Vaderisnothayden

C3PX said:

Vaderisnohayden, this conversation is not worth wasting so much time on. We could go on forever. Obviously I am wrong. I was very young when ROTJ came out, and I obviously misunderstood it, and honestly, who can blame me since it was an unfinished version of the film I grew up with. George's original vision all along was to shows the entire galaxy celebrating the end of the Empire, but it simply wasn't possibly due to technology limitation of the eighties.

I get where you are coming from, and understand what you are saying. I concede that you are right, I am sure that was George's original intention to have the Empire be 100% finished at that point, the story is just a hell of a lot more interesting to me if this isn't the case. Just as Star Wars is a lot more interesting to you if Hayden is not Darth Vader.

 

Ok, I can understand that. :)

I thought Vader was lying through his ass. I didn't want him to be Luke's father. Of course, I loved the way it turned out in ROTJ. But back before ROTJ I had debates in school in which I vehemently championed the like-fuck-is-Vader-Luke's-father argument. Which was dumb, because it's clear by the way Luke and Vader relate through the force when Luke is escaping in the Falcon that Vader is the real deal. Luke can clearly tell with the force that the guy's his father. And if you think about it, his impassioned "Noooo!" in Bespin comes off like a frantic attempt to deny something he knows is true.

rcb said:

i think it was in family guy, one of the officers said to the commander after the death star blows up, "So were just gonna run?"

         "yea!"

"We still have more ships then them"

         "the empor is dead. we gotta run now"

i don't think that's exactly how it goes, but somewhere along those lines.

Which shows they have the same perception of the ending of ROTJ that me and Zombie and Baronlando have.

C3PX said:

 

TheDoctor1987 said:

i would have loved it if the prequels were directed by some one else but it just wouldn't feel like Star Wars to me if they were i mean after all Star Wars is George's creation and his alone to do what ever he may please with it. 

As for George's creation to do whatever he pleases with, yeah, that one never gets old.

 

 That one never fails to drive me up the wall. It's such pat bullshite.

TheDoctor1987 said:

That is true you have your opinion as im entitled to mine i would have loved it if the prequels were directed by some one else but it just wouldn't feel like Star Wars to me if they were i mean after all Star Wars is George's creation and his alone to do what ever he may please with it. 

 

I disagree very strongly. George Lucas is not solely responsible for Star Wars. Many other people worked on it and contributed to it. As such it is not solely his creation. Also, it is not his alone to do with as he pleases. It's a classic that belongs to the human race, as do all classics. He is not entitled to do whatever he pleases with it and screw it up. It is amazing that anybody should think one man has a right to screw up something beloved of millions to suit his own whims.

i would have loved it if the prequels were directed by some one else but it just wouldn't feel like Star Wars to me if they were

 Well they were directed by Lucas and DON'T feel like Star Wars to me.

C3PX said:

In other words, it was just like an Obama supporter's "Yes We Did!" victory party. The next day they wake up, take a look around, down a few pills for their hang over, and say, "What the fu... the stock market is still down? I don't get it? What went wrong?" Only in this case, they wake up next morning, down a few pills for there hang over, and realize, "My goodness, seems the Empire is still around! What do ya have to do to get rid of a damn Empire around here?"

I wouldn't be so sure it was like Obama's party. I wasn't at Obama's party, so I wouldn't know. But let's look at your comparision: Obama's party was the celebration of Obama's victory in the election and that victory was in A WAY absolute in effect because Obama became president -he was totally president, not partially, and he didn't have to split it with McCain. Similarly, the rebellion's victory went all the way and destroyed the empire. Obama's success DID get rid of McCain's presidential bid. Totally. By the same token the rebel victory did get rid of the empire. And just as Obama would have challenges to deal with after that, the rebels would have the challenge of building a new government and mopping up bits of imperial forces. But the empire overall was gone, just as McCain's presidential bid was gone. But frankly I think the comparison is not a very useful one. Because Star Wars is a fairy tale and in fairy tales when they have a happily ever after they have a happily ever after all the way. Totally different from the real world and American politics. In a happily ever after ending you don't wake up the next day and find the empire is still around, unlike in the real world.

Either way, this argument is going on for a humorously long period of time. Since nobody Vaderisnohayden knew back in the eighties felt that there was a slim possibility of the Empire surviving such a loss, the rest of us who were around in the eighties are obviously wrong. Besides, Marvel comics and the guy they commissioned to write the novel say so too.

That's misrepresenting my stated opinion. The fact that I never knew anybody who thought the empire didn't end was never represented by me as the primary piece of evidence with which I support my view that the empire did end. My primary evidence has always been the nature of the ending of the film itself, supported by 80s licensed official Star Wars material. And the novelization's view is very unlikely to be just that of the guy who wrote the novel. On something so big as the empire ending the novel would not likely be allowed to go off on its own route and do something that didn't fit with Lucas's intention and the official interpretation. The novel probably said the empire ended because the empire was intended by Lucas to be ended and the novel writer knew that. And we have Lucas in the SE showing a view in keeping with that supposition. So it's hardly just a matter of the novel writer's opinion. In light of that and the SE, the Marvel comics' take is relevant as another piece of the puzzle and another piece of the consistent picture that suggests that the official view until the 90s EU was that the empire ended in ROTJ. And yes when all those pieces fit together they do make up a picture that suggests the opposing view is mistaken.

And it's so easy to see why the 90s EU would do the revisionist take it did. They wanted to continue the story and they were aiming their wares at an older age group than the Marvel comics or the primary audience of the films. An older age group would want a more realistic approach and a more realistic approach dictated the empire continue past ROTJ.  

Essentially, Star Wars had the same, "good guys win, bad guys lose, and they all live happily ever after kind of ending to it. At the time it was filmed, a sequel was uncertain, had that been the first and last Star Wars film, we very well could be having the exact same argument now. They threw all their forces into it, a do or die last ditch effort, had they lost the Rebellion would have been finished and the Empire unstoppable. They destroy the Death Star along with the great Grand Moff Tarkin, the Empire is no doubt in a great deal of trouble, in the supposedly illogical and overly simplistic universe of Star Wars, it is very likely that it couldn't possibly go on after such a defeat...

No, Star Wars did not have the same sort of ending. The ending did not have anything like the same degree of fairytale ending finality to it. Everything did NOT feel wrapped up the same way. Darth Vader was very conspicuously not dead, nor was the emperor. Star Wars did NOT have a totally happily ever after feeling to it. It felt like they'd made significant progress toward a final victory, not like they'd had their final victory and ended the war. If Star Wars was the only Star Wars film I would certainly not be here arguing that the empire ended with the film. Notably, the novelization doesn't argue that either.

Furthermore, on another thread you yourself argued that ROTJ was more illogical and simplistic than previous Star Wars films (re the ewoks killing imperial troopers with sticks and stones). ROTJ was more kid-oriented and made less attempt to be logical and realistic than Star Wars. A totally happily ever after ending fit ROTJ more than ANH. ROTJ was made in 83, but Star Wars was made in the 70s, which was a decade of edgy filmmaking. Working by ANH's standards, it's very clear that the empire could and would continue after the destruction of the first death star. And judging by ROTJ's different standards, it's clear that the empire was over after the destruction of the second death star.

ANH did NOT give a totally happily ever after all-is-wrapped message at the end. ROTJ did.

I am not saying the end of ROTJ was beyond a doubt not the end of the Empire, I am just saying it was left open enough where it could have gone either way, it never felt like it was written in stone. Obviously, with the SE, George indicates that he intended it to be the immediate end of the Empire, but George intended a lot of faggy things. He also approved and made lots money off of many books that contradicted his intentions of a magical spontaniously ending Empire. 

The question of whether the empire was destroyed was only left open if you based your reading of the film's ending on logic and realism. But if you read it emotionally and took into consideration that this was a film in which teddy bears armed with sticks and stones killed trained soldiers in advanced armor, then it was not so open -then the definite ending of the empire was clearly implied. And I don't see the justification in ignoring Lucas's intentions with regard to this. It's one thing to ignore his intentions with regard to stuff that didn't make it into the films, or to ignore his intentions from a later time past his creative prime. But this intention of his was expressed and communicated in the film by the nature of the ending scenes. Lucas's intent is thus the intent with which that ending was created. It is correct to interpret the scene the way the artist intended and read into it the message he intended it to convey.

And while we can disapprove of him making money off an EU the stories of which he doesn't seem to feel bound to, the fact that he does so is irrelevant to the question at hand. Lucas has made it clear he considers the EU a separate universe and he's let the EU creators go off and do their thing. In doing their thing they went in a direction at odds with his intent for the film. That certainly does not in any way lessen the standing of his intent for the film.

Personally, I'd prefer to go with the more reasonable idea that it didn't end there, just as I personally like to remember a Sarlacc that looked like a giant snatch rather than a Venus fly trap, a Luke who falls to his presumed death without screaming like a pansy, a Threepio that was part of an assembly line rathet than build by a nine year old, and a wise old sage-like Yoda who doesn't spaz out and do crazy acrobatics and fight with a half length lightsaber.

But all those other things you list are later revisionist takes. None of that stuff was in the original films. Whereas ROTJ's totally happily ever after ending (with its implication of the empire being over) WAS in the original films and it's clear that it was Lucas's original intent. We don't know that any of the other things were Lucas's original intent and if they were, well, had they been done back in the 80s or 70s they probably would have been done very differently from the way they ended up in the SE and PT (in other words I very much doubt his original intent envisioned precisely what we ended up with in those things). Whereas ROTJ's empire-is-ended implication WAS done in the 80s and was spelled out in the official novelization for good measure. It's not in the same category as those other things. Indeed, the revisionist intent in that case was the 90s EU's continuation of the empire, as revisionist and invalid as any SE/PT garbage.

I hope I'm not annoying anybody by arguing my view on this. I just believe the point I'm arguing is an essential part of the story of Star Wars. And also I can remember being annoyed in the early 90s when I read Zahn's books and found he had the empire still a major force so many years after the battle of Endor. Mostly I was ok with Zahn's books, but that bit struck me as a perversion of the story.

TheDoctor1987 said:

I for one love the Prequel Trilogy for what it is and have no complaints with it well besides that dreaded character Jar Jar Binks lol. Its not the Original Trilogy nor was it intended to be the Original Trilogy but what it was suppost to be was the back story the story that every Star Wars fan wanted to see for years and it 1999 we got it with The Phantom Menace with the story of Anakin Skywalker. I think people should let this topic rest because the Prequels are great movies and people just need to let it have its legacy in the Star Wars Saga. 

The prequels are NOT the backstory that everybody waited to see. Before that original backstory became the prequels it went through significant changes and got a whole lot of stuff added that was invented probably in the 90s. For example, Anakin was supposed to be in his thirties or forties when he turned to the dark side, which would have made him a very different sort of character. He was probably originally an adult when he met Kenobi, so no little kid running around. There was no Jar Jar and no Qui Gon. Probably no Jango either I'd guess. Dooku wasn't invented, or Grievous or probably Maul. It would have been a different sort of story. A lot of things would have been done differently if the prequels had been made faithful to the backstory Lucas had when he made the OT. The prequels are not the old backstory, they are a revisionist take on that story, which changes the nature of it and makes it something very much at odds with the OT.

The "legacy" of the prequels is Star Wars being rubbed in shit and losing respect. That's their legacy. We don't need to accept that. The prequel trilogy is not a rightful part of the saga and deserves to be rejected. Great movies my ass.

CO said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Really?  Cause Luke's always been my favorite too.  I thought Luke had quite a lot to do as a character in ESB, so I'm curious:  how come being a Luke fan would cause you to like the other movies more?  I suppose I'm asking, what makes the outer movies "Luke" movies to you and ESB a "Han" movie?

 

 

That was more a general statement, so I don't think I have any scientific proof:)  As much as the whole OOT is about Luke, I really feel Han Solo steals the show in ESB, as his relationship with Leia is front and center, he is running from the Empire the whole time, and eventually gets frozen in one of the most memorable moments in the trilogy.  In SW, he is just an outlaw, in ROTJ, he is just a second cog, but ESB is HIS movie, IMO. 

I agree. ESB is Han's movie. Han takes over in that movie, steals it from Luke.

C3PX said:

When I was a kid I definitely considered ROTJ as my second favorite SW film. It wasn't until I was older that I began to notice some of the silliness. The first thing that hit me as I started to get older, is how dumb it was that the Ewoks with there sticks and stones are able to beat these armed men in heavy armor. I like the idea of a small group defeating overwhelming odds using guerrilla tactics. But when you start to think about these guys in heavy armor getting knocked out (or possibly killed) by a stone being shot out of a sling, or by being beaten on with wooden sticks, it has a sort of Magical World of Disney quality to it. Like the little kid who managed to defend his house from the mofia by using suctioncup arrows and marbles or some crap like that. It is fun stuff for kids, but there is not much of a lasting appeal as you get older. 

Well, in the Dark Horse Empire comics, which tried to take a kind of "we're-mature-and-serious-and-let's-look-at-both-sides-and-the-unimportant-people" take, they had a whole bunch of armored stormtroopers being killed by Amanin aliens with spears that were just sharpened sticks. These armored imperials were being skewered by sharpened sticks. If they can do that, I can let ROTJ off the hook over the ewoks' success. I don't have a problem with the ewoks with spears and slings and sticks and stones beating the armored men. Because Star Wars was never realistic about stuff like that. I mean seriously, is it realistic that these imperials have all this armor but it does zero good against the most common weapon in the galaxy (blasters)? Or is it realistic that they never hit and always miss? From the first film Star Wars established that it wasn't trying to be realistic that way, so the ewoks thing fits in with the pattern. And it was all in fun. I just go with it. I think to appreciate Star Wars you need to accept that to a certain extent it's meant for kids and be prepared to accept some stuff that's kid-style. I enjoy the Endor battle. It was good fun. Han got to kick some ass and Chewie got to take over an ATST walker and they beat the fucking imperials.

I'm not 100% sure I agree. They're celebrating, and really happy, but they celebrated and were happy at the end of 'Star Wars' also.

The celebration at the end of Star Wars was of a different kind with a different tone. The ROTJ celebration was an end-of-the-war it's-all-over we-don't-have-to-worry-about-the-future kind of celebration. 

 Unless we're counting the novelizations as the same as the movie, which I don't. They're EU too, to me.

The novelization saying the empire was dead demonstrates what was the official interpretation of the film's ending back then. And it can't be coincidential that the Marvel comics and everybody I knew and Lucas in the SE all agree with the novelization. It's irrelevant whether the novelization is EU or not. What matters is that it demonstrates the official view. The novelizations have always been the foremost companions to the films and adaptions of the films and Lucasfilm canon has considered them higher than all ordinary EU since at least as far back as 1994 (1994 was when Lucasfilm first said anything about canon). I don't buy everything in the novelizations, but I do recognize that they are taken more seriously than ordinary EU and that they were made with a pretty serious intent and often include stuff not in the films that comes from Lucas and include stuff that shows the official interpretation of the films. If the novelization back in 83 said that the empire is dead at the end of ROTJ that means the people at Lucasfilm figured the empire is dead at the end of ROTJ. The novel wouldn't go off on its own over something so big as the empire being over. It would have to be pretty recognized officially for them to put that in book. And what do you know, Lucas demonstrated that it was his view too (in the SE) and the comics too. The only thing that disagrees is the 90s EU, which was a revisionist take that came along long after the film came out. I think with all that evidence you have to be really pushing it to make out that the empire wasn't meant to be over in ROTJ. 

I think the novelization is telling us the original intent behind ROTJ's ending.

Endor was a major victory, a pivotal victory, but they never say in the movie it HAS to be the final victory. Mon Mothma doesn't say 'If we win this, it's over.' Alternatly, I see no reason to insist the Empire, or some form of it, would continue, but I also don't see any die hard reason in the movie to maintain that all the fighting is over.

Emotionally the movie DOES give you the message that the empire is over at the end of the film. Yes the movie does give the impression that the fighting is over -that's the tone of the celebration and ending scenes. And Mon Mothma may not have known that the Emperor and Darth Vader were both going to be killed in the battle of Endor. After all, Jerjerrod was pretty surprised when he heard the Emperor was going to be coming to the Death Star.

I never had a problem with ESB. I never felt it was particularly dark or whatever. It was a cool Star Wars film with cool locations and Darth Vader. I think I always liked it slightly more than the first one, but the Yoda training Luke part bored me and that part still does a bit. Originally ROTJ was my favorite Star Wars film (after I saw it in 83 that is). Now I like it about equal with the first film, a bit behind ESB.

Re when I first saw the films:

I totally loved Bespin and Hoth and the Star Destroyers. I didn't really get the Han and Leia romance. I thought it was a bit silly. But I liked both characters a lot, though Luke was my favorite back then.

Tatooine made a big impression on me too, and the Mos Eisley cantina. And the invasion of the rebel blockade runner in the beginning of the first film, with the stormtroopers and Vader strangling the captain.

When ROTJ came around I was a bit older and I took it in slightly differently, but I loved it. There was all this anticipation leading up to ROTJ. I still love ROTJ, though my feelings about the Ewoks are a bit more mixed. ROTJ was MY Star Wars film, the way the others weren't, because I was a Star Wars fan for years before I saw it and I experienced all the lead-up and anticipation before it came out. I loved the Luke storyline in it and Vader's redemption (I was a big Vader fan) and the old unmasked Vader we met at the end. I loved the Jabba section of the film and I still do. I loved the way ROTJ was a triumphant film -they beat the crap out of Jabba and his goons, then they beat the crap out of the Emperor and the Empire, and Luke and Vader came out of it shining (though Vader was a tad dead). I suspect that if ROTJ was less triumphant and more downery it might get more respect.

1983 is a long time ago now. 26 years. People have grown up and had kids who weren't born when ROTJ came out.

And it was great when ROTJ came out. It was like a big celebration.

For a look at what the official interpretation of ROTJ's ending was back in 83, take a look at the last lines of the ROTJ novelization. It says "The Empire was dead. Long live the Alliance." There you have it.

It wasn't just the Marvel comics and everybody I knew who thought the empire was over, it was Lucasfilm, judging from that. And judging from the SE it was Lucas too.

It doesn't matter if logically the empire wouldn't be over just like that, Star Wars went for a simpler less realistic story. I've never been fond of the Star-Wars-is-for-kids argument, but it's true to some extent that the films were aimed at kids and having the empire just end like that is characteristic of the simpler storytelling you get in kids stuff.

The nature of the scenes at the end of ROTJ gives a clear emotional message that the war is over and the empire is done. If you get bogged down in the logic and try to think of Star Wars as if it was meant to be realistic then you'll blind yourself to that emotional message. Baronlando got it right -it's a fairytale ending. Star Wars is a fairytale, not realistic science fiction.

I think the 90s EU was aimed at an older age group than the films (or the Marvel comics) and they wanted to continue the conflict with the empire so they could have a story, so they brought in a revisionist take that the empire went on after ROTJ. But that's what it is -a revisionist take. Just like the prequels are a revisionist take. It's no more valid than the prequels nonsense.

In the original film, the intention is that the empire is over and that's the real story as far as I'm concerned.

 Scruffy said:

The mentality of the OT, or the mentality of the OT viewers? A New Hope established what little we know of the Empire's structure in the filmed canon. And ANH was written when both Palpatine and Vader were comparatively less important than they were later conceived to be. Even after Palpatine and Vader were elevated to near-Morgoth and Sauron levels, the structure hinted at in ANH would still be in effect.

In ANH, it was established that the Imperial bureaucracy was a willful institution, only controlled by the Emperor through the Senate. With the dissolution of the Senate, the bureaucracy was bypassed or subordinated to the Regional Governors, and the RGs were given direct control of Imperial territories.The relevance of the Marvel comics take on things is that it shows people back in the 80s figuring the empire was mostly over after ROTJ. I suspect that was the assumption among most people. Certainly nobody back then gave me the impression that the empire wasn't over after ROTJ.

There is every reason to believe that these regional governors would have maintained their imperiums. Bureaucracies, almost by definition, survive regime changes unless forcefully purged. You don't need the EU to tell you that the blow against the Empire at Endor was not instantly fatal.

I think you're expecting too much consistency and overthinking it.

Why should the EU of the 80s be any more important than the EU of the 90s? After all, the Marvel era is mostly forgotten, but the modern EU has been going strong ever since Zahn. Both Marvel and Zahn worked from the same version of RotJ, both derived different versions of what happened after it, and one really caught on.

The EU from the 80s is the EU from back THEN, around the time of the movies themselves. It's a product of how people received the movies in the 80s and interpreted them then. And, that being the key Star Wars era, that is relevant.

Also, the 90s EU doesn't entirely disagree with the Marvel comics. The empire IS partially defeated after ROTJ. It fragments and loses ground and the imperials start fighting each other. It doesn't all fall in one go, but it is no longer the single unified dominant power in the galaxy.

The fact that the 90s EU caught on is of no consequence. We're not discussing here what the accepted EU estblished. We're discussing what was intended in the films. And I think most people back in the 80s knew the films' intent was the empire falling after ROTJ, hence the Mavel take on it. And I think the SE suggests that such was indeed Lucas's intent in ROTJ.

I think the tendency to believe that the Empire died at Endor is usually driven by the belief, held by some, that RotJ is the Last Star Wars Ever. If it were, of course one would want to believe that all the battles had been one and everyone lived happily ever after.

I disagree. Back in the 80s we expected a sequel trilogy and despite that we still thought ROTJ was the end of the empire.

Also, from what little we heard about ideas for the sequel trilogy, it was about the new regime, not about fighting the empire.

(I'm intentionally ignoring the handful of celebrations depicted in the SE. There's nothing remarkable about certain groups in a given population celebrating a change of regime.)

Which is a mistake. They're clearly meant to imply celebrations all over the galaxy, implying the galaxy has been freed (remember "wesa free"). And you said it there yourself -"a change of regime". Your above post is all about denying there's a change in regime. A change in regime in this case means the fall of the empire. A change from imperial regime to another regime. And with the restrictive rule of the empire you wouldn't think there'd be huge crowds gathering to celebrate the rebel victory against the empire if the empire was still ruling (right in the middle of Coruscant no less and toppling Palpatine's statue) -the imperials would be unlikely to allow it. And that Gungan in the Naboo celebration shouting "Wesa free!" says it all -clearly they have been made free of imperial rule by the victory at Endor. I would say that line may have been put in to make it clearer. Certainly it's possible those celebrations were put in to show that the empire had fallen because some might have thought otherwise.

Now, I don't generally go by the special edition. When George Lucas claims some special edition thing was his original intention I tend to be suspicious. But here I think it may show his original intention, because it fits with the impression ROTJ gave me. 

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

If Star Wars was meant to be realistic that would be the case, but I think it's pretty clear we're meant to take it the Empire is over at the end of ROTJ.

 

Really? Just because of the celebration? It was a huge victory, a great big hootenanny was most definitely called for. For some reason in all the years before the SE, I never even began to assume the Empire was over at that moment. It is not like all those Imperial bases and outposts scattered through the galaxy would just spontaneously explode because of the Death Star blew up.  

Obviously that was the original intention though, thank God George made that clear with the SE.

 

The way it was all portrayed, taken in context of the simpicity that marks Star Wars in certain ways, gives the message that it's all over and the Empire is done. Star Wars wasn't about making realistic sense. Simple story like the Emperor is dead so the empire is done fits with the mentality of the OT.

In the 80s EU, in the Marvel comics, the Empire was defeated after ROTJ but it remained a power in the galaxy. A few issues after the events of ROTJ, the rebels are setting up a new galactic government and a galactic congress and the comic says that the galaxy has been freed from imperial rule. This is set not long after the death of the Emperor. So obviously the empire is not controlling things after ROTJ. The Empire is not the dominant enemy in the comics after the events of ROTJ, but they do turn up at times, including imperials allied with other enemies of the rebels. And the rebels end up allying with some imperials and other enemies against the new enemy the Tof in the last issue.

The relevance of the Marvel comics take on things is that it shows people back in the 80s figuring the empire was mostly over after ROTJ. I suspect that was the assumption among most people. Certainly nobody back then gave me the impression that the empire wasn't over after ROTJ.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

It gets soooo frustrating when somebody point blank refuses to understand something that's been explained to them.

No kidding!

 

For anybody else following this discussion who is still uncertain as to whether they are allowed to interpret words for themselves or not, let me set the record strait from an academic perspective.

word noun (which means it is a person, a place, or a thing. In this case, it is a thing)

"a meaningful sound or combination of sounds that is a unit of language or its representation in a text"

Once words are open for personal interpretation, they cease to be meaningful units of language, and become rather useless.

Of course, another school of thought (seemingly) would say that the definition of "word" that I posted above is pointless, as that it is merely one interpretation of what a word is.

It's possible that people here don't mean anything as drastic as what you think they mean when they talk of interpreting words. As you saw above, what I meant by interpreting the word reminiscent did not in fact count by your definition as interpreting it -you counted it as merely an issue of degree of reminisence. So people here championing the interpretation of words may not be disagreeing wth you as much as you think.

Example re what I said above:

C3PX said:

"Meaningfully reminiscent", "wholly reminiscent", "somewhat reminiscent" now we are adding qualifiers to these words to indicate the degree of reminiscence. Yes, they are all valid uses of the word, nobody would argue otherwise. However, these qualifiers seemed to be heavily lacking from the conversation that was going on not long ago. I suppose we can take this to mean that the meaning or interpretation of the word "reminiscent" was never an issue, but the degree of reminiscence was were the problem lie.

But I would still maintain that language and its uses are not as simple and clear cut as you seem to be saying. I have come across too many instances of subtlety and complexity and interpretation to believe that. But it's worth stressing that even there I may not be disagreeing with you as much as it may look like. I think it's possible that the area where I'm seeing complexity is not precisely the same area in which you're seeing things as clear cut. After all, no matter how much people hold to the meaning of words, there is incredible capacity for misunderstanding between human beings, particularly on the internet.

DarkFather said:

In the real world, the word "concede" has many definitions that go beyond the dictionary.

I think it was obvious to everyone that in this case, it meant: an attempt to end the discussion because you knew you were wrong, knew I was right, and had little confidence left in your argument to continue.

No, actually I tried to end the discussion because I saw it was likely to descend into us just chucking personal insults at each other and I wanted to avoid that. Plus I was sick of talking to you.

Clearly you interpreted it in a way that suited the needs of your ego. But as you can see from my posts above, my argument is doing quite well against yours. Yours is not helped by the fact that you seem dead set against understanding my point of view at all. So, as you see, I don't in fact lack confidence in my point of view. And to be honest, I see your point of view as a case of not seeing the big picture.

 skyjedi2005 said:

You know what i forgot to add Obi Wan's Inane Dialogue to non Suit Hayden Vader.  " Anakin, don't try it i have the high ground"  Then Anakin " You underestimate my power"lol.

That high ground thing really didn't make much sense. The Jedi have been shown getting around worse obstacles. And they've been shown jumping so high that Annie should have been able to jump clean over Kenobi's lightsaber.

Lucas vision of star wars rather than remain static has been a constantly evolving and Updated thing, so much so that no version of the movies is ever considered finished of the original trilogy they are all rough cuts to find that one perfect cut that fit his original vision.

Well, his vision of it evolved during the great 76-83 Star wars period too, but none of that dose of revisionism betrayed the spirit of it or destroyed it the way his later revisionism did. Plus he was basically caught up in one long period of Star Wars creativity from making the first film through making ROTJ, but with the later stuff he seems to have taken a long break from Star wars and then come back with a totally different attitude. You can accept change more as part of the one same extended creative period. Leaving and coming back later with a totally different vision is different.

Yeah i am as much guilty as the next person for wanting more star wars beyond the original trilogy

I looked forward to the new Star wars films for so long. And after I'd waited the majority of two decades he gave us that shit.

None of the prequels made me as depressed and betrayed feeling as i was when i left the theater after seeing Indiana Jones IV despite some moments i truly enjoyed in the film, the movie was totally uneven and ruined by Lucas stupid modern cgi sensibility of wackiness that some really get a kick out of. Like a bad parody of the older films i felt embarrassed at the cheesiness of the fridge scene.  Yeah it was funny i will admit, but only in a are you fucking kidding me kind of way.

I don't hate Indy 4. I enjoyed seeing Ford back in the role. I like Shia LaBeouf and I think he makes a good son  for Indy. I have no problems with gophers or prarie dogs or whatever they were. But I have many issues with the film. If they had to do aliens they should have done classic aliens, not this silly interdimensional shit. And they should have done them in a way that involved more than a load of empty mysterious show. The aliens plot was done so badly. The film was blander than previous Indy films and things which should have felt harsh or threatening felt less so than equivalent things in previous Indy films. This film had less spirit and feeling than other Indy films. And the visual style had this bland washed out feel which really affects the feeling of the film. Certainly this film was an example of Indy being prequelized. We're kind of lucky Hayden didn't show up. Can you imagine if they'd cast Hayden instead of Shia?

Whereas, the later two prequels struck me as total shit on first viewing. With both of those films I expected something and on level of the film immediately previous and got something worse.

I can appreciate to a certain degree the wacky sense of humor G. Lucas has.  Some stuff is kinda funny on a stupid kid kind of level, where other stuff is totally inept and unfunny like Jar Jar's Exquueze me, or stepping in poo.

I could seriously do without his turning villains (such as the droid troopers and the Trade federation guys) into silly jokes in the prequels. And his stuffing silly humor into the OT in the SEs was beyond unacceptable. The OOT had some silly humor but it was restrained. It only went so far. It didn't descend into cartoon stuff, so cartoon stuff should not have been stuffed into it later.

Btw, I thought of another thing re that Mustafar scene and in general in the last two prequels: Between the writing and how Hayden played him, Anakin comes off awfully damn dumb. You're left with the notion that Anakin turned to the dark side because he was too dumb to know better. This is not consistent with the Vader and Anakin we know from the OT. 

Anchorhead said:

DarkFather said:

I absolutely love Leia's voice in this.

+1

 

I prefer her over Fisher.  Much more expressive and a deeper character.  Part of the depth comes from the fact that she has a much bigger role in this version.  This is six hours vs two, and Leia is central to a great deal of it.  The chapter with her and her father on Alderaan is one of my favorite parts of the story.

 

Fisher as Leia is bloody marvellous. No way does the radio actress do better. I hate the Leia chapter of the radio drama. It feels very fake to me. Plus the actress gets Leia all wrong.

C3PX said:

(as there was nothing to say the Empire was over, other than having lost their second end all be all weapon, and having lost their Emperor. If the President of the US was killed, and we lost a few of our finest battleships, it would suck big time, but the US government would be far from fallen). 

If Star Wars was meant to be realistic that would be the case, but I think it's pretty clear we're meant to take it the Empire is over at the end of ROTJ.

In the SE it's all the more clear with that Gungan shouting "Wesa free!" The SE is bull, but I think there it may underline what was always the intention with ROTJ.

C3PX said:

Hehe, reading Vaderisnohayden's post reminded me of how contrived and obscenely ridiculous that Mustafar battle is. I think that was pretty much the perfect analysis of that scene. And it was damn funny to read.

I'm glad somebody liked it. :) 

I don't think this place is suddenly becoming TFN, I think some people are just getting tired of the constant negativity and the fact that we tend to turn every single thread into a discussion of how badly the PT sucks. After all, the topic at hand is, "relationships between the OT and the PT", in which rcb's obvious intention was to contrast the parallels between the two trilogies, not to compare which one was better than the other, and how one failed miserably while the other kicked the asses of multiple generations (and will continue to do so).

I don't think every thread turns into a discussion of why the PT sucks. And I do think we need to discuss why the PT sucks. It's an issue of importance to many of us and it's clear that many of us still want to discuss and explore that topic.

DarkFather said:

your view consists of "No, that's not like the OT just because I don't think it is.

You obviously missed this post in which I went into detail on the difference:

The OT was a very heartfelt classic story with deep emotions, characters that make a strong connection with the audience, vivid strongly realized imagination and a 70s-80s feel. This show is a fairly amiable but shallow modern-feeling fairly bland piece of work without a strong imaginative vision and with only one regular character who makes any sort of real connection (Ashoka). The OT existed in an unpretentious universe. This show builds on the prequels' envisioning the Star Wars universe as a place full of pretentious bullshit, such as the Jedi being a bunch of posers. In the OT Kenobi was wise not pretentious. In the prequels Kenobi had an edge of affectation to him and the same is true in the show. In the OT Yoda came out with some silly crap but he wasn't the arrogant poser he became in the prequels. In this show we've had Fisto, Luminara and Aayla coming off very artificial. This show lives in the prequels' interpretation of the Star Wars universe. And it's basically a show of shallow cheerful fun, which is what much of the Phantom Menace was. The OT's fun was of a different tone. This show shares the unreal unconvincing feel of the prequels, rather than the convincing imagination-brought-to-life feel of the OT. This show is very far from being like the OT, and no amount of throwing in OT references and items and OT-echoing lines and story elements will change that. The foundation mentality of this show is deeply at odds with the OT.

Perhaps you should read more carefully in the future.

your view consists of "No, that's not like the OT just because I don't think it is. And I'm not going to acknowledge any glaring, objective similarities that make the series what it is."

It gets soooo frustrating when somebody point blank refuses to understand something that's been explained to them. One more time, your "objective similarities" don't count for shit. Sure, they're there, so what. What's relevant to the question of whether the show is truly similar to the OT is the mentality of the show. And no, the mentality of the show is not similar. No amount of star destroyer interiors can change that. Battlestar Galactica has ships that look very like X-Wings but Battlestar Galactica sure isn't Star Wars. Battlestar Galactica has dogfights too but it's still not cut of the same cloth as the OT. These similarities are there but they don't make the two things on the overall similar, because they're not enough to do that.

DarkFather said:

Good to see that you've finally conceded, though.

I think you need to go back to your dictionary again. This time look up concede.

 I don't want to go about debating linguistics, but in reality language is usually pretty clean cut

I don't agree.

Octorox said:

There can be different interpretations of language. Different words have different connotations to different people.

C3PX said:

Again, not if language is to mean anything.

Language means something, when we decide not to follow its rules we only make ourselves out to be idiots, and destroy our ability to communicate in the process.

 Again, I don't believe it's as simple and rigid as you believe.

But it's obvious we're not going to agree on this so I think it's best we just agree to disagree.

"Meaningfully reminiscent", "wholly reminiscent", "somewhat reminiscent" now we are adding qualifiers to these words to indicate the degree of reminiscence. Yes, they are all valid uses of the word, nobody would argue otherwise. However, these qualifiers seemed to be heavily lacking from the conversation that was going on not long ago. I suppose we can take this to mean that the meaning or interpretation of the word "reminiscent" was never an issue, but the degree of reminiscence was were the problem lie.

The qualifiers were missing because I would have thought they were unnecessary. When someone says the show is reminiscent of the OT I naturally assume that because they made a general statement what they mean is it is overall reminiscent in some significant way of the overall OT, not that some detail reminds them of some detail in the OT. And I assume they mean meaningfully reminiscent because why would they waste time bringing up an unmeaningful level of similarity? Pointing to a star destroyer interior and saying "Look, this is reminiscent of the OT!" seems so pointless to me. Of course a star destroyer interior will be a bit reminiscent of star destroyer interiors in the OT -it's obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out. But that similarity also has no bearing on the overall mentality of the show which determines what the show feels like. It doesn't make the overall flavor of the show reminiscent of the OT. The nature of the show is very different from the OT and next to that star destroyer interiors are small pointless details. Maybe when DarkFather brought up his star destroyer interior I should have gone "What the fuck? What are you bringing that up for? What's the relevance?" Because that's certainly what I felt. There's so much more to a show or film than the interiors of starships and if you're going to talk about the OT and a show being meaningfully similar you've got to have stuff that's much more all-encompassing than that. And what's the point in making a fuss about similarities between the show and the OT if you're not discussing a meaningful level of similarity?

Either way, reminiscence is a rather relative thing (not in its definition or interpretation, but in the feelings of the person using the word). While I may say Battlestar Galactica is reminicent of Star Wars someone else may disagree and say, "You're completely looney! They are absolutely nothing alike!" Regardless of how this fellow feels on the matter, a fact remains: Battlestar Galactica reminds me of Star Wars. Therefore to me, BSG is reminiscent of SW, while to the other guys, BSG is not at all reminicent of SW. In other words, a rather fruitless debate.

Well, at the root of it we weren't just talking about whether the show reminded us of the OT, we were talking about whether they were similar. Or at least that's what I was talking about. Level of reminiscence was being taken as evidence of similarity.

This is a thread about the PT. As such, constructive criticism of the PT is perfectly reasonable here. As it stands, a LOT more was said than "We don't like the PT." For example, my post is an in-depth examination of the Mustafar scene. Is in-depth analysis of Star wars scenes out of place on a Star Wars board? Is this place suddenly becoming TFN?

skyjedi2005 said:

Even if Revenge of the Sith is by far and large critically and received by fans of the prequels as the best of the 3 the acting is horrible.  The Lightsaber duel was pretty awesome minus the rediculous riding over the lava on droids part, and was really trying to be a redo of duel of the fates from menace.  But Haydens " You underestimate my power"  was beyond bad acting.  And then of course you have the Emperor and Yoda acting like they are in a loony tunes cartoon.  And then Vader walking like Frankenstein and goin N000000000000000000!!!.   Nearly as bad as Shia swinging with monkeys like Tarzan in indiana jones 4, or the flying in a nuked fridge,lol.  Indiana had a nice three mile ride through the air and just gets up and dust himself off.

See, I think the Mustafar duel was atrocious. In the prequels they got to doing this thing with lightsaber duels wherein the characters go on and on and on repeating pretty much the same action endlessly with nothing really happening. If you look at the OT lightsaber battles that doesn't happen. It's all meaningful action. Whereas in the Mustafar duel you feel you could could go away from the screen for a while and come back nothing important would have happened in the time you were gone. It makes the action meaningless and boring. The Mustafar duel stretches on endlessly and is boring as hell. And the music is way overdone. In OT battles the music is generally a background thing. In the Mustafar duel the music is damn near the main star of the scene. It's overpowering. And the tone of the music is as if to say "You MUST feel strongly here. This is an EPIC and TRAGIC moment. Feel!" The OT made you feel rather than telling you to feel like that. The Mustafar music is not only pushy, it adds to the pomposity and overdone showiness of the scene.

And we don't just have guys standing on droids. They're swinging back and forth on ropes while fighting each other over the lava. Maybe that's where they got the tarzan swinging around idea for Indy 4. Give me the Indy 4 version any day over the Mustafar version. It's seriously overdone. See, all this is while they're dancing around in the lava without getting burnt and we're being asked to buy that as plausible. It's just ridiculous and overdone. The whole thing is done up way too grand. The OT managed so much more involving fights with so much less show and pomposity and buildup. The Mustafar scene bludgeons you with how grand it's supposed to be. Way too heavy handed. It's shouting at you "This is a GRAND moment!" and I just want to say "I got that. Stop fucking shouting already!"

And then we have Anakin's ranting. When he rants about how from his point of view the Jedi are evil he looks like he's about to burst into tears like a little kid. When he screams "You underestimate my power!" the lameness factor is mind-boggling. And then later after he's been chopped up and fried he screams at Kenobi "I hate you!" like a little kid who's been denied a treat. I half expect to shout "If you don't say I won, I'll hold my breath until  you do!" Between the script and the talents of Hayden Christensen the character of Darth Vader is totally rubbed in the shit in this scene.

Also, Anakin's defeat is seriously anticlimatic. After all that fighting going on forever with nothing really happening, suddenly Anakin makes a stupid jump and Kenobi cuts off three of his limbs in one go and Annie falls flat on his face and get fried up. It doesn't work. And it's almost slapstick.

Also not helping is you have no real connection with either of these characters. Ewan McGregor is a good actor but if you compare his Kenobi to Alec Guinness's or to Han, Luke and Leia, you can see how he fails to make that close connection with the audience that the OT characters do. Plus it doesn't help that Ewan's Kenobi comes across vaguely like he's a pretentious poser. As for Anakin, between the writing and the acting this character is made unlikable and unrelatable and pathetic in a totally non-endearing way. So, watching this fight, I really didn't give a fuck what happened to either character. Which doesn't help the scene. 

And the artificiality of the scene doesn't help you get genuine emotion out of it either. This scene should have great feeling, but mostly it just TELLS you to have great feeling rather than actually making you feel it. A classic example of the prequels failing at depth of feeling.

Overall I think the scene is one big load of meaningless pompous overdone show and one of the worst scenes I've ever seen in any film ever.

The Emperor and Yoda fight was awful. Horrible overacting for the Emperor. Annoying CGI Yoda with his macho posing that's so totally inappropriate for the character. It was hard to decide which character was more annoying. I wanted to flush both of them down the toilet. And that was intercut with the Mustafar scene, for maximum lameness.

Vader's nooooooo was a terrible moment. Between it being so totally unnecessary and cheesy and poorly judged and James Earl Jones's voice acting being uncharacteristically bad there. It was a real cringe moment. And let's not forget it was Hayden Christensen in the Darth Vader suit.

I don't remember anything in Indy 4 that was as bad as all this stuff. ROTS has to be one of the worst films of all time.

C3PX said:

There are obviously intentional parallels between the two trilogies. But I'd have to strongly disagree with the idea that the "main point" of Star Wars was to meet characters that would be in the next two films. In many ways this was the intention of The Phantom Menace, but when it was made, it was clear there would be two sequels.

Yeah, the original film was made to be a stand alone piece. Lucas wanted to do sequels but he didn't know if he could. And they were prepared to do Splinter of the Mind's Eye as a low budget sequel instead of the films that got made.