Vaderisnothayden

TV's Frink said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I happen to want to double quote, to have the quote as one unified piece (to show the whole post I'm quoting) and later have it as separate pieces to isolate the pieces. I want to do it that way. I'm doing it that way for a reason.

There's no reason to do this unless you are being lazy or trying to be "different" or "special."  Non-word-regardless, I give up.

There's plenty reason to do it. Just because you don't see the reason doesn't mean it's not there. I'm glad you give up. I only wonder why you bothered in the first place. Do I pester you about how you post? Let me post how I choose.

::Puts Gaffer back in her cell:: Vader will be along to torture you soon.

TV's Frink said:

You feeling ok?  You only posted once in a row and only quoted me once.  Ever thought of how your wall of text looks in 3D?

C3PX posted in a way that made everything very easy to read.  Your posts are a pain in the ass to read.  And earlier in the thread you quoted the same way as C3PX, so I know you know how to do it.  Stop being so lazy.

It's nothing to do with laziness. it's to do with doing what I want to do. I happen to want to double quote, to have the quote as one unified piece (to show the whole post I'm quoting) and later have it as separate pieces to isolate the pieces. I want to do it that way. I'm doing it that way for a reason. And I'm not going to change what I do just because you don't like it. Surely by now you should have figured out that I don't cooperate with people telling me to do things. And my posts are perfectly easy to read. Stop whining about nothing.

Nobody needs avatars.

http://geektyrant.com/2009/12/is-it-possible-a-new-star-wars-movie-is-in-development/

That’s a rumor of a new Star Wars movie.

And here’s Haden Blackman, who made Force Unleashed, saying a Force Unleashed movie is a possibility.

http://geektyrant.com/2008/09/star-wars-force-unleashed-to-get-the-big-screen-treatment/

I don’t know if you’ve all heard this before or if either of these things are at all likely.

Anybody have any thoughts on this or know anything more?

TV's Frink said:

Look at me being a busybody! Wheee!

 Fixed. :)

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

They're offended because they choose to be offended. They could just as easily choose to be more open-minded and not get offended. If somebody's offended by swearing that's their problem. It's not a reason why other people should have to censor their speech.

Or you could simply choose not to be offensive and save them the trouble. Lets for a second assume all who are offended by cursing are worthless close minded individuals who simply make life miserable for the rest of us; what about young children? If you had (and perhaps you do have) kids, would there be (or are there) any words you would feel would be inappropriate to use in front of them?

Well, that's dumb. I don't go making stupid assumptions about people's intelligence or education when I hear them swearing. I know that swearing has nothing to do with education or intelligence...

Which sounds more educated?

(a) "The other fuckin' day, I went to the fuckin' grocery store and they fuckin' had their fuckin' milk on sale for a two fuckin' forty-five a gallon! I bought three fuckin' cartons... shit that was a good deal."

(b) "The other day, I went to the grocery store and they had their milk on sale for two forty-five gallon! I bought three cartons... that was a good deal."

Swearing does not lessen communication and it is no evidence of a lack of ability to communicate. It's rather dumb to think it is. I've never thought somebody sounded stupid just because they cursed. But when I hear people criticising swearing I do tend to think "What a narrow-minded stick-in-the-mud".

In my above question, which speaker is communicating more clearly? Is it (a) or (b)?

"As for not cursing in front of women, you are right, there is really no reason they couldn't handle it any less than anyone else, it is just an old fashion courtesy and a sign of respect."

Old fashioned sexism, really. Ultimately therefore a sign of DISrespect.

I also hold doors open for women. Most of the time they are appreciative of it, but every now and then one "chooses" to be offended by it. So yeah, I probably would accurately fit into the modern definition of the word "sexist". 

 

Swearing is not about being cool or badass or nonconformist. It's about putting vigour and expression into your speech in a way that is not duplicated by other methods. I don't see why swearing being commonplace should make it lame. People saying "hello" is commonplace too, but that doesn't make it especially lame.

Thank you for brining up the point of "vigor" and "expression" this is quite true. You could use swearing to add weight to what you are saying. For example, someone saying, "Are you fucking kidding me!" I could assume to be more angry than someone just simply saying, "Are you kidding me!" But with over use, the potency of these words is greatly diminished. "Hello" is a very different sort of a word, it is a greeting and is meant to be used on a very frequent basis.

With good reason. When you swear you just express yourself, but when you express disapproval of swearing you condemn the actions of others.

I stated quite simply that I was not condemning anyone. If I were to make the argument that "Manual transmission cars are better than automatics", would you think I was condemning all who drive automatics?

"Today, maybe not swearing would be far more nonconformist than intentionally mistaking the f word as a necessary form of verbal punctuation. "

Being anti-swearing is being narrow-minded and overly conservative.

Fair enough. If that is how you feel about it, no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

"It is no longer the taboo that it used to be."

Yes it is. Here we can swear, but on many internet forums swearing isn't allowed at all. Off the net, society still applies plenty of disapproval in many countries. Very narrow-minded attempts to censor swearing are all over the place. 

If you need proof it is no longer as taboo as it used to be, let's take a look at its use in movies and other media today in comparison with its use in movies and media back in the 1930's. Can we not concede that there is a pretty big difference? We've come along ways from "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" being considered controversial.

"Or you could simply choose not to be offensive and save them the trouble."

Well seeing as swearing isn't offensive, any trouble is of their own making. There's no reason why I should censor my speech to satisfy the prejudices of others.

"what about young children? If you had (and perhaps you do have) kids, would there be (or are there) any words you would feel would be inappropriate to use in front of them?"

Nope. Swearing does children no harm whatsoever. People should let children swear and let children hear swearing.

"Which sounds more educated? (a) "The other fuckin' day, I went to the fuckin' grocery store and they fuckin' had their fuckin' milk on sale for a two fuckin' forty-five a gallon! I bought three fuckin' cartons... shit that was a good deal." (b) "The other day, I went to the grocery store and they had their milk on sale for two forty-five gallon! I bought three cartons... that was a good deal.""

Neither. The isn't an education difference. Your whole education difference thing is just class prejudice. You associate swearing with working class and you assume working class people have less education. It's a common attitude. Attitudes against swearing have a lot to do with class prejudice. And don't come out with the excuse that you're working class, because working class people are certainly not incapable of being prejudiced against working class.

"In my above question, which speaker is communicating more clearly? Is it (a) or (b)?"

They're both communicating perfectly clearly.

"I also hold doors open for women. Most of the time they are appreciative of it, but every now and then one "chooses" to be offended by it. So yeah, I probably would accurately fit into the modern definition of the word "sexist"."

And your attitudes are more harmful than you realize, because they imply certain attitudes about the capabilities and position of women. As for those women who don't mind you holding open doors for them, some of them may not realize you only hold open doors for women and may think you're just a polite guy who holds open doors for people in general. If they realized you were just doing it on account of their gender they might be less pleased. You imply that women being offended by this stuff is the same as people being offended by swearing, but there is the simple difference that women are right to be offended, while the anti-swearing crowd are not.

"But with over use, the potency of these words is greatly diminished."

I don't find their potency to be diminished.

"I stated quite simply that I was not condemning anyone. If I were to make the argument that "Manual transmission cars are better than automatics", would you think I was condemning all who drive automatics?"

Your car statement is rather more neutral. There's no issue of morality involved so there's no moral disapproval implied. When you state an attitude against swearing you are criticising those who swear.

"If you need proof it is no longer as taboo as it used to be, let's take a look at its use in movies and other media today in comparison with its use in movies and media back in the 1930's. Can we not concede that there is a pretty big difference? We've come along ways from "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" being considered controversial."

It may not be as taboo as it used to be, but it's still plenty taboo.

C3PX said:

Anyway, I think I proved my point about it (not swearing) being countercultural simply based upon your reaction to my post. My feelings on not swearing seems to offend you in a way that swearing has offended many people before you.

That assumes that I somehow represent the culture. I don't. I am an atypical individual. If something is at odds with me it doesn't prove it's countercultural.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

C3PX said:

As for me, I am still the old fashioned sort that doesn't believe in cursing in front of ladies, and since I have the unfortunate tendancy to let one slip on these forums ever now and then, I like to assume this is a mostly estrogen free zone (with the exception of vbangle, who I believe is made up entirely of estrogen; and who will never know I said this about him because he has me on ignore).

Why would women be any less able than men to handle cursing around them? I can see no reason why anybody should curse any less around women than around men. And there's nothing "unfortunate" about cursing. There's nothing wrong with cursing whatsoever.

 

"Wrong" is very relative term. There is nothing wrong with a lot of things, but I'd still prefer to refrain from them.

The bottom line is cursing offends some people, and from that stand point I'd, personally, prefer to avoid it. By cursing in my posts, to some degree, I alienate fellow users who find it offensive. It also has the tendency to sound very uneducated. When you hear someone who curses every other word, do you think to yourself, "Wow, this individual is a master communicator"? Probably not. I often hear someone curse and think to myself how stupid they just sounded, and realize I probably sound just are retarded as they did when I curse. Again, I do it myself, so I am not condemning anyone. I just have a huge amount of respect for people who do not.

As for not cursing in front of women, you are right, there is really no reason they couldn't handle it any less than anyone else, it is just an old fashion courtesy and a sign of respect. I still stand when someone enters the room as well, so yeah, I am pretty lame like that. I have held onto these kinds of things since I was a teenager; I think I only started doing them because nobody else did, and my parents never taught me to do them. Probably just part of my youthful desire to be different than everyone else.

In our culture, we have reached the point were swearing is so common place, that to me anyway, that it comes off as pretty lame and not as bold, cool, and "badass" and the speaker intends. I guess the thing that makes cursing "cool" is that it is a "nonconformist" sort of thing to do. Society says swearing is bad, so every would be rebel out there does it. Presently, society seems to accept swearing to a good degree. It is no longer the taboo that it used to be. Case in point, I can drop the "f-bomb" on this forum, and no one complains; but I say it is "unfortunate" that I have a habit of cursing, and I am immediately called to the mat. Today, maybe not swearing would be far more nonconformist than intentionally mistaking the f word as a necessary form of verbal punctuation. 

 "The bottom line is cursing offends some people, and from that stand point I'd, personally, prefer to avoid it."

They're offended because they choose to be offended. They could just as easily choose to be more open-minded and not get offended. If somebody's offended by swearing that's their problem. It's not a reason why other people should have to censor their speech.

"It also has the tendency to sound very uneducated. When you hear someone who curses every other word, do you think to yourself, "Wow, this individual is a master communicator"? Probably not. I often hear someone curse and think to myself how stupid they just sounded, and realize I probably sound just are retarded as they did when I curse."

Well, that's dumb. I don't go making stupid assumptions about people's intelligence or education when I hear them swearing. I know that swearing has nothing to do with education or intelligence. I don't have a hangup about intelligence and education and I'm not worried about how educated or intelligent I sound, so I don't worry if swearing will make somebody think something about my level of education or intelligence. Swearing does not lessen communication and it is no evidence of a lack of ability to communicate. It's rather dumb to think it is. I've never thought somebody sounded stupid just because they cursed. But when I hear people criticising swearing I do tend to think "What a narrow-minded stick-in-the-mud".

"As for not cursing in front of women, you are right, there is really no reason they couldn't handle it any less than anyone else, it is just an old fashion courtesy and a sign of respect."

Old fashioned sexism, really. Ultimately therefore a sign of DISrespect.

"In our culture, we have reached the point were swearing is so common place, that to me anyway, that it comes off as pretty lame and not as bold, cool, and "badass" and the speaker intends. I guess the thing that makes cursing "cool" is that it is a "nonconformist" sort of thing to do. Society says swearing is bad, so every would be rebel out there does it. Presently, society seems to accept swearing to a good degree. It is no longer the taboo that it used to be. Case in point, I can drop the "f-bomb" on this forum, and no one complains; but I say it is "unfortunate" that I have a habit of cursing, and I am immediately called to the mat. Today, maybe not swearing would be far more nonconformist than intentionally mistaking the f word as a necessary form of verbal punctuation. "

Swearing is not about being cool or badass or nonconformist. It's about putting vigour and expression into your speech in a way that is not duplicated by other methods. I don't see why swearing being commonplace should make it lame. People saying "hello" is commonplace too, but that doesn't make it especially lame.

"Case in point, I can drop the "f-bomb" on this forum, and no one complains; but I say it is "unfortunate" that I have a habit of cursing, and I am immediately called to the mat."

With good reason. When you swear you just express yourself, but when you express disapproval of swearing you condemn the actions of others.

"Today, maybe not swearing would be far more nonconformist than intentionally mistaking the f word as a necessary form of verbal punctuation. "

Being anti-swearing is being narrow-minded and overly conservative.

"It is no longer the taboo that it used to be."

Yes it is. Here we can swear, but on many internet forums swearing isn't allowed at all. Off the net, society still applies plenty of disapproval in many countries. Very narrow-minded attempts to censor swearing are all over the place. 

AxiaEuxine said:

I wish this whole 3D fad would disappear. Its a cheap gimmick and still doesnt look real. I might as well hold a viewmaster to my face for 2 hours.

 Hear hear.

Octorox said:

Reviews have been pretty positive. I think I'm going to make the leap. I looks like it will be a really fun event film and not 2 hours of mind melting mess like Transformers 2 was. And to the person who said it looks like a cartoon, whats wrong with cartoons? I think you guys need to lighten up a little bit ;).

And To VINH, I gotta say that the political connotations of EpIII was really no more overt than any of the political undertones of the OT . You just happen not to agree with with some of the allegorical ties EPIII suggests. It draws just as heavily from other sources like the Vietnam War and the rise of the Roman Empire as it does to the Bush Administration. It deals with the ideas of decietful politicians, conspiracies, and fear mongering which doesn't have to be about the Bush Administration, although some would say it reflects the general climate at the time. Lucas said he was more concerned with referencing Vietnam than Bush.

(Note that I am not defending EpIII as a great film, it is still highly flawed and I believe many reviews (particularly Ebert, and I love that guy!) were very inflated and just didn't have any demands on integrity to the original series)

Also, The reason EpIII was positively received by critics (as I see it)  is because it wasn't boring (like EpII) and it wasn't overtly goofy and childish nor ridiculously overhyped (like EPI). The dialogue was poorly written but it did provide the great spectacle and grand scope that people were looking for.

(P.S. I realize that my avatar is not lending any validity to the seriousness of my argument)

Yeah I know Lucas said he was talking about Vietnam not the the present, but since when did we start believing George Lucas? The Bush references in ROTS are shout-out-loud. No, they're nothing like the political undertones in the OT. Those were much more subtle. And why should my not agreeing with ROTS's politics make me any more bothered by it than by the politics in the OT? I don't agree with the politics in the OT either. I just amn't bothered by the OT politics because they don't beat you over the head and they're not this cheap superficial thing stuff shoved in to get credit.

And to the person who said it looks like a cartoon, whats wrong with cartoons?

Cartoons don't look real. A live action film should look real. So if a live action film looks like a cartoon you have a problem. Like with 97 Jabba and Jar Jar.

Why should we lighten up? The hype for this film isn't lightening up. It's all "this is a serious worthy film about important stuff" and "this is an IMPORTANT cinema event". When they lighten maybe we will.

Also, The reason EpIII was positively received by critics (as I see it)  is because it wasn't boring (like EpII) and it wasn't overtly goofy and childish nor ridiculously overhyped (like EPI). The dialogue was poorly written but it did provide the great spectacle and grand scope that people were looking for.

Except it WAS boring. It WAS overly childish. As for great spectacle, I beg to differ -meaningless overdone show, more like. As for grand scope, it pretended to that, but it didn't have it with any depth. ROTS got better reviews because of its fashionable politics and because people bought the film's big idea of itself.

Reviews have been pretty positive. I think I'm going to make the leap.

Why should reviews have any bearing on your seeing the film? Reviewers always get stuff wrong.

C3PX said:

As for me, I am still the old fashioned sort that doesn't believe in cursing in front of ladies, and since I have the unfortunate tendancy to let one slip on these forums ever now and then, I like to assume this is a mostly estrogen free zone (with the exception of vbangle, who I believe is made up entirely of estrogen; and who will never know I said this about him because he has me on ignore).

Why would women be any less able than men to handle cursing around them? I can see no reason why anybody should curse any less around women than around men. And there's nothing "unfortunate" about cursing. There's nothing wrong with cursing whatsoever.

C3PX said:

Yes, one of the books in the series was called The Glove of Darth Vader. They were written for children and contradicted other SW EU from the very start (started coming out around the same time Timothy Zahn's first SW books were being released). Though perhaps other EU stories borrowed from this or also tried to turn Darth Vader's glove into a mythical Sith artifact.

When those books first came out, I was under the impression they were not meant to be taken as a serious part of the EU (after the battle of Endor, Lando goes on to buy a themepark), but rather part of some subcategory.

 They're considered canon now.

From what I've heard, Avatar is even more bull than I thought. It seems James Cameron is pushing it as having a message about the war on terrorism. That's the same trick Lucas pulled with ROTS. Stick in a few Bush allusions and suddenly you get better reviews. I'm sure that's why ROTS got the best reviews of the prequels, which it most certainly didn't deserve. So now Cameron is pushing the politics in the film to get it some criticial approval. Cheap. All for a movie that's just there to push a gimmick Hollywood wants to make money out of.

C3PX said:

Yeah, having to watch Chewie's dad masturbate for ten minutes is one of the most frightening and upsetting things I have ever seen on a TV screen.

Lol. We didn't actually see the masturbation itself. Maybe that would have been more watchable than what we did see. That Wookiee Porn sequence was torture. And wtf is a wookiee watching a human woman for? Wouldn't he be into wookiee women? They should have had a wookiee woman growling away for the duration instead of what we got. But the music thing in the cantina was worse. I was thinking "If she says "friend" one more time...." And the fucker pouring the drink into his head. There were so many horrible acts in that thing. I read that they stuck all that garbage in to compensate for the fact that their main characters just growled and couldn't speak. Personally I would have preferred just the wookiees growling. And whose bright idea was it name Chewie's relatives "Itchy" and "Lumpy"? Sounds like chicken pox.

It's not certain the emperor would have been killed in the death star explosion. Maybe he could have escaped in the last moments like Luke eventually did.

Luke couldn't have handled the Emperor by himself. Not enough power. And if he did somehow kill the emperor he'd have probably gone dark because of doing it in anger. But I think Vader was very destined to be there. And I'm not just talking about the bloody prophecy. Destiny is mentioned in the OOT and I think it's reasonable to think that in a fairytale like Star wars the characters were destined to fulfil certain roles. Vader was destined to be there and the only question was what side he'd end up taking. Also, Luke wasn't just going to go hand himself over to any old imperials just o meet the emperor. He handed himself over because he knew Vader was there. Meeting Vader was a certainty.

Vader obviously dealt with the shots with the force. Without special explanation, it's not reasonable to think his hand is going to stand up to laser blasts without using the force. So I think force use is clearly the original intention. But the eu has to go and muck it up. I think they explain that Vader's gloves were indestructible or something. They also say his gloves give him super-grip, so no that's not bionic streength that's allowing him to crush the rebel officers throat, it's his gloves. What a load of bull. Sometimes I think they set out to give explanations for things in the eu just to see how they can ruin the story. The eu is full of this bull. 

The holiday special is bloody scary. But it's still more star wars than the stuff Lucas has been putting out from 97 onwards.

skyjedi2005 said:

In my opinion the prequels are the worst of the expanded universe by far.

George Lucas can call them canon until he is blue in the face and it does not make them canon just because he says so.

They don't match up with the oot the one and only true star wars canon.

I would venture even further to say the prequels are not just EU but an alternate universe continuity, for example Hayden Skywalker/Vader does not match the mentality of the original star wars trilogy, nor do the jedi.  It is Star Wars in name only sure you have these dudes in robes who have the same names and carry a lightsaber but they are completely out of character.

The Hayden version of Anakin Skywalker is no more the true version than Chris Pine's alternate universe Captain Kirk.  Both belong to a false backstory and not the true origin story of said fictional universes.

I reject the prequels as the true origin story of how the empire came to power and how darth vader came to be who he is.  I'm still waiting for a version that fits with what we saw in the originals.  If no real version is ever made i can imagine my own thats better than georges cartoon cgi and jar jar binks and whiny wooden hayden crap.

I find it helps to note there are only 3 star wars films and 3 indiana jones films, that way my memories are not destroyed.

Hear hear. The ARE only 3 true Star Wars movies. The prequels and Clone Wars movie are counterfeit Star Wars, cheap knockoff imitations. Indy 4 isn't as bad but it's certainly not classic Indy. Trek's new Kirk isn't Kirk, but he's a lot better than Hayden's Annie Skywalker. If you want a Trek character from the new Trek to compare to Annie, pick the new Spock. Zachary Quinto totally didn't get Spock right. His performance was an insult to the character just like Hayden's performance was an insult to Star Wars. Certainly I agree that the OOT is the only true canon. Anything outside the films is not canon, the SE is anti-canon and the prequels and Clone movie are not the real thing.

It is definitely true that the prequel Anakin and the prequel jedi do not match up with the OOT. The Anakin we met at the end of the OOT would never have been the sort of bland, petty wimp that the prequel Anakin was and Darth Vader could never have been such a weakling. The jedi in the OOT were admirable, while in the prequels they so often come off like a bunch of posers and Yoda comes off like a totally different character from his OT self. Would you see OT Yoda howling in a fight and striking macho poses?

Canon is about what's the real thing. Thus to be canon something has to be the real thing. It's that principle that decides true canon, not companies and individuals who own entertainment properties. As such, the prequels and special editions are not canon, because they're not the real thing, no matter what Lucas might say. Same goes for the EU, no matter what Lucasfilm might say.

George Lucas broke from canon in the 90s when he rejected the OOT and tried to replace it with the SE, and nothing he's done since has been canon and nor could it be. If he wants to make canon Star Wars he has to admit the OOT is the real thing and stop pushing his revised version.

xhonzi said:

 Did we ever get a comprehensive list of things that the Force could and couldn't do?  I must have missed that.

I never said we got such a list. But there doesn't need to be any such list for my point to stand. The point is that we never got any indication that the force could do that (transfer minds into clones), so there's no reason why we should assume Palpatine's likely to go transferring his mind into clones.

Did we see any clones in the OT?  Did you see a Rancor in ANH or ESB?  Did you see Hoth in ANH?  Did anyone ever mention Yoda prior to ESB?  Did anyone says Vader was Luke's dad and Leia was Luke's sister  when the characters were introduced in ANH?

Not the point. You were saying that it naturally followed from the OT that Palpatine would resurrect himself in clones, as if the story elements introduced in the OT would have to lead to Palpatine resurrecting himself in clones that had his mind. No we did not see Hoth in ANH. ANH did did not bar the possibilty of Hoth, but based on ANH we could not say, "well it naturally follows that the rebels will have to end up on a snow planet". In ANH it was not said that Vader was Luke's father, and they found a way to make it possible later, but you could not take ANH and draw from it the conclusion that based on the details of ANH Vader must be Luke's father or Leia must be Luke's sister. Similarly, you could not look at ANH and say that it followed from ANH that there would be a green mentor coming up. Similarly you cannot take the OT and draw from it the conclusion that the Emperor would naturally be resurrected in clones with his mind. To say that that naturally followed you need to have established that clones could be given the original person's mind in the Star Wars universe. Without that we have no reason to think the Emperor's going to get resurrected. Of course, the rebels could end up on a snow planet, but we'd no reason to say it would have to be that way or that there would have to be a green mentor or that Vader and Luke and Leia would have to be related, and I bet none of those things were thought up when Lucas made ANH. It doesn't naturally follow from the OT that the Emperor would get resurrected in clones.

Furthermore, putting the original person's mind in clones and using it to resurrect the person is a distinct level of the unreal. We didn't know that Star Wars would go that far. Sure, there were aliens and hyperspace and laser swords and the force, but the level of unreality only went so far. Resurrection is a very high level of unreal and a lot of fictions are unwilling to go that far. Nowhere in the OT or PT does Star Wars actually go that far. Though the PT does go similarly far with the virgin birth and that has been recognized by a lot of people as going farther than Star Wars went before then. I find it unsurprising that the films have never pulled resurrection. I bet Lucas is unwilling to do it (despite the virgin birth). Resurrection is precisely the sort of thing I'd expect to see in the eu rather than in the films. The eu is always that bit more careless about restricting what it does and watching levels of real. Judging from the carefully judged level of unreal we saw in the OT, resurrection was something that didn't fit and wasn't likely. It was a boundary Star Wars was not likely to go beyond. So if we're going to say it naturally follows from the OT that the Emperor would get resurrected in clones with his mind we need to add in something that gets us past that boundary and there was no such thing in the OT. Star wars is not Dune. Cloning doesn't mean resurrection unless your fictional universe has clearly shown that it does.

Fair enough.  Is the point of RotJ any different then?  Is the point of any consumable any different?

It's fair to assume ROTJ has a bit more creative point to it. It's part of the core body of artistic work of the franchise, while the EU is just the merchandising to make money off the fans.

So, you don't like the EU.  At all. 

Incorrect. I like some eu and dislike some eu. But I don't want any eu stuffed into the OT where it doesn't belong.

Fine.  This is obviously a thread about the EU.  While we (or I alone, as the case may be here) want to get into the weeds and discuss the finer points, we don't really want you to come crashing through our sandbox, knocking down my lovely castle, and telling us you don't like sand. 

No, that is not what this thread is. Look at the opening post:

xhonzi said:

This is my attempt to convince you that the Emperor's Clones part of the Dark Empire aren't as bad as you thought.  Even that they are good!

Have you ever watched a movie where the bad guy is supposedly undefeatable (as evidenced by the ending to act 1 and especially the ending to act 2) abd then at the end of the movie, they sort of just take him out?  This is one of my biggest pet peaves in a movie: when they stop following their own rules. 

I think the Prequels sort of do this on the OT with cloning, but perhaps the problem is really much earlier than that.  George Lucas opened a door in 1977 with the term "Clone Wars."  Introducing Cloning technology into the fantasy world would have lots of implications unless the technology was uninvented, lost, or somehow made obsolete.  A veritable closing of the door.  But as long as the door is left open, we would expect to see the technology constantly, right?

Certainly, if the technology was still available...  why wouldn't Palpatine have focused his efforts and power on a way to live forever?  Of course he would.

But then again... that door is still open.  Why isn't everybody being cloned?  That's probably where Dark Empire II and III went afoul.  They tried to close the door on cloning, or cloning the Emperor at least.  And that is where they suck.

This thread is a thread to argue that the Emperor being cloned A) Is good and B) Naturally follows from the OT. Now, anybody with any interest in Star Wars has a right to argue against the alarming conclusion that the OT naturally leads to the Emperor being resurrected via cloning. And anybody with an interest in Star Wars has a right to debate the issue of whether it's a good idea to clone the emperor, particularly if (like me) they've read DE and its sequels. You don't have to love all the EU or think the eu belongs stuffed into the OT to have a right to express an opinion on this thread or to be able to say something relevant on this thread. This is not your sandbox for building sand castles. This is the soap box you got up on to argue certain points and anybody who disagrees with those points has a right to come in here and disagree with you.

The question was, and yes this is more articulate here than it was above: "If you accept the EU, how does Vader's sacrifice change in light of Palpatine's clones?"  Saying the EU sucks is pretty much a troll answer to that question.

A) I did not say the eu sucks. I said the exists to make money for Lucas and I said the eu doesn't belong in the OT. That is not the same as saying the sucks. B) The question you just asked now is NOT what you said in your opening post at all. You're changing the game at half time. That question you just asked now is not the question this thread is about. Maybe you should make a new thread for your new question. Or else just accept that people will do more on this thread than just discuss your new question, because your new question did not start this thread.

And of course Palpatine's clone resurrection screws up Vader's sacrifice entirely, which is a good reason why Palpatine's resurrection is a load of bullshit and should have been avoided. One of many reasons. I hated it when I first heard of it and I've never changed my mind. The Palpatine resurrection is cheap and cheapens Star Wars. It put a black mark on the new 90s eu right when it was starting. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from a comic book, but the 90s eu was supposed to be a serious eu and thus should have tried to live up to the movies' standards rather than going by comic book standards. Kudos to Lucas for saying Palpatine doesn't get cloned.

VINH- I think you made some great strides in this post.  You actually called your opinion an "opinion."  As far as I've seen, that's a first.  You get into some strange arguments here because you usually saunter in declaring your opinion as fact and casting down anyone who doesn't agree with you.  I think you'd get on better here if you were a little more aware of other people's opinions.

Do you realize you're crossing a line in rudeness?

"You actually called your opinion an "opinion."  As far as I've seen, that's a first."

No it's not a first.

"You get into some strange arguments here because you usually saunter in declaring your opinion as fact and casting down anyone who doesn't agree with you."

No, I get into arguments here because I think differently and because thinking differently is only acceptable if you're timid and mincing about it. People who think differently aren't supposed to get uppity.

I don't "cast down" anybody. I disagree with people when I don't agree with their viewpoints. And obviously that IS a crime. As for declaring my opinions as fact, all I do is show reasonable confidence in my views (which is of course not acceptable in somebody who thinks differently from most people). But in actual fact, most people treat their opinions as fact, though a lot of people like to pretend to themselves that they're not doing that.   

xhonzi said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

Vader knew it would kill the Emperor, because it did kill the Emperor. The Emperor's clones is just an eu story element thought up later and has no bearing on interpretation of events in ROTJ. And of course Vader was saving Luke from death.

Come now, it's a what if question.  We all know it's an EU story, but why can't it cast implications back on events in the RotJ?  The point of the EU is to get more of something you like, is it not?  If so, don't you want it to actually cause you to revisit the thing that you like and maybe see it in a new light?

As for Palpatine transferring himself to clones via the force, there was never any indication before then (or in any of the films) that the force could do that.

 Did we ever get a comprehensive list of things that the Force could and couldn't do?  I must have missed that.

If you don't like the story, that's fine.  But if you want to discuss this with me, please let's discuss it at the same level.  If I ask what I think is a well thought out question and you respond with: "Teh prequels suck!" then we're not really discussing anything, are we?

"Come now, it's a what if question.  We all know it's an EU story, but why can't it cast implications back on events in the RotJ?  The point of the EU is to get more of something you like, is it not?  If so, don't you want it to actually cause you to revisit the thing that you like and maybe see it in a new light?"

No way. The EU stuff is just some merchandising story thought up years later. It's alien to ROTJ. Its implications don't belong in ROTJ. To see ROTJ in the light of EU material like DE or Zahn's books is to pollute and twist the core canon with alien material that doesn't belong.

I can revisit ROTJ quite well with without dragging the EU into it. And the point of the eu is make money for lucas and that's all it's for.

"Did we ever get a comprehensive list of things that the Force could and couldn't do?  I must have missed that."

I never said we got such a list. But there doesn't need to be any such list for my point to stand. The point is that we never got any indication that the force could do that (transfer minds into clones), so there's no reason why we should assume Palpatine's likely to go transferring his mind into clones.

"If you don't like the story, that's fine.  But if you want to discuss this with me, please let's discuss it at the same level.  If I ask what I think is a well thought out question and you respond with: "Teh prequels suck!" then we're not really discussing anything, are we?"

I'm hardly merely saying I don't like something. I'm refusing to go along with your attempt to reinterpret ROTJ in the light of DE, because I don't agree with doing that. I'm perfectly entitled to go that way if I want to. My argument that such EU-based reinterpretation of ROTJ/the OT is mistaken is a valid point of view. I also discussed the viability of the argument that it was logical to assume from what we saw in the films that Palpatine would go resurrecting himself in clones that had his mind. I pointed out that the films did not provide enough to support the argument that it naturally followed from the films that Palpatine would go resurrecting himself in clones that had his mind. I do think we're discussing something. But both of us are entitled to discuss it in the way we choose.

Seriously, I don't want to ruin your fun and all, but I feel very strongly that eu doesn't belong in the OT and I think I'm entitled to express that view. (And if that's how I feel, imagine how I feel about Bash Fender's ship the Outsider or whatever being put in the SE.)

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

 

 "Star Wars is an entertainment property. Every single aspect of it exists to please fans,"

Just because something's an entertainment property doesn't mean every single aspect exists to please fans. Do you really think the SE exists to please fans? Or the treatment the OOT gets?

 

The SE of Star Wars, a film that had already had two wide relases and had been available on video for 14 years made almost $200 million. It apparently please a few people.

As for the OOT, as much as I disagre with LFL on this one, it seems backwards to blame a franchise for what is doesn't do. They also haven't made a Sequal Trilogy or a new Lite-Brite set in years. There are probably people not pleased by either of those.

"The SE of Star Wars, a film that had already had two wide relases and had been available on video for 14 years made almost $200 million. It apparently please a few people."

That it may have pleased some fans does not in any way mean that it was done to please fans. We all know Lucas did it for his own reasons. Basically to please himself. It wasn't done to please the fans.

"As for the OOT, as much as I disagre with LFL on this one, it seems backwards to blame a franchise for what is doesn't do. "

I really don't see why it woud be backward to blame a fanchise for what it doesn't do. I also don't see why that whole question is relevant. The point was not about blame. The point was that Lucas's treatment of the OOT is not something that's done to please fans. You insisted that everything an "entertainment property" does is done to please fans, a point of view that has no basis that I know of. I'm giving you obvious examples of things being done with Star Wars that have been done to satisfy George Lucas and not the fans. Which provides examples of how not everything an entertainment property or Star Wars does is done to please fans.

xhonzi said:

I knew my brilliant title couldn't be original.  :(

In the conceipt of Dark Empire, the Emperor is tranferring his dark soul into each new clone.  The clones themselves are just blank until then- you never see a living clone besides whoever is Emperor Prime.  And since the transfer is done via the "magic" part of Star Wars (vice the "science" part) then Palpatine can tell us that it is in fact his own consciousness that is being transferred, his veritable quintessence and not merely a copy.  So while your concerns about clone uprisings or the "is it really me?" conundrum might apply to other cloning fictions (or facts!), the author has specifically headed you off at this particular pass.

RE: The Sith Legacy
Obviously the PT makes Palpatine out to be the currnet head of the Sith order, dedicated body and soul to... whatever it is the Sith are supposed to be dedicated to... (Communism?)  However, in the OT and it's associated novels and Topps trading cards, Vader only is referred to as the Dark Lord of the Sith.  It is plain that Palpatine is an evil Force-Person (thank you, Boost) and that he is Vader's master... but it is not clear that he is actually a Sith.  I definitely get the impression that he and Vader have some different ideas regarding the Force.  As I have claimed before, I think that Vader still lives by some sort of moral code (or "ancient religion" if you will) and I don't know that I think the same of Palpatine.  Is Palpatine dedicated to the Sith?  Or is he dedicated to himself?  Unfortunately, we were never really told what he wanted to do with all of the power he was accruing. 

RE: Why Palpatine would want to live forever:
So here's my thought: The Jedi live in Harmony with the Universe.  The result of this clean living is that the Jedi naturally "become one with the Force" at their physical deaths and move on to a form of immortality.  Their eternal reward.  The evil Force-People (thank you, Boost) live in disharmony, trying to impose their will on the Universe.  At their physical deaths, the Universe smothers their flame and they are destroyed forever.  Their eternal punishment.  BUT!  If you could cheat life AND cheat death...  You could have the best of both worlds.  Your day of reckoning, your day of punishment, would never come.

RE: Vader's sacrifice:
In my opinion, Vader's sacrifice involves all three people in the room, and what happens to Palpatine is actually the least important part.  Vader saves Luke, that's the important piece.  Let me ask you a question:  What is Vader saving Luke from?  After years of thinking it was death, as a father now I take it completely differently. 

I think a lot of fathers pass on qualities and traits to their kids (especially their sons) that make them proud of them.  I think they also pass on weaknesses and bad habits that make them feel guilty for doing so.  As a parent, one of my top priorities is to help my kids be better at the things that I am particularly bad at.  I lack a certain amount of self discipline and it affects me in every part of my life.  It's a quality I share with/possibly learned from/inherited from my father.  I can already tell my young kids suffer from the same problem.  And so I try to find ways to help them learn that now so they don't have to keep repeating the "sins of the fathers."

So, back to Vader & Luke... What is Vader saving Luke from?  And does that change if Palpatine isn't permanently killed by Vader's sacrifice.  Can we assume that Vader probably knew it wouldn't actually kill the Emperor?  Then why did he still do what he did?  I think it personalizes the sacrifice to Vader and Luke, which is awesome.

Vader knew it would kill the Emperor, because it did kill the Emperor. The Emperor's clones is just an eu story element thought up later and has no bearing on interpretation of events in ROTJ. And of course Vader was saving Luke from death.

As for Palpatine transferring himself to clones via the force, there was never any indication before then (or in any of the films) that the force could do that.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 There are other reasons for canon policies other than pleasing fans or making money. Such as pleasing the people in Lucasfilm who are doing it and keeping internal consistency in the fiction.

 

Even if the canon policy was there to please fans, that's no reason while all fans should love it.

 If you genuninly think that the canon policy exists for the benefit of the people who make the canon policy, (??)why even deign to acknowledge it.

Star Wars is an entertainment property. Every single aspect of it exists to please fans, and there's no reason that all fans should love any part of it.

 "Star Wars is an entertainment property. Every single aspect of it exists to please fans,"

Just because something's an entertainment property doesn't mean every single aspect exists to please fans. Do you really think the SE exists to please fans? Or the treatment the OOT gets?

xhonzi said:

This is my attempt to convince you that the Emperor's Clones part of the Dark Empire aren't as bad as you thought.  Even that they are good!

Have you ever watched a movie where the bad guy is supposedly undefeatable (as evidenced by the ending to act 1 and especially the ending to act 2) abd then at the end of the movie, they sort of just take him out?  This is one of my biggest pet peaves in a movie: when they stop following their own rules. 

I think the Prequels sort of do this on the OT with cloning, but perhaps the problem is really much earlier than that.  George Lucas opened a door in 1977 with the term "Clone Wars."  Introducing Cloning technology into the fantasy world would have lots of implications unless the technology was uninvented, lost, or somehow made obsolete.  A veritable closing of the door.  But as long as the door is left open, we would expect to see the technology constantly, right?

Certainly, if the technology was still available...  why wouldn't Palpatine have focused his efforts and power on a way to live forever?  Of course he would.

But then again... that door is still open.  Why isn't everybody being cloned?  That's probably where Dark Empire II and III went afoul.  They tried to close the door on cloning, or cloning the Emperor at least.  And that is where they suck.

When you clone somebody the clone wouldn't have the memories, skills and exact personality of the original. Adding that stuff in is going beyond just cloning. Clones being in Star Wars doesn't mean there'd be cloning being used to resurrect people, complete with their memories, abilities and exact personality. Cloning by itself isn't resurrection.

Resurrecting the Emperor was a dumb idea that  cheapened Star Wars.

TheBoost said:

Imagine a world where some dude from LFL liscenscing had never posted on the "Star Wars.com" mesage board any mention of 'canon.'

No "C" "G" "D" levels. Nothing.

I can't guarantee that "Star Wars" would make just as much money without a canon system, but you know what makes a crapload of money with no canon system? The X-Men.

They have a move series, multiple cartoon series, mangas, novels, actionfigures, tabletop games, and even comicbooks, and no one is having apoleptic fits trying to make those all tie in together into a seemless chronology. They don't even try to keep it consistent between properties.

Even single properties, like the X-Men comics, in the run of one editor might have continuity issues, but no one goes on Marvel.com and says "Well, X-Men #234 page 8 has been lowered from D-Canon to V-Canon."

So, since I'm not convinced that a Star Wars canon policy is in place to somehow increase sales, it must be in place to please a certain sort of fan, the sort of fan who cares about official canon. Its ironic that these sorts of fans are the very ones who get their panties in a bunch about canon.

 

 "So, since I'm not convinced that a Star Wars canon policy is in place to somehow increase sales, it must be in place to please a certain sort of fan, the sort of fan who cares about official canon."

I already demonstrated how that's not necessarily the case. There are other reasons for canon policies other than pleasing fans or making money. Such as pleasing the people in Lucasfilm who are doing it and keeping internal consistency in the fiction.

"Its ironic that these sorts of fans are the very ones who get their panties in a bunch about canon."

Even if the canon policy was there to please fans, that's no reason while all fans should love it. It would be there to please those fans who want the eu to be some sort of canon, not there to please those fans who think the eu doesn't belong in canon. There's no reason why the latter group should be happy with a canon policy designed to canonize works they feel are not canon. And then there's the people who want some eu to be canon but don't agree with the canon choices of Lucasfilm. Why should they be happy if stuff they like is defined as not counting by the people at Lucasfim? Or if Lucasfilm counts some awful bullshit as canon? Why should they be happy with that? Since when does everybody need to be accepting of everything Lucasfilm does?

As for X-Men, fans of X-Men do bother about canon and I believe Marvel does have a canon policy, even if it's not as developed as the Star Wars one. But rules that apply to Marvel properties don't necessarily apply to the Star Wars franchise, nor do the people at Lucasfilm necessarily believe they apply.