logo Sign In

Yoda Is Your Father

User Group
Members
Join date
6-Jan-2005
Last activity
13-Mar-2025
Posts
4,577

Post History

Post
#109469
Topic
Give Lucas A Run For His Money...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/109469/action/topic#109469
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Seiji
The Midi-Chlorian explanation in Episode I specifically refutes the explanations of the Force given in the original two Star Wars films. In the OT, we could say that Yoda is the wisest and most powerful Jedi because of his faith, dedication, focus, patience, intelligence, etc. In the PT, we say that Yoda and Anakin are the two most powerful Jedi because they were born with the highest number of Midi-chlorians in their body. This is almost a Social Darwinist theory of the Force.

Qui-Gon says that without Midi-chlorians, life would not be possible and we would have no knowledge of the Force. Therefore, all living things possess midi-chlorians, and all living things should have access to the Force.

The film would have been superior if the midi-chlorians were never mentioned, though. The Force definitely has changed since Obi-Wan described it in Episode IV (Lucas was trying to make a positive change, but hurt the films instead). In Episode IV, Obi-Wan comments: "When I first met your father, I was amazed at how strongly the Force was with him." In Episode I, this comment seems to have changed to "I was amazed at how high his midi-chlorian count was." The descriptions from the original trilogy imply that your ability to use the Force is limited only by the strength of your mind and will. Yoda makes it abundantly clear that NO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS can be placed on the Force, including a Midi-chlorian count. In the PT, this is no longer the case.

Does this mean that when Anakin loses his legs and arms (a lot of cells) he also loses about 40% of his midichlorians and therefore much of his force ability?

Quote
Originally posted by: Seiji

7.) Either re-do the voices of the battle droids with a deeper voice, or have them use no voice at all. The destroyer droids were cooler and more menacing because they did not speak. The same could have been done for the battle droids

Why the hell do robotics soldiers need to communicate verbally anyway? Wouldn't silent, coded communication be more efficient?

Quote
Originally posted by: Seiji

9.) C-3P0 should not have been created by Anakin. His dialogue in TPM is also horrendous at times (ie- repeated lines: "That Jar-Jar creature is quite unusual"). C-3P0 would have worked better as a servant of the Naboo, or as a translator in the Senate, and R2-D2 would have worked better as Anakin's creation.


I like this idea. But instead of actually building him, maybe anakin could take home a broken astromech droid that Watto was going to throw out and repair him and program him in his own fashion, which would explain R2's personality (he's the only astromech who has one it seems).
Post
#109174
Topic
Things you DID NOT like about Episode III
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/109174/action/topic#109174
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
In order of how much they bothered me:

#2) Anakin saying "What have I done?" after allowing Mace to get killed. This weakens his transformation to Vader a hundred-fold.



Actually, I quite liked this bit. It showed that Annakin was torn and for a moment I thought his transformation to the dark side would be well paced and subtle, but the next minute he was on his knees in front of Palpatine (pun intended).
Post
#108225
Topic
The character of Obi Wan
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/108225/action/topic#108225
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
hmm.. this is a very joyful thread, for the first time ever, i am hearing people talk about how the PT enhanced the OT, its almost as though you gsuy are putting thme on the same level(god forbbide.) well good job you have my happyness, after seeing the entire PT i can say truthfully that i'll enjoy the OT much more particularly ANH.

Before I begin, let me say this: The OOT IS Star Wars to me. I love it. I don't need the prequels. However, seeing as they do exist, and the ultra super edition DVDs do exist and the OOT DVDs do not exist yada yada yada, I can appreciate Lucas' 6 part saga. I consider it a seperate entity to the originals, which I love, but I can still apprecaiate what he was trying to do how they all work together. Never thought I'd say that....

Post
#106556
Topic
Info Wanted: Best Prequel Re-Edit?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/106556/action/topic#106556
Time

I want to get my hands on some re-edits of the prequels. I don’t want major changes (yellow lightsabers, etc), I just want less Jar-Jar, no midichlorians, and less yippees. Anyone have any suggestions as to what’s the best version for me? I suppose what I’m looking for is a less cheesy, more watchable version of TPM and AOTC but retaining the main storyline.

Post
#105835
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105835/action/topic#105835
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.


May I take this opportunity to worship at the feet of all Americans for saving my puny Island from certain destruction. We held out from 1939 until 1944 without them, but that one year that they helped us was, of course, the decider. Thank You Thank you Thank you.
p.s Thank You.


Calm yourself and read both reasons i listed, there are two after all... There would be No US, if the french wouldnt have lended aid during the revolutionary war. Thanks for assuming so, but i am not some crazy american jocker. But i cant see the english and french ralying to defeat Hilter with out the US and Hitlers overzealousness towards Russia. IF Hilter would have laid off and not tried to ramrod into Russia during the winter things would have gone much much worse for all the good guys involved.

As for JFK and Reagan others have more than adiquitely covered the issues i would have raised...


London, Newcastle, Leeds, Soutahmpton and any other English city you care to mention was bombed to shit during the war and we fought them off in airplanes, so if you're suggesting that Hitler was looking elsewhere and that's why he was eventually defeated by the UK/US alliance I'd have to disagree.

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I would sugest that the U.S government only intervene in foreign affairs if it is of some interest to them, be it security, financial, etc. It may not be an obvious interest, but they will have some interest, even if it's citizen's are unaware.


I agree, however it just never seems to work out that way. We could never make the case to invade anywhere there's a drop of oil, because everyone would scream about it. It is unfortunate, because I do believe the US can be a force for good, especially it's military. However, we're often in lose-lose situations because of the games our politicians play, and in the court of public opinion.


There's corporate interest as well, and that goes beyond the whole politics. The thing is, I belive it is wrong to intervere merely for financial interests. And if we consider how much money the belic industry makes for each war or military intervention, we must ask ourselves if these multi-billion dollar companies influence the political decision behind the killings and bombings... I must say, one should be very naivee if he thinks those companies don't influence the war industry at all.


I'm not just talking about corporate or finacial reasons (oil, etc), I'm also talking about things like aiding a coup to get rid of a leader that is standing in your way somehow.
Post
#105803
Topic
Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105803/action/topic#105803
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSageYoda: What's the violent crime rate in UK now that almost all guns have been outlawed? The REAL rate, not the ones Labour was throwing around during the election...I'm genuinely curious, as I hear some pretty horrid stories. Do you feel that the criminals are more bold now?

Well, as far as I know guns were never legal in recent history in the UK, certainly not in the last 60 years, but in answer to your question, gun crime in England seems to be on the up. It's mostly gangs or drug dealers killing each other rather than innocent people on the street, and gun crime is still very low compared to other crime and other countries, but I have noticed an upward trend. However, I am not scared to walk unarmed in my home city of London, but I am a little worried in L.A (where my wife comes from and we visit often and are moving there in autumn). In England I have never known anyone, not even a friend of a friend of a friend who has been the victim of gun crime but in L.A I have many friends who either have been threatened at gunpoint or know someone who has been shot, etc. So, this is a really tough problem, and I see both arguments I guess, but personally I don't think more guns is the answer. I don't know what is though, unless somebody invents some kind of machine that makes every gun in the world evaporate and the knowledge and desire to build them vanish also.

Post
#105782
Topic
Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105782/action/topic#105782
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
When we talk about the gun issue, there are two possible sides one can take: those who think the problem will be solved with more guns, those who think the problem will be solved with less guns. I belive the problem will be solved with LESS guns. I belive peace is the answer. If we arm everyone, the problem will NEVER go away, and therefore we are doomned to live in a world of chaos and violence forever. Violence is never the answer, NEVER. There is no need for wars if we chose to live in a cooperatively peace. If peace is an utopia, then we should all commit suicide right now, because it's pointles.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, this solution seems extremely unlikely to ever happen, but I still agree, and I will be the change I want to see.
Post
#105417
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105417/action/topic#105417
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.


May I take this opportunity to worship at the feet of all Americans for saving my puny Island from certain destruction. We held out from 1939 until 1944 without them, but that one year that they helped us was, of course, the decider. Thank You Thank you Thank you.
p.s Thank You.


I am of the belief that in spite of England's requests for help and American lend-lease aid (for the better part of what, 10 years?), Hitler would have eventually fallen without US intervention, so you're barking up the wrong tree (at least with me). Believe me, I'm an isolationist by nature (duh), so the last thing I want is the US fighting European wars. The world handled it's own problems for 150 years without us getting involved. It could get used to it again. WWII set a precedent that too many US politicians take waaaay too seriously: We must intervene everywhere at all times and act as a police force for the world.


Agreed Sage, good point.