Vladius

Prequel trilogy, easily. I liked Force Awakens enough, especially when it first came out, and if Abrams made the entire ST as a continuation then I would probably like it better. I despise Attack of the Clones and The Last Jedi, and Rise of Skywalker is bad but extremely fun to watch.

Phantom Menace is bizarre and sags in places, but has some excellent setpieces like the podrace and the lightsaber duel. Insanely good sound design. Jar Jar and kid Anakin are irritating, Padme is a non-character, but Obi Wan and Qui Gon are very likeable and I appreciate all their scenes.

Revenge of the Sith is good enough to tip the balance by itself. As silly as a lot of parts are, the story still has some gravitas and artistry to it and there are some cool fight scenes. I think the politicking between Palpatine and the Jedi Council makes for some well done intrigue. It’s the easiest movie to perfect using fan edits because it’s already the strongest.

Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid are fantastic and carry everything almost by themselves. No one gives a comparable performance in any of the sequels, other than Ian himself when he’s Palpatine again. Adam Driver does well but it’s wasted on what they do with his character.

The John Williams score for the prequels is better and contains some all timer tracks that rank with the original trilogy. I don’t blame Williams for the sequel ones - they’re still good, and if anything I think he didn’t put his full effort because he knew it would be wasted on them.

JadedSkywalker said:

Dave has continued doing Star Wars since 2008. For good or ill he has had a bigger stamp on Star Wars than George Lucas for the last two decades. Lucas having not written or directed a Star Wars since 2005. Filoni been there for over 17 years. 17 years nonstop working in SW.

The prequel trilogy and George stepping away after that to let Filoni run the Clone Wars was ages ago.

Then he wanted to do live action Star Wars like a tv producer and have other people write and direct it, Star Wars underworld.

Then not being able to get Underworld made and not thinking he could adjust to the coming streaming landscape he sold to Disney.

Oh I got these treatments In a drawer, maybe Iger will give me 4 billion for them. That is what I think he may have thought.

Apparently most of the concepts from Underworld already got mined for all the Disney movies and shows we’ve been seeing this whole time anyway.

Mocata said:

Maybe I’m off the mark here but wasn’t the entire crux of “why the original Star Wars doesn’t exist” based on the feelings of one man? But now nobody should care? Pretty wild to suggest it’s not important given the history of these films until a few month ago, and the history of this site. But whatever, the vibes here really suck recently considering there’s a bunch of positive news for once. Later.

Yeah this is literally why this site exists, it’s okay to talk about without mandated Sequel Trilogy Positivity Hour

Nothing will change.

If it’s actually the KOTOR 3 that we never got, that would be amazing. I know that’s just wishful thinking on my part though.

NFBisms said:

The Jedi ain’t even that serious about the no attachments thing if we take the text(s) seriously and really look at how the Jedi treat it. What are the consequences, really, of a Jedi having attachments? It’s having a 100 rules knowing everyone will break at least 1, and everyone will have their 1. Where it breaks for the few, you can massage with extra discipline and targeted tutelage, but the rule keeps the others in line. And ultimately, there’s really nothing the council can do either way. It’s really an aspirational standard, not requisite. Something to seek, lifelong, not attain. That’s a pretty reasonable takeaway from what is intended with the depiction IMO.

In canon and EU lore, prequel era Jedi are breaking the rule all the time to little or no consequence. You become a librarian or farmer Jedi, I guess? They don’t even want people leaving really – though even that is allowed to happen.

And outside the realm of breaking rules, it’s also just true that the Jedi have comradery with one another - bonds and friendships. Amongst themselves, but then even with senators, or people they serve. Yoda and Mace can have a soft spot for even a former Jedi like Dooku as a friend at the start of AOTC, and never flinch in discussions of Obi-Wan and Anakin’s own bond. They’re surely aware of their own. It’s not hypocrisy under the lens presented above.

None of this has to exclude material critiques of the Jedi, or that their rules played a role in Anakin’s fall! Because to Anakin, there was personal consequence - his own desire to be accepted by them, to be recognized by them. That is selfish, and centers the Jedi path as hierarchical. His love for Padme is as forbidden as it can allow him to become a true blue Jedi, the “possessive love” often discussed doesn’t actually emerge until after he’s committed to the dark path.

If the Jedi Order as a concept are being dissected by the prequels, I think looking at “repression”, religion, or cultish dogma is the wrong conversation. There’s more going on re: establishment ineffectuality and pedagogy.

Well said. Even just going from what’s shown in the movies, Obi-Wan himself likes to go out drinking and hanging out with friends. I think the “weird” sterility people read into it comes partly from the set design and the weird pervasive blend of CG with stuff made to look CG.

Servii said:

Vladius said:

SparkySywer said:

Vladius said:

*Doesn’t grasp that all the “the prequels are underrated/secretly genius” people are in full agreement with him about the Jedi in the prequels, they just think it was intentional. Yes, they know the Jedi are (supposedly) a creepy cult conspiracy that kidnaps and brainwashes kids to have no emotions.

I think it’s interesting that you’ve brought this up in a small handful of different threads in the past month or so, on top of having a longer conversation about this subject on the PT gen discussion thread.

It’s always relevant because that’s what everyone talks about

In my experience, there are two stances you’ll see among prequel stans. Either “Yes, the Jedi are meant to be emotionally repressive, and that’s intentional and part of the point,” or “No, the Jedi aren’t repressive. They’re only against selfish emotions. You just didn’t understand what George was going for.”

It’s some of both but I obviously lean more toward the second one. I have the very specific position that that was a mistake and George shouldn’t have done that, but also people don’t understand what he was going for when he did do it.

SparkySywer said:

Vladius said:

*Doesn’t grasp that all the “the prequels are underrated/secretly genius” people are in full agreement with him about the Jedi in the prequels, they just think it was intentional. Yes, they know the Jedi are (supposedly) a creepy cult conspiracy that kidnaps and brainwashes kids to have no emotions.

I think it’s interesting that you’ve brought this up in a small handful of different threads in the past month or so, on top of having a longer conversation about this subject on the PT gen discussion thread.

It’s always relevant because that’s what everyone talks about

Broom Kid said:

So what I’m reading is, you paid him to find out behind the scenes info.

He doesn’t know anything more than what you could have got here for free months ago. So what you paid for was embellishment and bad conjecture - and about four separate reminders that he’s got “contacts.” I’m not mad you posted it here. I’m not mad, period. I thought it was a good opportunity to point out what he was actually doing. Think of it as an object lesson in media literacy

Nobody is forcing you to keep vouching for and defending that position. You don’t have to keep doing so, and by doing so, force yourself into making contradictory statements with every quote. You’re just choosing to do it.

None of this is hostile. I can see why it’d be frustrating to someone who wants to keep doing something despite it not going the way they’d like, but that frustration is also a choice.

I don’t have a dog in this fight but you do sound really mad. Also please never use the phrase “media literacy” ever again.

JadedSkywalker said:

True but you could get games like Kotor II that were obviously not even half of the way complete. Just rushed to market as a cash grab. The sequel to the game of the year Knights of the Old Republic. Its like they put more polish into the ad instead of the game.

Poor Obsidian they had no intention of releasing it in that state. It was interesting failure on Xbox. I still hear Kreia saying Apathy is death, apathy is worse than death. Because at least the corpses feed the birds and insects.

I still remember confronting Atris and demanding the lightsaber back, well you never get it back.

People throw this around a lot but KOTOR 2 was pretty much finished. The main issues were bugs and a handful of nonessential cutscenes mainly near the end of the game. A lot of people get this impression because they didn’t take the effort to talk to the characters and understand the story. They went through it saying “I hate Kreia, annoying old woman will never shut up” (true, fair) but then they get to the end and they’re like “I don’t get it, what is she doing, the story is missing”.

Worth noting the Steam version comes with the cut content mod and patches pre-installed now.

It sounds too good to be true, but if it is true, I will hate Disney less. Those screenshots look amazing.

To me that’s good news if he actually follows through with it. ROTJ haters can go pound sand

JadedSkywalker said:

How could the Vong exist and not be a part of the force? When the force exists in all living things and binds the galaxy together.

The Ysalamiri for instance. I reject that as well.

And Kreia’s notion to kill the force. You would end all life in the universe if you could kill the force.

The one thing I don’t like is the prequel then goes and says that Force thing, its not just an energy field that surrounds us and binds the galaxy together. Its midichlorians that teach and speak to the Jedi the will of the force, and also no life can exist without the midichlorians. They are like mitochondria.

Yoda even tells Luke in the Empire that they are luminous beings. Almost chidingly like he is being scolded. You only believe in the physical and what you can see. The force is spiritual. Its energy’s are all around you.

Move that rock and ship its only impossible in your mind.

I think there’s a difference between the Force as a physical phenomena (the psychic powers/telekinesis part) and the spiritual Force as life itself, though they are related. Canon already makes a distinction between the “Living Force” and the “Unifying Force,” which is the kind of divine fate aspect.

And in Kreia’s case that is actually what would happen, which is why she’s the antagonist and you have to take her out at the end of the game. She wants to press what happened to the Exile on all life in the galaxy to give them the opportunity to do what the Exile did and cut themselves off, which would potentially kill everyone and everything.

One of my speculation headcanon ideas is that there could be some hypothetical “electrical” Force that is the spark of life and intelligence, which still animates living things like the Exile, the Vong, the Ysalimiri, and potentially, intelligent droids.

psyikk said:
So much “anti-woke” sentiment gets tossed around when talking about the ST, but not nearly as much when discussing Rogue One, The Mandalorian, Andor, etc. Why on earth is that?

If the mods and others here aren’t too squeamish about this topic -

Andor did catch some of it because it’s explicitly “political” and gets used for real life propaganda purposes, but most people appreciated that that wasn’t at the expense of quality. The female characters weren’t depicted as flawless badasses who just need to learn how good they are deep down. They have serious problems, strengths, and weaknesses and often need help from others. They go through arcs and development.

For Rogue One, there aren’t that many characters. Jyn Erso is one of the more criticized aspects of the movie as she isn’t a very interesting character, but even she goes through an arc of not caring about the cause, to being willing to die for it for her father’s sake. She can take out a dozen stormtroopers without breaking a sweat, but that capability is also given to everyone else in the party other than Cassian.

The Mandalorian doesn’t have anything worth discussing. It’s a straightforward action show. Cara Dune is a strong fighter who can physically wrestle bad guys up close, but it’s more believable because she’s muscular, and she isn’t an annoying character.

The sequels were watched more, more anticipated, and had more quality issues. The new trio that is supposed to be filling in the shoes of Han, Luke, and Leia is clearly weighted for more diversity, whether you think that’s a good thing or not. Once people actually watched The Force Awakens, they actually preferred Finn more than Rey because he’s a more interesting character with flaws, strengths, and weaknesses. However you feel about it, Rey got tagged with being a Mary Sue, which is not an “anti-woke” term, it’s a general storytelling term that originated in (largely female) fanfiction communities.

The woke label was more for The Last Jedi. I won’t talk about it here because people know all the reasons already and it will draw a lot of aggro if I explain it again.

Initial thoughts:
Since they would be “hunting” for Ben Solo he wouldn’t actually be in it as much as the other characters, so it might have looked like the Rey movie they’ve already worked on and cancelled (twice?)
People liked him as a villain, and people generally didn’t like the last minute romance, so it’s hard to say that the popularity of the character would be there.

Superweapon VII said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I’m not going to watch that video but at the very least the title is misleading. Hell comes up in the bible as either Sheol/Hades like the Greek concept as a place for dead spirits, or Gehenna, which is named after a valley in Israel and symbolizes fiery torment and burning. It’s worth noting for all the people here who are fans of sanitized 21st century-friendly hippie Jesus that Christ talks more about hell (Gehenna) than anyone else in the bible.

Of course different Christians have different interpretations of how all this works, who goes to hell, how long it lasts, what the nature of it is, what the difference between Sheol and Gehenna is, etc. but it’s clearly right there in the text. The imagery and the concept of a place of punishment is obviously biblical.

I have not watched the video either, but I am familiar with the arguments of those who claim that the popular concept of Hell is not rooted in biblical tradition. I have always been interested in the history and study of religions, so I am aware of the various interpretations and debates concerning certain concepts and words. I presume that the author of the video — and I repeat, I am saying this without having watched it — does not deny that those terms are used in the Bible. Rather, I believe they argue that the modern Christian interpretation, which associates those terms with the concept of Hell as it is understood in modern popular culture, is not necessarily correct. To be honest, I am not even sure I can completely disagree, considering that Jews, for instance, do not believe in Hell and interpret those terms in a completely different way.

Personally, when it comes to the Old Testament, I tend to agree more with the Jews than with the Christians. After all, the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews, so I believe it makes more sense to follow their perspective when it comes to vocabulary, lexicon, and the exegesis of Hebrew texts. Of course, I am aware that Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, but there are certain points on which all Jews have always agreed. For instance, 99% of Jews have never believed in the existence of fallen angels, with the exception of a few small messianic sects that existed during the Second Temple period. So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, I prefer to follow Jewish interpretations rather than Christian ones, primarily for a matter of consistency.

If you want a brief summary of the video, it’s that there’re multiple different perspectives on the afterlife/divine punishment in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament – the OG Sheol, which was a gloomy underworld where everyone went to after death, then later on annhilationism, universal salvation, and yes, even eternal conscious torment for sinners. Is the video title a bit clickbaity? Yeah. But eternal conscious torment is not the only view expressed in the Bible, and not a majority opinion until the post-biblical period centuries later.

Okay, so repeating everything I said. The title is just dishonest and when you said “Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins” that was wrong.

And you don’t want to engage with the substance of McClellan’s argument, because the scholarship is at odds with your theological conservatism and God forbid you have that rug pulled out from under you.

You don’t even know what my theology is or how conservative it is. If “the substance of his argument” is that there is disagreement on how to interpret the bible, then yeah, duh, obviously. The full spectrum of opinions on the bible still has “biblical origins” by definition. “Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins” is just a straight up lie no matter how you slice it, and the fact you’re doubling down is even more embarrassing for you.

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I’m not going to watch that video but at the very least the title is misleading. Hell comes up in the bible as either Sheol/Hades like the Greek concept as a place for dead spirits, or Gehenna, which is named after a valley in Israel and symbolizes fiery torment and burning. It’s worth noting for all the people here who are fans of sanitized 21st century-friendly hippie Jesus that Christ talks more about hell (Gehenna) than anyone else in the bible.

Of course different Christians have different interpretations of how all this works, who goes to hell, how long it lasts, what the nature of it is, what the difference between Sheol and Gehenna is, etc. but it’s clearly right there in the text. The imagery and the concept of a place of punishment is obviously biblical.

I have not watched the video either, but I am familiar with the arguments of those who claim that the popular concept of Hell is not rooted in biblical tradition. I have always been interested in the history and study of religions, so I am aware of the various interpretations and debates concerning certain concepts and words. I presume that the author of the video — and I repeat, I am saying this without having watched it — does not deny that those terms are used in the Bible. Rather, I believe they argue that the modern Christian interpretation, which associates those terms with the concept of Hell as it is understood in modern popular culture, is not necessarily correct. To be honest, I am not even sure I can completely disagree, considering that Jews, for instance, do not believe in Hell and interpret those terms in a completely different way.

Personally, when it comes to the Old Testament, I tend to agree more with the Jews than with the Christians. After all, the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews, so I believe it makes more sense to follow their perspective when it comes to vocabulary, lexicon, and the exegesis of Hebrew texts. Of course, I am aware that Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, but there are certain points on which all Jews have always agreed. For instance, 99% of Jews have never believed in the existence of fallen angels, with the exception of a few small messianic sects that existed during the Second Temple period. So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, I prefer to follow Jewish interpretations rather than Christian ones, primarily for a matter of consistency.

If you want a brief summary of the video, it’s that there’re multiple different perspectives on the afterlife/divine punishment in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament – the OG Sheol, which was a gloomy underworld where everyone went to after death, then later on annhilationism, universal salvation, and yes, even eternal conscious torment for sinners. Is the video title a bit clickbaity? Yeah. But eternal conscious torment is not the only view expressed in the Bible, and not a majority opinion until the post-biblical period centuries later.

Okay, so repeating everything I said. The title is just dishonest and when you said “Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins” that was wrong.

I think on some level he knows that he was maneuvered into the situation and just helped this insane monster tyrant get into power by killing a man. So he feels shock and guilt, and also worry about what he got himself into. But then he feels like it’s a sunk cost and it’s too late to go back, so he keeps going. He does still think Palpatine can figure out the cheating death thing. I don’t know what you mean by good faith, it seems like everyone here is just having a conversation.

SparkySywer said:

He’s saying that because he didn’t think he was capable of killing Mace Windu and is shocked at his actions, but because he believes he’s been tricked.

It’s both.

NFBisms said:

Sure, but we should also note that Palpatine never outright says he knows how to do what Plagueis did. Even when the mask initially drops, the verbiage is about “having a complete view of the Force” and “using his knowledge,” which is consistent to how he continues to discuss the topic post-Mace Murder, where he emphasizes discovery. It’s an academic seduction almost; forbidden research that Anakin won’t get from Jedi teachings.

The Force is still a great mystery, but maybe a practitioner as “powerful” as Anakin could unlock it if only he had access to all of that knowledge~. That is the function of his being gassed up, playing off of the allure of knowing more about the Force than the Jedi would tell you. It’s not meant to be a direct transaction, tit for tat heel turn.

I think Anakin still has more agency in that than just being duped.

While he’s getting reverse electrocuted by Mace he does actually say “I have the power to save the one you love.”

You’re right that Anakin does have more agency than people give him credit for.

NFBisms said:

I don’t think I ever articulated it better than I did in this conversation with Channel72 (including the next few replies)

It doesn’t excuse any of the bad stuff but I do think people tend to project a lack of agency onto his arc. So many of us have been working backwards from the grandfathered critiques of the prequels’ stupid plot, and not really engaging with where it is at least trying to interplay with the themes of the OT. (I also think this understanding is entirely consistent to The Clone Wars Anakin!)

A lot of this stuff “works” better in conversation with the OT, exactly as movies made decades after. Of course they fail to complete the fabled saga where Star Wars (1977) is a fourth installment, but as idiosyncratic Lucas joints commenting on them, they are fascinating to dissect. Don’t let anyone try to squash that curiosity!

I agree with most of this, but I still think Palpatine did some manipulation. He led Anakin to believe that he was going to be a super special council member with the Jedi, knowing that would cause more friction. He used a lot of flattery to get Anakin on his side and gas him up. It’s possible that he had something to do with Anakin’s nightmares, but either way he exploited them by dropping the Plagueis story and telling Anakin he could save Padme, knowing that it was a bait and switch and that he didn’t actually know how to do what Plagueis did. Whoops, I know you just helped me kill Mace Windu, but no refunds.

JadedSkywalker said:

What I don’t get is Luke had character development in the OT and why was it so difficult for Lucas to do the same for Anakin and also connect it to the original, like the speech Obi-Wan gave about Luke’s father in Star Wars.

You had Anakin as kind and generous in Episode I. But once you see him in episode II he is already a sullen asshole. Completely unlikable, and he never obeys his masters. I suppose that is supposed to make him look like a maverick, like the fact he openly marries a woman in secret against his Jedi wows. so, Lucas can do the dumb forbidden romance thing.

I don’t like the Padme pushed Anakin to the dark side because of love. So, if he died a celibate monk like Rian’s version of Luke Skywalker he never would have been Darth Vader? Go to a monastery and meditate Anakin. Or play politics in the Jedi council, don’t love a flesh and blood woman.

I honestly hate the chosen one thing because it makes him fated to be Vader, he had no choice he started as a slave, he ended as a slave. He could have chosen to not be evil.

Giving him a leadership role in Clone Wars and making him a Jedi master without the rank does expand the character. But it does not fit the prequel, but nor does Darth Maul surviving. And Ahsoka does not even appear in the movies, as in she never existed.

I also don’t like how the Jedi get younglings separate them from their parent’s and allow no familiar bond. They allow no attachments, this is very unnatural and why Anakin is so messed up, he grew up without a mother and father. He was surrounded by a monastic order and giving mantras. And taught how to use a laser sword. But not how to master his fear, not how to relate to other human beings. His entire life is stunted he never grows. He merely has power levels like he is Goku or something. They are training him for what? Until the Sith were revealed, the Jedi didn’t have a standing army and no formal conflict with other force users. What did they need martial skills for. training him to be a deadly assassin and hoping he doesn’t turn his blade on them, or become a Ronin or a Sith.

Anakin probably should not have been trained if he lacked basic empathy, or he lacked emotional maturity. Never mind being a soldier of the Republic like Palpatine’s sword. Give a young man power, teach him to kill and fight in a war. Act surprised when he turns rogue. All the while you’ve been distrusting of him and afraid of his growing power. And you keep telling him he is the chosen one. You make sure the rules don’t apply to him, and he is too big to fail.

The star pupil of Kenobi. The hubris of Kenobi is absolutely legend. I thought I could instruct him just as well as Yoda, my pride had devastating consequences for the Galaxy. Obi-Wan in the Return of the Jedi novelization.

When Yoda tells Anakin not to mourn or miss Padme that was straight up BS. No wonder he was easy putty in Sidious hands. He should just have left the order behind and all their false platitudes. Why didn’t he leave with Padme to raise his children in peace. Let the Jedi rot. There is no need to save the Galaxy from the Sith if Anakin never shifted the balance in their favor. No need to be a chosen one. The Empire couldn’t have come into being without Vader helping it. Or the Jedi being insipid and wrong. With all their discussions and endless politics. They have a complete inability to act, and when they finally did they were maneuvered by Palpatine like pawns in a game of chess.

I’m not a prequel lover by any means but a lot of this isn’t quite accurate. In addition to a dumb forbidden love thing, the Padme issue is supposed to be about the dangers of fear and jealousy. It’s not really bad that Anakin fell in love or got married, it’s that he let his passion cloud his judgment, so he got carried away and manipulated. Like you said he really could have left at any time, but he was also ambitious and power hungry. His desire to save people from death overlapped with “I’m going to be the most powerful Jedi ever” and getting offended that he wasn’t a trusted master. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

The Jedi do train people to master their fear, that’s part of the point. They can relate to others and generally don’t turn out messed up. Obi Wan has friends and likes to drink. Anakin was just written/directed as a weirdo.

The Jedi obviously have martial training because they’re constantly going on dangerous missions. That’s the point of the lightsaber, you can use it to block blaster bolts. In a world of guns it’s a defensive weapon. Fighting other people with lightsabers is secondary if they aren’t around.

Going by what is actually portrayed on screen, the Jedi were pretty much right about everything and it was Anakin’s own fault for not following the rules. Their main flaw is that they were written as really stupid and missed obvious information in the Attack of the Clones conspiracy plot.

This is insanely beautiful and I appreciate SnooPac for sharing it.

Wicketthewarrick said:

Vladius said:

Wicketthewarrick, honest question, how old are you?

i wasn´t trolling i was serious

So was I

Wicketthewarrick, honest question, how old are you?