you criticize me for at least considering that assumption? (If we expand our analysis here to RotJ, Vader clearly implies that to construct a lightsaber is an impressive feet for a Jedi.)

Either way, that assumption of mine is totally beside the point here! I’m annoyed that you latched onto it in your misguided way, Go-Mer. Even if we assume that the force does not need to be involved with lightsabers and that it functions using the standard technology of that society, there is STILL no reason to doubt its existence based upon what that first movie provided. They live in a fantasy society with advanced technology. Who are you to say that they couldn’t achieve a weapon like a lightsaber using some technique you aren’t aware of? What actual, specific reasons, from and in the movie’s own context, can you cite that cause you to doubt lightsabers, Go-Mer?



Now onto some real issues . . .

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

To be sure the "I am your father" revelation" is one of the best revelations in cinema history. It really blew all our hair back when we first saw it, wondering if he was telling the truth between ESB and ROTJ. To a lesser extent, it was also surprising to find out that Yoda is really Yoda. These are some great surprises, but once you see them, they are over. They are like one trick ponies for the audience. To me the long-term dramatic value in these scenes really rests on how Luke will react to these revelations. If anything, knowing this information ahead of time puts more emphasis on Luke.

Ahh, but that is precisely where you are wrong. Those scenes are the EXACT OPPOSITE from “one trick ponies.” Those scenes are dramatic moments where the emotions of the characters and the truths they struggle with take center stage. I thought that would be obvious to you.

We are not talking about a few, mere, disconnected, plot twists; we are talking about a movie where we are involved in what the characters believe and feel. Yoda’s reveal is important EVERY SINGLE TIME, because the movie is designed to put you into Luke’s mind. We agree with his impatience and understand the actions he takes because of it. Darth Vader saying that he is Luke’s father is also important EVERY SINGLE TIME, because the movie is designed to focus upon what Luke cares about and what Luke is feeling. Thinking about how Darth Vader is Luke’s father before the important line and from other contexts distracts you from the intense and special emotions of the moment.

I’m sorry that you express the lame inability to come at an old movie with a fresh mind and that you cannot enjoy dramatic moments for what they are. I’m sorry that you can’t still be “wowed” every time by the father-reveal scene as I am, time after time. I feel very sorry for you if your mind is truly as weak as you say.

The FACT remains that Empire Strikes Back is not designed to have those elements in your mind ahead of time. They take your mind off of the character-driven plot and drama of the film in immensely discordant ways. That is simply wrong, from an artistic standpoint, because that is the film’s original focus. You have added nothing to contradict this fact.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Let's examine how people hear things. In any movie with humans, it is usually assumed that people just hear things. If a movie got into the idea that there are these sound waves hitting a membrane inside our ear which causes these little bones to resonate, which in turn allow us to perceive sounds, then nothing is really changed, it's just now we have this additional information that is usually assumed.

Very true, but if I were to tell you that microscopic, telepathic elephants exist in our ears and stomp around to create vibrations in our brain to alert us to things that happen around us, that would initially sound troubling to you, and perhaps even stupid. That’s not to say that the midichlorian explanation that Qui-Gon gave was anywhere near that bad, but it was still bad enough in that same way to take people out of the drama of the moment and lessen the impact of the film.

Otherwise, your thoughts about how the midichlorians are an interesting explanation to you is not something I’m going to argue with. I’ll just quickly say that, from my personal interests in science, I find midichlorians to be a simple, boring, and generic idea compared to other possible explanations for force sensitivity. But, I can still accept what you’re talking about and understand how you find it interesting. My actual point for this issue is how it is not presented well in the movie. It makes the force overly complicated and messy at that moment.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Originally posted by: Tiptup
Anyways, the yin-yang concept was executed horribly in episodes II and III. One minute you’d have a concept be identical and then the next minute it would be opposite.
But that contrast is what makes the parallels more meaningful than if they just repeated the exact same things.

Okay, and can you actually provide some reasons for why that would be?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

If [the parallels] make enough sense to be predictable, why would you suggest Lucas is insulting your intelligence with them?

My intelligence is insulted at that point because he expects me to be entertained by that kind of predictability.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

To me the most important component of Art is what the observer brings to the table. For a viewer like me who loves to wonder about stuff like this, this dynamic brings more enjoyment than if all of the concepts were wrapped up into a neat little package and sat on our lap with instructions on how we should feel about it.

Well, that’s a quaint idea but rather stupid, I’m afraid. From that supposed point of view, the very existence of art cannot even be a good thing. Potentially, you could walk up to a blank, white wall and entertain yourself with what you “bring” if that is what is most important. What is most important about art is what it communicates. Sorry.

Also, you don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about with respect to art. Let me try again: Art communicates concepts and emotions to people. Art can either be beautiful or ugly. Normally people strive for beauty. One important element to enjoying beauty, for example, is simplicity when it ties together complexity. That is far from being an easy or unchallenging process, and, if anything, it should excite your sense of wonder beyond what it provides.

The problem with much of what exists in the prequel trilogy is the fact that it doesn’t excite my imagination. I often find its concepts annoying, boring, and/or messy. That’s hardly what I’d call beautiful. But, if you find a lot of enjoyment when untangling ugly and messy concepts, then I’m truly happy for you.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

If you prefer "standard" fare that's fine. To me Star Wars is more meaningful because it is so much more thought provoking than "standard" fare.


Heh, “standard fare,” eh? What’s that supposed to mean exactly?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Well most of the time, you are just supposed to accept these things at face value. If you don't want to think about why something is the way it is, then all you have to do is -not- question it. Suspend your disbelief and roll along with it.


Ahh, well, maybe you can “accept” substandard entertainment but I cannot. Its not something that I believe anyone should do. If a work of art wants me to accept it, then it should first work hard to entice me enough to accept it; it should be well crafted.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Originally posted by: Tiptup
So much of what happens in the prequel trilogy’s story occurs for stupid reasons.

Such as?


Well, we’ve already been discussing the most important example of this for me. I believe it is stupid when Anakin murders children over a rather tame, 5-second dream on the basis of the illogical words of an evil, untrustworthy, man.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

To call Anakin a complete psychopath is to miss the humanity in his feelings of selfishness.


I agree and I don’t miss the humanity of Anakin’s feelings of selfishness at all. What you seem to miss however, is how Anakin’s feelings of selfishness are so vastly outweighed by his inability to empathize with his victims, and therefore we are forced to conclude that he was a psychopath.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

It teaches us that evil can happen to anyone, even us. By relating to an evil person such as Darth Vader, we can see how even a person who sees themselves as "good" can end up making the wrong choices. It teaches us to be ever vigilant of the evil lurking within ourselves.


That is a good lesson, but we can relate to the evil of psychopaths and still be absolutely disgusted by them as we should be.

Darth Vader is ruined as a redeemable villain when he is turned into a whiny, creepy, annoying psychopath. Even as a basic, honorable villain, forgetting redemption, Darth Vader is ruined by the prequels.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Fear is bad. It's debilitating. It only serves to make us unstable. Wanting to be with his mother is fine, being afraid of losing his mother is natural, wanting to save his mother or wife from death is natural. Fear is not a good thing, but it's a natural occurrence in the human condition. It's not the fear that's evil, it's the anger and hate that it can lead to that is evil.


Fear is very natural. It is also good though. If I don’t fear harm to things which I deem good, then I cannot say that I truly love them. Do you believe that love is bad as well?

Also, when Obi-Wan was afraid the sand people would return, and thought it wise for them to leave quickly, was he giving in to his bad feelings?

Don’t be silly. Fear is often very good. The way fear is channeled is how it becomes bad.


Originally posted by: Darth Awesome

As for the message of needing to let things go, it was best demonstrated with Anakin's mother. Anakin needed to let her go and move on. But he opted to cling to the past and, when it came time for her to die, he was not prepared for it. If he had let her go, he could have come to terms with it and not started down that path to the Dark Side. He would not have clung to Amidala, and the Emperor would not have been able to use the fear of loosing her for his ends.

That is one of the reasons the Jedi shun such material possessions. Greed and fear of loss controls us too much.


Oh, so wanting good things is bad? Why even bother trying to defeat the empire? Aren't you just acting upon your personal desires and fears?
Post
#247922
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247922/action/topic#247922
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman

Yes, Anakin did make the choice to be a Jedi. He has this romanticized view of being a Jedi, but Qui-Gon warned him of the hardships. He still chose. But, that doesn't change the fact that his Mother taught him a certain set of values, values that indirectly clash with the Jedi Way. Most of the those values deal with the caring of people. This is why I say previously that Anakin is loyal to people, not ideals. Anakin cares for people, but not people as a whole in the way the Jedi do.

The prime example is in Episode III at the beginning when one of the Clone fighters is asking for help and Anakin wants to go help him out. Obi-Wan states, "No, they're doing their job so we can do ours." The next shot shows Anakin pissed off about it. And when it comes time for Obi-Wan to about bite the dust, Anakin goes to his friend. Obi-Wan orders him to finish the missing and leave him but Anakin isn't having any of that.

Do you see where I'm getting at?

Yes, I see what you are getting at and I can accept the proposal of those ideas. The movies certainly didn’t communicate them directly, but if you believe they are there and if the movies are important to you in that sense, then I’m fine with that. For me, that’s way too far-fetched and contradicts other ethics taught in Star Wars.

First, the Jedi don’t care about individual people, but all people? That’s a hypocritical and impossible concept on the very surface. If you love no individual people in a personal sense, you can’t love anyone in a broader sense. And, even if the “people-as-a-whole” idea could work, the Jedi don’t even practice that. We see all sorts of situations where the Jedi are concerned about individual people. They make friends and value certain lives over other lives. Like Yoda’s “warmed” heart.

When Obiwan told Anakin to not help the Clone Troopers, that was simply a very smart move. Obi-Wan was focusing on the one person who was the most important to track down (for people in both a personal sense and an individual sense). And for Anakin to act all pissed at that decision simply shows how much of a close-minded jerk he is. Seriously, if he doesn’t want to be a freakin’ Jedi, and follow the orders of his superiors, then he should quit! And Obi-Wan’s order to leave those droids on his fighter and for Anakin to finish the mission was stupid. Obi-Wan was too important to the war effort for Anakin to let him die by some small bug-bots. That and the bug-bots weren’t that big of a threat for a Jedi to handle. In fact, Obi-Wan didn’t scold him for his actions and even thanked Anakin for all of the times he saved his life after the entire mission was over.


Originally posted by: Jumpman

This is why I say it's a constant back and forth between what he knows he must be and do as a Jedi and what he feels as just a human being. It's just a clash between what he is taught and what he's being taught, on top of the fact that he knows he's the Chosen One. He is disciplined, moreso in Episode III, but he has his moments outside of that...and that's mainly a cause of his beliefs in his abilities.


Again you repeat all of the same character motivations, Jumpman, yet where did it ever seem as if I did not understand them? The way the Anakin of Episode II usually reacts to his motivations can only leave most people disgusted with his bad attitude. I totally get that Anakin from Episode II. The problem is that I also get the Anakin in Episode I, it is the fact that they are not the same person that annoys me. Based on the same motivations of Anakin that you describe, the Anakin from Episode I should have reacted very differently.

If a love for individual people is so important to Anakin, then he should optimistically care about them, even when they don’t do exactly what he would like them to do, correct? That’s how caring people normally act. They don’t whine and complain and constantly express frustrated skepticism about everything. The Anakin from episode I, who was totally adventurous, confident, and cheerfully hopeful would have never become so negative and power hungry in Episode II, just based upon the reasons you have outlined.

Otherwise, I can agree that Anakin has a few moments where he is likable in episode II, and a great deal of parts in the first half of episode III where he is likable, so I don’t disagree with you totally. The problem, for me, is all of the problems and that is what we should be discussing here.
Post
#247680
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247680/action/topic#247680
Time
I don’t know who invented the idea, but when George Lucas agreed that it would be great to make Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader into the same person, he made quite the job for himself. On the one hand we had a man that was established as very evil, and the other spoken of in glowing, wonderful terms. Did the prequel trilogy explain how that seeming dichotomy took place?

Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

"Training to become a Jedi is not an easy challenge. And even if you succeed, it's a hard life. Take that line by Qui-Gon, add the fact that Anakin was raised by his mother exclusively for nine years but can't see her because of the Jedi way, on top of the fact that he's been labeled the Chosen One and he knows it(literally) and feels it and end it with his superiors constantly keeping a watchful eye on him and holding him back.

I think you can possibly see why Anakin is a little different, 10 years later...and why he goes back and forth between doing his duty and training as a Jedi and he desires toward Padme in Episode II. He's a good kid in Episode II. He's just dealing with some angst when it comes to the Jedi Way.

"Must be difficult having sworn your life to the Jedi. Not be able to visit the places you like or do the things you like."
"Or be with the people that I love."


Yes, I see how that would be a very difficult life, but Anakin should have also learned some discipline at the same time, should he have not? Also, how was the life of a slave not that much different in those same ways? (He couldn’t go to the places he liked do the things he liked whenever he wanted.) And quite frankly, what does that say about him as a person if his virtues are totally dependant upon his external circumstances? The goodness of his mother was the only thing that ensured that he was a good boy? The instant he was on his own he becomes ungrateful and whiny?

According to TPM’s view of the Jedi, Anakin was allowed to become a Jedi under very, very special circumstances. He was not only an odd case but a potentially dangerous case and Anakin knew this. We’re supposed to believe that he’s then justified when complaining about being held back?! How on earth is that such a terrible plight? He can’t take his time and, at the very least, try to be industrious? Talk about a bad attitude.

And whether Anakin enjoys the life of a Jedi or not, HE CHOSE IT FOR HIMSELF, did he not? He was told it would be hard and he fully knew that he would not be with his mother. Now he’s going to whine about his choice and the audience is supposed to still like him for that much of a weak will? Seriously, does he have no self-respect? What about dedication or perseverance? Sticking to his personally chosen goals no matter the hardship and taking it all like a man?

The character we saw in Menace was not a character that would grow into what we saw in Clones. It doesn’t matter how much Jedi “angst” builds up, he wasn’t the kind of person who’d allow it to affect him towards such extreme levels of pessimism and distrust. That just was not his character. If anything, if the frustrations and hardships of the Jedi lifestyle were truly so difficult, they would have worn on him hard and he would have become tired and depressed, not energetically angry and nasty. In addition, the Jedi lifestyle should have constantly been teaching him proper attitudes and ethics, so if anything, the good, humble side of Anakin should have gotten plenty of reinforcement along with the bad. Attack of the clones introduced a totally different character with no connection to the previous one.
Post
#247576
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247576/action/topic#247576
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84

We meet Anakin as a 9 year old--cheery, full of compassion, resourceful, always helping people, the sweetest kid you could meet. What a brilliant irony to present Vader this way. Then next we see him--he is angst-ridden, emotionally-upset, power-hungry and with aspirations of dictatorship. What the fuck? How did we get there? Who knows! Use your imagination--assume things. Asssume everything. The problem is that these issues are the core of the PT, and according to Lucas they are both the main reason why Lucas wanted to do the PT and the only reason Lucas introduced Anakin as a child in part 1. But he not only botched it--he completely threw it away. He didn't even try. The Anakin in Episode II is not the same character from the previous film--i never even once imagined that Jake Lloyd grew up to be this person. And whatever reasons that made him become that way are not even so much as hinted at--its not that we have to use our imagination: we don't even have a frame of reference.


Yeah, that’s exactly the problem there. I can’t identify with Anakin in AotC because he doesn’t seem like the same character anymore. We got no transition from the previous character, so we couldn’t care about that good side anymore. People can’t argue that it was just a teenage thing, because, even though everyone has their problems in those years, a kid that nice, outgoing, and bursting with optimism will not become that much of a jerk unless something big happened to mess him up. A humble life as a Jedi should have only given him more self discipline if anything. It just makes no sense to me.
Post
#247573
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247573/action/topic#247573
Time
Originally posted by: Trooperman
You fellows have some really good ideas. If you have time, I was wondering if you could check this out and leave any ideas on Anakin's "seduction", and how he should be likeable at first, etc.

That might be very difficult if you're starting with what was actually filmed. The parts where he is friendly to people and not complaining about everything could help. The parts where he shows all of his concern and care for his wife might also help too. I don't know.

Heh, a possible angle would be to make it like a horror film. Then all of the inside-Anakin's-head narration could slowly reveal his unstable and completely-self-centered thoughts as time goes on. Then display all of his horrible actions in that light but with horror-movie music.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

I agree with most of what you're saying, Tiptup. I really don't mind the children slaughtering, but it needed to have a more compelling reasoning behind it. In the original, if Anakin had convinced himself that the Jedi were evil, then maybe killing children would seem justified. But for Anakin killing children in the hope of saving his wife... I don't buy it.


Ahh, yeah, very true. I don’t mean to imply that I could never see Darth Vader killing children. Darth Vader is an evil person after all. But, we needed a reason for it.

For instance, in the original Star Wars, Tarkin blows up a planet filled with innocents and Vader helps him do it. In that case it is an act of war, and the innocents were not Vader’s target but the rebels instead.

In the attack on the temple on the other hand, it was close quarters combat, and Anakin had every chance to stop himself from killing the youngest children with the rest who would not submit. There was no reason offered for why they needed to die beyond an unrelated dream sequence and a promise of help from an evil and untrustworthy man. Absolutely sick.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

He could tell himself he's doing it for Padme (after having been seduced by the power of the dark side and resisting it a lot), maybe vowing to use the power once to save her. He does, but then he realizes how wonderful this new power is and refuses to give it up. There we have the wrong thing done for an arguably right reason (in fact, an ethical choice outlined in the definition of a tragedy: a choice between something that's ethically right and something not inherently ethically wrong) but then the choice to keep it when there's nothing at stake except for his own greed. His change to evil forces Padme to leave him, thereby losing the wife he just saved. Now that's much more compelling and leaves him with a much more lasting reason to stay with Palpatine.


That would have also worked. He betrays the Jedi and does save his wife. Then he doesn’t want to give up the evil he’s chosen for himself. I like that idea.