logo Sign In

danaan

User Group
Members
Join date
13-Dec-2011
Last activity
10-Nov-2012
Posts
50

Post History

Post
#593404
Topic
The Clone Wars: Season V
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/593404/action/topic#593404
Time

Darth Bizarro said:

Lots of large fandom's break apart into subgroups, and many times, an old franchise will come back in a new form for a newer generation and the older fans might not like it.  A great example is Doctor Who.  A show that continued on in one form for many years, only to go off the air and come back in a newer flashier form.  Lots of fans embraced the new series while others continued to swear by the classic series.  If those Doctor Who fans who are totally stuck on Tom Baker and hate the new show decide to go and facebook and "Like" Doctor Who, they are inevitably going to be bombarded with updates about the new season with Matt Smith.  And do those fans really have any right to complain that their senses are being bombarded with a new incarnation of their favorite show from their youth that they happen to not like.  No they don't.  Because someone likes it other wise they wouldn't still be making it.  

The original Star Wars films ended in 1983 and for years there was nothing.  Star Wars could have been just another one of those franchises like Back to the Future that just ended up as a relic of a by gone era, and your senses wouldn't be bombarded today with anything Star Wars related because it would have died off like any other popular movie from the era, living on only in your memory, some old toys, and your new DVD Special Edition box set.  But Star Wars came back in a new form.  Some fans accepted it, other shunned it, and many new fans came into the series because of it.  So you may not like the fact that Star Wars has moved on without you, but you really don't have any rite to complain about it because that's how things work.  You can look back fondly at your memories of a by gone era but you can't become bitter at modern day for not maintaining it for you.  You should be thankful that the new stuff is still coming because it's keeping Star Wars alive in the public conscious.  If Star Wars had just ended in 1983, how many kids today do you think would have come along and willingly taken an active interest it if it wasn't for the new Star Wars coming along to guide them into it, just like a fan of the new Doctor Who series going back and taking a look at some of the old episodes and finding that they were pretty good too.    

So yes, I do, just like you, remember fondly those good times when Star Wars was a much simpler thing.  But there is nothing about anything new George Lucas has done since 1997 that will ever take that away and I for one am happy that Star Wars will live on a few generations longer, even if I don't necessarily like all the new stuff myself.   

And hell, at least we can still watch the original Star Wars.  Sure, it might not be in HD, but it's a lot better than the countless television shows that only live on today in 3rd generation television recordings ripped from VHS tapes.  For years, there was no way for me to get Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.  They only just recently started releasing those, same thing with Bobby's World.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles only just this past month released it's final season on DVD.  And my all time favorite television show from my childhood is Muppet Babies, a show that will likely never see release because of copyright issues regarding the use of the countless movie clips they used in the show that they didn't clear for use outside of broadcast.  So the shear fact that you can still watch Star Wars in decent quality is, while not optimal, is still good that it will be allowed to live on for you, with or without the validation of other "purists."


No right to complain, eh? So much for freedom of speech. I disagree on so many levels. First of all, it implies that older fans should be silent because newer fans understand the material - themes, messages, morals - better, or have a priviledge of interpretation that older fans for some reason do not have. That's just a strange argument that ultimately does not rest on any logically valid foundation I can think of. My interpretation of SW is as valid as anyone else's, and the fact that someone came into SW with the CW series in no way means that that person has more of a right to interpret the material than I do.

Further - remember why us ole purists are being grumpy. It's not simply about there being new material. It's about there being new material that completely invalidates the central thematic points of a movie trilogy that belongs to contemporary cinema classics. That's not a trivial issue - or should not be for a fan. Indeed, the fact that I care so deeply about those themes and narratives should, beyond doubt, attest to my qualifications as a die-hard Star Wars fan.

As for "we can still watch it" , well, yeah, kinda. For a while. But I hope that you've noticed how quickly technology is developing now. VHS machines can no longer be bought, to the best of my knowledge. The latest release of the OT was on DVD, but DVD is already an outdated format. DVDs will go the same way, and soon, too. Very soon. Even Blue-ray is on the verge of becoming outdated with HD-TV and Netflix - because who needs to buy a record if you can access your movies in HD directly from the cloud? That possibility is already here.

In a decade, I seriously doubt anyone will care about owning a machine that plays movies on anything other than harddrives. And the OOT does NOT exist commercially available in that format. The ONLY way to see the OOT in that format is through illegal file sharing. You seem awfully complacent about the fact that within a few scant years, the only way to watch the OOT is through illegal copies. This is not a distant future. 10 years or so. Not much more, because DVD machines are not the most durable, and once they break down, or your DVD disks are worn out...well, that's all she wrote.

So, no, the trilogy that created movie history will not live on much longer if Lucas gets his way. I wish the fanbase was more up in arms over this, I really do. It's strange to see so many people who claim to be Star Wars fans just shrug over the destruction of this piece of cultural history - the three movies that created their entire fandom disappears, and they don't care, beause they're too distracted by SW in 3D or some other LucasArts style-over-substance-product that has absolutely nothing to do with central thematic messages of the trilogy that started it all - and when people like me point this out, we're told we have no right to complain. Strange times we live in.

Now I'm going to to cry in a corner somewhere.

Post
#593276
Topic
The Clone Wars: Season V
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/593276/action/topic#593276
Time

Darth Bizarro said:


Ok.  Now that makes sense.  But I still don't know why you can't just ignore them like I ignore Alien 3.  As I said before.  Just because we might not like all of the expanded content of some of our favorite works of fiction, doesn't mean we should let that content ruin our day.  Just like Alien, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Superman, Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man, the Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Planet of the Apes, there will always be a few entries some of the fan base don't care for and shouldn't let their mear existence get them down. 



I do my best to ignore them. But to be honest, it's really difficult to be a Star Wars purist and be social about it these days. If I "like" Star Wars" on FB, I'll get all sorts of PT stuff in my face, and that's pretty much true for most web forums, as well. Moreover, we "purists" are really a dying breed. For 15 years, kids have grown up used to include the PT in the canon as naturally as breathing, and this new generation does the same with the CW. In a decade or so, only die hards will remember what SW was before the PT came along. So, how can we ignore what Star Wars has been turned into when it's constantly in our face and the revisionist agenda is effectively winning. Lucas wanted to destroy the old Star Wars, and he succeeded.

Darth Bizarro said:


I understand Star Wars is a special case since not only does GL insist on making more movies and shows that some people don't like, but also makes changes to the old films to properly reflect the new canon.  But remember who's really at fault for that aren't the people who happen to find the Jar Jar hate a bit overblown.  Just because I don't hate the special editions completely doesn't mean that I don't also find it to be total bullcrap that I don't have a choice in the matter unless I'm willing to sit through a crappy laserdisc transfer or turn to Harmy.


Oh, I'm not blaming the PT-fans or the CW-fans in general for Lucas' suppression of the OOT (though those PT/CW fans who act as Lucas' apologists and actively condone his revisionism and hound us purists for speaking out against it are certainly complicit). I'm just expressing my opinion: SW should not be about Palpatine wielding dual lightsabers [edit: and importantly, such a scene violates some very founding principles of what SW should be about on a fundamental level]. I know I'm the minority voice in the larger fandom, but surely, it must be ok to express this (now increasingly framed as almost "fundamentalist") opinion, particularly on a forum specifically devoted to the Original trilogy, eh? ;P

I guess, this is where us Purists come to die. ;P

Post
#593035
Topic
Is "Empire Strikes Back" really George Lucas' least favorite?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/593035/action/topic#593035
Time

skyjedi2005 said:


One of the things people find objectionable about the prequels is the lack of any central protagonist and its moral relativism.

Anakin is supposed to be the hero but he is not even remotely likable nor are the other cardboard cutout or cgi characters in those movies.


The fact that Anakin is a whiny, stupid twit =/= as movies having moral relativism. The PT are, in fact, not morally relativist at all - the morals are quite clear - the Dark side is still evil, the Light Side is still good. It just so happens that all characters are twits, idiots, and generally incompetent, and the storyline a complete mess, which makes things come across as more muddled than they actually are.

Post
#593014
Topic
The Clone Wars: Season V
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/593014/action/topic#593014
Time

Tyrphanax said:


... just a couple of the episodes from Season One (the show doesn't really pick up until Season Three).


You know, in my view, if a show that can't get you hooked after seeing just one episode, it's usually a strong indicator that it's not up to snuff.#Ilovefirefly.

Btw, several posters have hinted at a problem with CW. It's starting to get to a point where the characters are so entrenched, so developed, that their absence in ROTS is becoming a narrative issue. I'm speculating here, by I'm gonna say that this is related to the creators not really having a plan for the overarching narrative structure of the show. In other words, it seems they are going to make new seasons for it for as long as it's popular, but that could really become a problem. Indeed, the never-ending-show is often a narrative problem for any show. It became so for X-Files, for Twin Peaks and many others, because they set out with a pretty specific narrative base, but then tried to milk it for whatever it was worth, and there comes a point in the narrative, when you undermine its overall structure by making it too long.

In the case of the CW, it happens between Ep 2 and 3. That's a range of about 5 yearsish. There's only so much you can cram in there before it starts affecting AOTC and ROTS. I'll give you that five seasons (one per year of conflict) probably could be made to work. But at want point does it become so long as to undermine the movies? For a Star Wars fan, I think that's reasonably something to be concerned with. This show would probably be well served by producers making the same decision as was the case of the Battlestar Galactica: this story only goes so far - and when it's over, it's over, notwithstanding fan popularity. Maybe somebody knows if such a decision has already been made. I hope it has.

Post
#592937
Topic
The Clone Wars: Season V
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/592937/action/topic#592937
Time

Darth Bizarro said:

Dude, you take Star Wars way too seriously.  

This goes beyond the argument of Star Wars being a part of our cultural heritage and film preservation.  A point that I am in full agreement on with basically everyone on this site.

What you're talking about though is contradictions in the "mythology" of a work of fiction which was based on actual mythology causing you physical and/or emotional pain.  No longer is this about the REAL issue of Lucas destroying our cultural heritage.  This is a whole new level of problems you seem to be experiencing.     

You don't just hate them.  Lots of people hate them, and I respect that fully.  I hate Alien 3, but I wouldn't be offended by someone showing up to a convention dressed as Ripley with their head shaved.  But for you, it seems, their very existence actually pains you.  That's not healthy dude.

George Lucas made some Star Wars movies, and you liked them.  Then he made more Star Wars movies, and you don't like them.  Simple as that.  Other people liking them shouldn't upset you so much.  


Hmm....

I dunno. Is my attitude unhealthy? I'm not at all convinced that it's as simple as that. For me, the issue of cultural heritage and my own love for this particular work of fiction are deeply intertwined. I abhor whenever cultural heritage of much "greater cultural standing" (high culture vs oop cultur, etc) becomes relativized, or even demolished. Think about how the Parthenon in Athens was blown up, how the Elgin marbles were removed from the building, how the library in Alexandria was burned by zealots, how Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, or what is now happening in Timbuktu. When someone says that history or our cultural heritage is useless or unimportant, I am outraged. I guess I'm just sensitive to such folly.

In the case of Star Wars, I loved that trilogy. It was probably my favourite movie experience when I was a kid. But it's more than that. I loved other movies, too - like Labyrinth, or the Never Ending Story. But revisiting them, they're just kinda "meh" to me now. Star Wars has lasted, because it is a classic of a whole different standing, and because of the profound messages. But now, those messages have been undermined, hollowed up, effectively destroyed by the PT and post-PT developments. So this is really a case of revisionism - Lucas fully intends, it seems, to destroy the memory that the SW saga was once something other than what the PT presents. Getting my hands on even the 2004 DVD is getting increasingly difficult. That's horrendous. And then some fan comes along and makes a statement to the effect of SW should be about Palpatine wielding dual lightsabers. It's, pardon the pun, lightyears from what the unaltered ANH-ROTJ series of films were about.

In conclusion - no, this is not about me being angry that others like films I don't like (though the elitist in me will always be baffled by the strange success of things like Dan Brown, Transformers or other such schlock). This about a set of very beautiful ideas in the form of a fairytale that has now been completely sidelined by Yoda doing computer-game shit. It's like seeing something I loved dearly die. Of course it hurts. And the fact that it does is just a testament to how much I loved it.

Btw, I can guarantee you that if the directors of other films I love dearly did the equivalent to what Lucas has been doing the past 15 years, I'd hurt over that, too. But they have the integrity to leave their work alone, or to offer several versions if they do want to tamper with their work after the fact, so there's no cause for mourning. In that sense, SW is uniquely ravaged by its progenitor.

Edit: Btw, there's plenty of other EU material I also feel does not live up to the OT. A recent example would be the TOR cinematics, which just seem to be regurgitating the visuals of the OT without any of the substance. The emphasis on the super-choreographed fights is one example. In one of them, they've even just re-written lines from ANH, which is the height of style over substance.

Post
#592874
Topic
The Clone Wars: Season V
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/592874/action/topic#592874
Time

KazolOrajia said:


I'll just chime in quickly with my two cents.

I'm a fan of The Clone Wars, and I'm very, very excited for Season 5, which looks to be the best yet.

I completely understand the anti-Clone Wars arguments here, but they don't bother me too much, because the way at look at The Clone Wars, and most of Star Wars, is this: It's a fun space fantasy franchise. It's full of action and cool-looking shit, and while it's not always plausible, or particularly serious, that's fine, because it's pure escapist entertainment, and it's supposed to be. The OT was the same thing. Sure, there were deeper messages, and they were very well-made films that certainly deserve the praise and recognition they get....


This segment pretty much sums up my grievance with the PT and everything that has come afterwards. The point of SW was not the "pure escapist entertainment" - you can go to any blockbuster to get your fill of that, even Transformers and GI Joe. The point was indeed those deeper messages. But all those wisdoms offered by Yoda, Obi-Wan, Luke, Vader and even Palpatine in the OT have been rendered utterly pointless and devoid of meaning because of the PT and now, too, the CW.

When Lucas, in the "Making of AOTC"-footage, says that all fans have been waiting for Yoda to "whip out that little laserswords of his and go to town" he *completely* misses the point of his own mythology. Everytime i hear that statement I want to shout a Big No at the screen, it's so stoopid! But that's all we're likely to get from LucasArts now - kewl weaponcombos and shiny things that look like things did back in the OT, but that have actually been robbed of any of that deeper meaning that made SW so great.

For this old fan, that just hurts.

Post
#592701
Topic
The Clone Wars: Season V
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/592701/action/topic#592701
Time

Darth Bizarro said:


1. So I will first respond to the implosibility of the Darth Maul thing with simply a photograph.

<a href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/halfman2_450x400.jpg</a>" title="www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/halfman2_450x400.jpg">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/halfman2_450x400.jpg</a>" target="_blank">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/halfman2_450x400.jpg">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/halfman2_450x400.jpg</a>


*sighs*

Maul was cut a good deal higher up:

http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/8/2011/10/felldown-1.jpg

Really, what does it take for you to accept that a character is dead, I wonder? I mean, according to the standards you are setting, Boba Fett is also not proven dead - he could just fix the jet pack with the tools in his utility belt and fly out of Sarlacc or something. Which would be the lamest device for the continuation of a fan fave character evah. But completely in the same league as having Darth Maul come back.

Darth Bizarro said:


How exactly does fixing the flaws make Star Wars as a whole worse?  


Nothing of this fixes any flaw. "Attempting to fix" by building on an already flawed narrative with even more flawed ideas just compounds the existing flaws to the point of making the storyline outright laughably stupid. In short, the flaws in the PT can't be fixed by the Clone Wars show. They can only be fixed by re-making the PT.

Darth Bizarro said:


2.  Your entire argument here is circular and proves no point whatsoever so I won't even bother restating my original point again.


No. Not circular. It's a variant of my "the flaws of the PT can't be fixed by the CW"-argument + "there are plenty of ways the story of the PT could have been much more appealing than the schlock we were given".

Darth Bizarro said:


3.  Even if you completely discount the prequels from canon and go with the original trilogy on it's own, Obi-wan flat out states that Yoda trained him as a Jedi.  And Obi-wan says that a lightsaber is the weapon of a Jedi.  The Emperor says the same thing in Return of the Jedi.  So who exactly taught him to use the thing.  Based on the implications given to us in the OT, Yoda probably did.  You act like Yoda made some strong case in the movie about Jedi not using lightsabers when all he did was try to make a point that there was more to being a Jedi than just fighting.  So why exactly would it be acceptable to assume that Yoda would condone and even train a Jedi to use a lightsaber, and yet somehow completely ridiculous that he might use one himself.  That doesn't make any sense.  So yes, it is just a matter of opinion.


You clearly do not understand the profound significance of Yoda's teachings on Dagobah.

Darth Bizarro said:


Also, Mr. Purist.  We aren't talking about the original trilogy here.  We're talking about the Clone Wars, an off shoot from the Prequels.  So you can't try to make a point about how something in the Clone Wars shouldn't be, and then turn around and say that the prequels don't count because you don't consider them canon.  I'm sorry, but the second you start talking about the Clone Wars, you are officially outside the safety of the purist zone. 


I know. But the OP said that the CW is what SW should be. I disagree profoundly. SW should not be about who's got the most flashy weapons combo. It should be about moments like Yoda training Luke on Dagobah.

Darth Bizarro said:


4.  Luke blows up the Death Star, a space station filled with countless officers and enlisted men, none of which are necessarily the next Emperor or Vader and many of whom were likely drafted and he gets a medal.  Or what about all the people on Jabba's sail barge that he murdered when he blew the thing up.  Jabba was dead, all the guards who were attacking him had been taken out already.  What exactly did Luke have to gain by blowing up the sail barge which was at that point probably only filled with an bunch of drunks hanging out to watch the show, some servants, many of whom were likely enslaved, and the band members.  All the guys who where an actual threat to them were defeated already, so why blow it up?  Yet Anakin kills a village full of savage murderers who shoot at passerbys with riffles just for the lulz apparently, raid homesteads, pillage, capture, and torture people, and it's a one way ticket to the dark side.


Luke never gave in to his anger the way Anakin did on Tatooine. Again, you seem to fail to understand the dynamics of the OT - see the Throne Room scene in ROTJ. Luke passed that test. Anakin didn't. The sail barge scene was not a case of a defenceless village that Luke decided to destroy because of bigotry and hate. Luke did NOT initiate hostilities against Jabba's outfit. He had, in fact, tried SEVERAL non-lethal methods of getting Han out of there (3-4?). He had just been attacked by just about all of Jabba's thugs. As far as he knew, there could have been more guards coming up to follow the first ones. Could an even better outcome have been sought? Yes, but even so, the two situations are NOT comparable at all.

Post
#592463
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/592463/action/topic#592463
Time

Wolfman said:


 

...So there I was, in my local HMV shop and they had the blu ray of ESB playing on the wall television.

The assistant comes over and asks if he can help me. I say no, I'm just watching the film for a moment as I am a huge Star Wars fan. "In that case" he says "These blu rays are for you....yadda, yadda..."

I say that actually, I am not a fan of these particular versions but a fan of the original versions.

"Wha.."?

The original versions of the original trilogy before George altered them, says I.

"Wha ? You mean you want to see them with cardboard lightsabers and no effects"?

No,says me.The original theatrical versions of the films that were released in the 70s and 80s.

............"?"

Then I had to walk away. WTF ??

 

 


This just proves how important the preservation is for film history. Lucas is embarked on a revisionist project and succeeding. That makes me angry and sad.

Post
#592425
Topic
The Clone Wars: Season V
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/592425/action/topic#592425
Time

Darth Bizarro said:


How exactly does fixing the flaws make Star Wars as a whole worse?  And even if they were fixes for the worse, ala Greedo, I would hardly call that proof.

1.  He had no character whatsoever in TPM, how does bringing him back and giving him an actual identity make things worse.  Furthermore, he wasn't resurrected, he never died to start with.


So, this is what contemporary Star Wars has come to: a villain cut in half is no longer counted as "obviously dead". That's absurd, and sad.

Darth Bizarro said:


2.  How does introducing a secondary set of villains prove that they should have been in the movies.  That's like saying that having the Black Sun appear as villains in Shadows of the Empire proves that they should have been in Empire Strikes Back.


The whole "Boba Fett is super-important and the First Clone" is built on catering to fans who can't get enough of Boba Fett because his armour is so kewl. That's an exercise in superficiality. Boba Fett as a Mandalorian veteran, one of many, where his armour is not tailormade, but an actual uniform, is much more appealing for so many reasons. I.e. AOTC is flawed in so many ways. This is just one of them, and bringing in Mandalorians in the show is done because AOTC is flawed.

Darth Bizarro said:


3.  First, the idea of whether the Emperor should or should not have a light-saber is entirely a mater of opinion, not forgone fact (same thing with Yoda BTW).  But even if that weren't up for debate, how exactly is the Emperor going to defend himself against two attackers simultaneously both of whom are wielding double bladed lightsabers with only one lightsaber.  He needs two so he can block two simultaneous attacks.


No, on at least one level it's not just a matter of opinion. Yoda clearly states: "judge me by my size, do you?" This is of tremendous significance for the whole meta-physics of the Force. The master Force user has moved beyond the physical, transcended it. Thus, the lightsaber is utterly redundant. Those who are focused on shiny neon-swords over this understanding clearly do not comprehend what made Star Wars great in the first place.

As a note - the whole "lightsabers have been proven to deflect Force lightning" is a flawed argument on two accounts: 1) it rests on the user counting the PT as canon, which OOT-purists do not, for good reason, and 2) it's not like Force Lightning was ever supposed to be a highly effective offensive weapon. If the Emperor wanted to just kill Luke quickly he could have just snapped his neck, or crushed his heart with the telekinetic abilities of the Force - it would have been over in a split second, and is arguably the remedy against two assailants. The Lightning was used as a torture device.

Darth Bizarro said:


4.  Having Anakin become angry slowly as the show progresses helps make his fall to the dark side more believable than simply going all at once.  Anakin has had moments where he's dipped a little close to the dark side throughout the series and he always bounces back.  It's called foreshadowing.  BTW, Luke did the exact same thing in Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, getting angry at Yoda, Ben, Vader, the Emperor.  And he didn't fall to the dark side.  You could also argue that Obi-wan walked dangerously close to the dark side when he lashed out at Maul, or what about Mace Windu prepared to strike down a disarmed Palpatine.  There's a big difference between having a moment where you loose control of your emotions and sitting around constantly brooding.  The Jedi teach to let go of your anger, not suppress it.  You will get angry, but as a Jedi you need to be able to let it go.  You can't make an accurate distinction about whether or not the Jedi should have been able to see Anakin's fall to the dark side when you're looking at it through the goggles of hindsight.  It always seems so obvious after the fact, doesn't it, but I've never seen one of my friends or coworkers in a moment of frustration and immediately think to myself, wow, that guy is probably going to come in tomorrow and decapitate a bunch of children.  


I know what "foreshadowing" is. I also recognize poor usage of that storytelling device when I see it. We're talking about Anakin here, y'know, the guy who genocidally slaughtered an entire village, men, women and children, in murderous rage. It's bad enough that the Jedi didn't put in solitary confinment and intense therapy straight after that incident, but now we're supposed to believe that he can have recurring lapses into the Dark Side for *years* without anyone reacting at all? Man, those Jedi are incompetent eedjits in this narrative!

Post
#592069
Topic
The Clone Wars: Season V
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/592069/action/topic#592069
Time

Meh. More proof that SW is going down hill. They're trying to patch up flaws in the PT by retrofitting the Saga in the TV shows:

1) The return of Darth Maul. Sure, DM was underutilized in the PT. But resurrecting him only makes things worse.

2) Introducing the Mandalorians now only underlines that they should have been a major antagonist in the PT to begin with, and that the whole "Boba Fett is a Clone" is not well thought out.

3) The Emperor should never, ever have a lightsaber. Let alone two. Yuck!! That image alone is enough for me to not touch the season with a pair of pliers.

4) Having Anakin be angrier only serves to underline the imcompetence of the Jedi even more. I mean, how many hints to those guys need to pick up the fact that he's got issues and need some frikking therapy already!

In short - no, this is not what SW should be.

Post
#591934
Topic
That original trilogy change you wouldn't mind
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/591934/action/topic#591934
Time

I wouldn't mind putting in ROTJ emperor in the ESB-hologram.

It's been done, you say? No, I say. The emperor that's in the new SE versions is the ROTS-emperor, his make-up doesn't sync up well with the ROTJ-emperor at all. Also, he has been given new lines and presents PT-cruddy delivery of those lines as well. So that attempt failed. Indeed, I prefer an untouched ESB to what's been done...

Post
#564852
Topic
'Why the SW prequels are better than the OT' - article inside
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/564852/action/topic#564852
Time

[quote=xhonzi]
I think you're still looking at it too much in terms of Black and White.  I don't think anyone here is saying that Luke could have killed Vader and walked away unaffected.  I don't think anyone's saying Luke's killing Vader wouldn't have put him on an unreversible path to the Dark Side.  The question is whether Luke would simply shrug his shoulder and say "Sure.  I'll join you.  I've already killed my father in anger, I guess I'll just kill ALL of the rebels now.  Even my sister.  BWHAHAHAHAHAH!"



Well...um...yes. The SW universe is a Manichean universe - it IS Black vs White. That's why, hardwired into its genetic structure, underpinning everything, you find the Light Side and the Dark side of the Force. Ever heard of the Grey side of the Force? No? Maybe that's cuz there isn't one. ;P

Now, I don't think "my" scenario would play out in quite such a cheesy way. And I say that knowing that in the throne room scene, we have an old, evil wizard, sitting on a black throne in a black throne, cackling, and shooting lighting from his fingers....

Rather, I think we would have seen Angry Luke (as opposed to Harmony Luke we actually got), and if he met any of his old friends, his hatred and anger would have gotten in the way of their relationship. Probably something like; "Leia, don't get in my way, I'm doing this for the good of the galaxy", etc.


[quote=xhonzi]
Then what, indeed!  Luke either

Flees, having failed his mission to defeat the emperor and his own immortal soul.  And the Empire wins the day.  Luke has taken that unreversible step to the Dark Side.  In a matter of time, he will be further down the Dark Side path and Luke will seek out the Emperor again.  Only this time he will be prepared to call him Master.

Emperor wins.

~or maybe it goes like this~

Luke attacks the Emperor in his anger.  The emperor is strong enough to rebuff him.  The Emperor doesn't want to kill him, so he doesn't.  The battle pushes Luke to use more and more of the Dark Side.  Still, he's probably not quite ready to join up.  This goes on until Luke has had enough and leaves, - or the Emperor has had enough and sends him packing.  Either way, Luke leaves swearing to gain the power he'll need to return and defeat the Emperor.  On his path to power, Luke believes the ends justify the means and he throws away a lot of the high moral standards he'd developed up to that time.  Somewhere along the way, the good seed of the quest- rid the Galaxy of the Evil Emperor, gives way to the quest for power for power's own sake.  Maybe he seeks out the Emperor, wanting to defeat him and claim revenge, yes... but seeking the knowledge he has first.  The Emperor has forseen this.  Luke becomes his apprentice. 

Emperor wins.

~or it could go like this~

Luke realizes he doesn't have the power to defeat the Emperor (yet) and he also realizes that he won't be able to defeat him in open combat.  To keep his enemy close, Luke swears fealty to the Emperor, but to him it's only a charade.  At least at first.  The Emperor, of course, understands this, so he doesn't send him out to do anything too compromising at first (kill Jedi children) but sends him to do the things he'd like to do anyways.  Quell a dispute between warring factions, etc.  Slowly by slowly, Luke becomes what he pretends to be.   The line between reality and perception blurs.  Luke forgets what he was fighting for in the first place.

Emperor wins.

~probably not like this, but it's possible~

The Emperor really does have some ideal that he's beholden to.  He's so dedicated to this cause (whatever it is) that he's willing to die so that his more powerful apprentice can take over.  So, after Luke kills Vader in a Dark Side rage, he fights Luke, knowing that Luke will tap into enough of the Dark Side to win.  Emperor is dead.  Luke is more tainted with Dark Side power than ever.  Luke eventually continues down that path to become an even more powerful Emperor than Palpatine.  Whatever Dark Side cause they're all dedicated to (?) is furthered.

Dark Side (therefore its servant the Emperor) wins.

~or another posibility, one I mentioned before~

The Emperor Approaches Luke and says: "Kneel before me, my new apprentice!"  And Luke says, "You think you have won, but you have failed, Your Highness.  I'm still a Jedi."  And he holds his sabre at the ready.   The Emperor tries to stun Luke with force lightning, but Luke is able to resist it.  He force pushes the old man down.  The room shakes as the rebel attack takes its toll.  Luke decides it's time to get out of there.  The rebels destroy the Death Star, Vader and (presumably) the Emperor are dead.  Sure, Luke used the Dark Side to do it.  The Emperor said it would cause him to become it's slave, well that sure wasn't the case.  He's fine.  In fact, he's never felt better.  Etc, etc...

The Emperor wins.

My point is that it doesn't matter exactly what the Emperor's exit strategy was.  I'm sure there are many, many more possible situations that I haven't thought of, but it's always the same- Luke always loses.  Ther Emperor always wins.


Exactly. All that is consistent with the first premise: if Luke wins, he loses. In all cases, anger takes over.

xhonzi said:


Whether you'll appreciate anything I wrote above, I have no idea.  But as I said before, having Luke simply cease as a character only to be replaced by "Evil Luke" is pretty powerless.  That doesn't interest me at all and I see it as cheap storytelling in lieu of actually exploring the way that power (or feelings of power) ruin otherwise good people. 


I dunno....Do you consider Frodo finally being corrupted by the Ring when he stands in the heart of Mount Doom cheap and powerless? I don't. In fact, I consider it one of the most powerful moments in LOTR (book or movie). No one can stand against the corruption of the evil powers for very long. In SW, too, we have an evil power (the Dark side of the Force) that is corrupts those who use it. It completely in line with the SW theme. It does so by virtue of the choices those people make, because to use the Dark side you have to give in to Fear, Anger and Hatred, and a person can choose not do give in to those emotions. But it corrupts nonetheless, and I think this trait of the Dark side is an important dimension of the fairy tale. It sends the message that no matter how good you think you are, you can't really use the Dark side for good, by virtue of its very nature.

xhonzi said:


It also removes the potential for redemption from the Dark Side.  If you have no good part of you left... how can that good part overthrow the bad part?  And if there can be mostly bad parts with a little good left, then there has to be the possibility for mostly good with a little bad as well.


No, it doesn't. There is nothing in this interpretation that contradicts Anakin's redemption. It only makes it harder. You know, much like an addict needs support through rehab to kick the habit. There's always some little chance for redemption, if the character can let go of the hate.

xhonzi said:


I don't like very much about the prequels, if anything.  But the idea that Anakin's killing a bunch of sand people that he thinks deserved it was the start of his path down the dark side, and not his arrival at end, I can totally get behind.  He went home.  Was slightly disturbed by his own actions.  Rationalized that they were the correct actions.  And then proceded to be more reckless with his future actions.  It's the sudden turn in Revenge of the Sith that makes no sense to me.


That's where we disagree. It has, in the OT, been established that if you kill in anger, you become a Darksider. It has also been said that anger and hatred will dominate you. Vader clearly links his servitude to the Emperor to the power of the Dark side. And every single Dark sider (in both PT and OT) sound like they are tripping when they are saying that the "Dark side makes them more powerful than any Jedi" (and they all say this - Dooku, Sidious, Anakin/Vader).

But here's Anakin who can kill an entire village of sentients and...essentially nothing happens. He's pretty much the same Anakin in the arena fight as he was when he walked into Padme's office in the early part of the movie. Aside from his little rant in front of Padme, it's like nothing happened. He should be angry, he should, well, be tripping on the Dark side high of the century after that Song My of his.

And even if he is sufficiently controlled as to not show his inner turmoil (which he has never shown himself capable of during the earlier part of the movie), the Jedi around him should sense how he is infused by the Dark side from that little massacre of his. He should get long anger management and therapy sessions at the Jedi Temple.

It makes no sense on so many levels.

For me, his turn in ROTS is not sudden at all. I consider him Darth Vader in all but name from the point when he starts slaughtering Sand People. He does nothing more evil in all of ROTS then he does right there, so why should we consider Anakin "badder" then?

A more plausible arc would have been to have him start smaller. "A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defence, never for attack." Have him violate that rule in Ep 2. Slightly. This will only work if the rule is something Jedi actually live by. That way, the contrast would come out starkly. Then he does it again, and again, each time a little more severe than the last. The arc ends with him killing in anger and turning. That gives even more weight to Luke's trial in the throne room scene, because Anakin went through the same, and failed.

That's my take on it...

Post
#564540
Topic
'Why the SW prequels are better than the OT' - article inside
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/564540/action/topic#564540
Time

darth_ender said:


Clearly if Luke had killed Vader, the Emperor believed that such would have been sufficient to make him an evil replacement.


Actually, you bring up another good point. Let's assume that the Emperor is lying - killing Vader does not make Luke a Darksider. He can kill Vader and still be the good guy....

And Luke kills Vader....

And...then what? Is he just going to ask Luke nicely to join the Sith club?


Why is the Emperor doing this whole "let's turn Luke to the Dark side" exercise if it doesn't work that way? Wouldn't that expose the Emperor as an incompetent buffon when it comes to Dark side meta-physics? The Emperor, the guy who is patently the strongest Dark side user of the Saga...doesn't even understand how you recruit people to the Dark side?

I'm sorry, but that sounds...not so plausible...and it makes the Emperor come across as much less intimidating, cuz incompetent folks aren't.

Good catch!

Post
#564528
Topic
Vader not Luke's Dad... imagine!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/564528/action/topic#564528
Time

xhonzi said:



TheBoost said:

If Luke only forgives him<span style="text-decoration: underline;"> because it's his dad</span>, that seems selfish. But (it seems to me) he forgives Dad-Vader because he senses there is still good in him, regardless that it's his dad.


Mayhap, but then it wouldn't be the human experience, would it?


?

Why not?

Because doing that is super-human, somehow?

Post
#564514
Topic
Vader not Luke's Dad... imagine!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/564514/action/topic#564514
Time

Bingowings said:


Wouldn't Luke be a bit of jerk to extend that generous level of forgiveness to the man who killed his dad, killed his mentor and tortured his friends and not to the little old man in the bath chair who saved the galaxy from red tape, child indoctrination by wacky celibate kung fu monks and corrupt politicians?

LUKE : What are you doing with that poor old man?

VADER : Well I was going to throw him down this really convenient death-pit but if you are happy with him tazing your ass...?


A true Jedi does not take revenge. That's the point. And it would actually be brought out more clearly if Vader was not his father. Does that mean a whole lot of people would think Luke and the Jedi complete wimps? Yes. But they clearly do not share that morality, and they clearly think that revenge is a good form of justice.

...which is anathema to Jedi philosophy.

...which is the point the Saga is making.

Post
#564483
Topic
'Why the SW prequels are better than the OT' - article inside
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/564483/action/topic#564483
Time

[quote=xhonzi]



I'm not sure the movie is telling us that.  Palpatine is telling Luke that.  Palpatine also says it's Luke's destiny, he says that his place is at his side, he says that the Rebels won't win, he says that Luke has misplaced his faith in his friends.  All of these things are proven untrue, why should the nature of Dark Side conversion be any different.

Yoda says there's a path to the Dark Side.  Not a switch.

Besides, Luke used the Dark Side to beat Vader down and he didn't instantly become a Dark Side junkie.  Yes, going all the way and murdering Vader would have been a more serious offense/commitment to the Dark Side.  But I think Palpatine was really just playing head games with Luke.


I've met many who don't like the conceptualization I'm presenting, but in my experience, they don't consider this: Regardless of how you build the path to the Dark side, there has to be a point, narrative-wise, where you cross line and become a darksider. There has to be a point when you are no longer a Jedi. Which means that there will have to be a tipping point someplace.

Anakin, in the PT, did not fall when he murdered sentients using the Dark side. So when did he turn? When he pledged himself to Sidious? you can argue against that and say that it was actually when he killed children----yet he's crying after he killed the Separatist leaders, so maybe it was when he choked his wife. Even so, there's still a tipping point, a time in the narrative when we say that he is now, definitely, a darksider, no longer a Jedi.

Thus, the notion that there is something like a "gradual transformation" is no more true for Anakin in the PT than it is for Luke - both start tapping in to the Dark side, and in both cases there is a moment when we, as audience, will say - now he's a bad guy. I think it makes more sense that that moment is when the Force user murders someone in anger. It lets the Saga send a powerful moral message to the audience - murdering in anger is wrong, full stop! Vigilanteism is not the path of the Jedi.

Moreover, this is one area where Yoda's words about how the Force works does not in any way contradict the Emperor's words. So, both senior force users are effectively saying the same thing. So maybe they're not lying, eh? Moreover, the Emperor is a selective liar - just because he's lying about some things, does not mean that he's lying about everything. A competent manipulator can play head games very effectively with selective truths. Note also, that the Emperor is starting to treat Luke as his apprentice. So, yes, there are head games, but there are also truths.

Also, what happens with the dramatic tension in the scene itself without this setup?

Well, it's destroyed. There is none. If Luke can kill dad and the Emperor without becoming evil, then nothing is truly at stake here. Thus, the dramaturgy of the scene itself actually supports my conceptualization: the stakes are, objectively, higher, if Luke loses if he wins the fight, AND loses if he loses the fight. Indeed, this dramaturgy is so very Zen that I can't see how any other interpretation can be sustainable. Remember that just about everything Yoda says about the Force in ESB is based on Zen-buddhism/Daoism. And here we have a scene, where the key is to throw away your lightsaber, and find your harmony, and take non-action. Well, that's an embodiment of Wu Wei, one of the chief principles of Daoism.


I understand that that is one interpretation of how the Dark Side could work.  But it's a very "I was possessed by the devil- I'm not responsible for my actions" kind of thing.  Which greatly disinterests me.  That's not seductive at all.

I think you'll find that fiction is full of a lot of that.  Not an actual fall from grace, more like a snap of the fingers and somebody is evil.  Or they're possessed, or they're controlled, or they're replaced by an evil twin.  That's fine and it has its place... but I would rather see an evil actually corrupt a guy, not just control him.

I just can't buy that Luke would swear fealty to the Emperor after striking down Vader.  If anything, his Dark Side rage would lead him to attack the Emperor.  Maybe that battle would go on for a long time, The Emperor toying with Luke, and maybe Luke would continue to tap into more and more of the Dark Side and maybe then he would be ready to commit to it.  But I think Luke's first reaction after the revenge/anger killing of his father would be strong amounts of both relief and regret.  That's not the kind of emotion that would lead to immediately siding with your enemy.


So, why is Vader obeying the Emperor? He clearly doesn't like the old geezer. Why the line "You don't know the power of the dark side, I MUST obey my Master!" Vader is tying his servitude directly to the dark side itself. If the Dark side itself is not a temptation for a Jedi - then why should they be ware of it at all? And yet, they clearly stay away from it! Yoda doesn't say "Well, yeah, the dark side is kinda like TNT - handle it with care in a controlled environment". He clearly instructs Luke to stay well clear of it!

I think that if Luke killed his father, he would become his father - in the sense that his anger, hatred would take him over. He would not be sad, nor would he feel regret. He would feel even more anger and hatred and it would come to dominate him, just as it did his father. Heck, that's the entire point of the dialogue the two have throughout the fight - Vader's incapacity to "let go of this hate" - Luke even calls him on it! Luke would likely direct that at the Emperor, and try to attack him, only to lose, and be forced into servitude, there to bide his time in hatred and resentment, awaiting the moment when he could stab the Emperor in the back, Sith style.

Do not underestimate the destructive power of hatred...is really what SW is telling me, at least, in this powerful climax.

Post
#564396
Topic
'Why the SW prequels are better than the OT' - article inside
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/564396/action/topic#564396
Time

[quote=xhonzi]



danaan said:

So, in your interpretation of the OT, regardless of the PT, Luke could have killed his father and still walked away the good guy?


What?  No!  Did you read the links I posted?  You seem to have grossly misunderstood what I was trying to say. 

Maybe I wasn't clear.

What I'm saying is that Luke could have killed Vader and the Emperor and walked away thinking he was still the good guy.  But that would have put him on the path that Yoda said would FOREVER dominate him.



Oh, ok. Sorry, my bad. I read it very quickly. Yes, he might indeed have thought himself to be the good guy. The way the scene is set up, though, the movie is pretty much telling us that if Luke kills the bad guys, the end result will be that he'll either become the Emperor's new apprentice, or the new Emperor (if he has the power to kill the Emperor, which the movie tells us is very unlikely). Either way, the good guys lose.

xhonzi said:



Edit: Also,- whaddaya mean "short"? Working himself up to the level of rage so that he KILLS HIS OWN FATHER! How is that short?


I mean one action taken in a 10 minute fit of rage would not immediately overthrow his sense of right and wrong once he calmed down.  How many people do you know completely change their personalities in a single day? 

I'm saying Luke would have taken his first step down the path of the Dark Side.  And that there would have been many more.  But he wouldn't have already arrived.


But that's not what the movie says. 10 minutes of rage might not be consequential to you or me....even if those 10 minutes end with us killing someone, though I would think that such a situation would still be profoundly traumatic for someone who started those 10 minutes as someone with a great deal of ethical integrity. But then, this is SW, and Luke isn't anyone. He's a Force user, and a Force user of great power, and when *he* lets loose he invites the Dark side. Indeed, he "gives himself" to the Dark side. The Dark side has agency, and a power of its own. Note how everyone is talking about how the Dark side is "seductive", and how Vader is an emotional slave of the Emperor. The Dark side is, clearly, kinda like crack for a Jedi. Once you get that powerful first rush - when you kill someone in rage, fuelling yourself with the Dark side...you're stuck and you're a junkie. And Luke, in that moment, is but a saberthrust away from crossing that point of no return and becoming a servant of evil.

Post
#564382
Topic
'Why the SW prequels are better than the OT' - article inside
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/564382/action/topic#564382
Time

xhonzi said:



danaan said:



xhonzi said:

danaan said:

So, Luke can't win by fighting, but he also can't avoid the fight! That's a very precise moral dilemma (which the PT, btw, ruins),



I'm sure I won't disagree with you, but please elaborate on this point.  What in the PT influences this moment in RotJ?



Well, the point in ROTJ is that IF Luke kills his father, strikes him down in anger, drawing upon the Dark side to fuel himself, THEN "his journey towards the Dark side is complete". I.e. IF a Jedi kills in anger, THEN he will become a darksider.

In AOTC, Anakin kills an ENTIRE village of sandpeople in anger (their guilt in his mother's death is irrelevant) and REMAINS a good guy. So, if Anakin can do that, why can't Luke kill his father and still be a good guy at the end of ROTJ. So, what the PT is telling us is that this wonderfully balanced finale is all mumbojumbo and that Luke should just shove his lightsaber in his dad's face and then what the old chuckling geezer in the gape. And then maybe flip them some badass comment...cuz, why not?


Oops.  Looks like I do disagree afterall.  I don't think this is the PT speaking (given that I am an ardent anti-PT guy) but I don't think the Emperor was exactly right when he said that to Luke.  I wrote this all out long hand years ago, so let me just direct you here:

<a href="http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/401848/#TopicPost401848"></a><a href="http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/401848/#TopicPost401848" target="_blank" title="originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/401848/#TopicPost401848"></a><a href="http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/401848/#TopicPost401848" target="_blank" title="originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/401848/#TopicPost401848">http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/401848/#TopicPost401848</a>

and here:

<a href="http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/403366/#TopicPost403366"></a><a href="http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/403366/#TopicPost403366" target="_blank" title="originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/403366/#TopicPost403366"></a><a href="http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/403366/#TopicPost403366" target="_blank" title="originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/403366/#TopicPost403366">http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Luke-VS-the-Emperor-What-if-Vader-hadnt-been-there/post/403366/#TopicPost403366</a>

The long of the short of it is this: I don't believe the path to the Dark Side is that short.

Yoda said that once you indulge the Dark Side, forever would it direct your path.  He didn't say that you became a mindless zombie and threw away all of your previous convinctions after one puff.

*cough*Revenge of the Sith*cough*


So, in your interpretation of the OT, regardless of the PT, Luke could have killed his father and still walked away the good guy?

In my opinion, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the message of SW, and there is nothing inside the actual movie to support this. In fact, all evidence supports my interpretation - Yoda, Ben AND Palpatine all warn Luke about giving in to the Dark side. Add to that how Vader is acting like a slave to the Dark side: "You don't understand the power of the Dark side; I MUST obey my master". I.e. once you're the sway of the Dark side, you really don't have all that much free will to choose whether you can disobey your master or not. The Dark side compels you to obey. And Vader acts accordingly until the point when he "lets go of his hate".

Indeed, in your interpretation of the ROTJ, there is message that you are defined as good or bad by virtue of your actions is gone (=killing in anger is still ok, after all), and so is the tension of Luke's situation - he has a way out. Kill his dad. I mean, why wouldn't he? It's the easy and obvious choice, after all. For me, that's trite storytelling, a simple revenge vigilanteism that's been done to death already (pardon the pun).

Edit: Also,- whaddaya mean "short"? Working himself up to the level of rage so that he KILLS HIS OWN FATHER! How is that short? I mean, look at the anger, the wrath on Luke's face as he hovers with his saber an inch from his Father's face...and tell me that's not the face of the Dark side. I think it's one of the best illustrations of the potential of evil in each one of us ever put to screen in a fairy tale movie. Luke's really on the edge of the abyss here. The mere idea that he could kill his father in that most ominous of moments and still be considered a good guy is just beyond me, to be frank.

Though I know you're not the only one making that interpretation....

Post
#564348
Topic
'Why the SW prequels are better than the OT' - article inside
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/564348/action/topic#564348
Time

xhonzi said:



danaan said:

So, Luke can't win by fighting, but he also can't avoid the fight! That's a very precise moral dilemma (which the PT, btw, ruins),


I'm sure I won't disagree with you, but please elaborate on this point.  What in the PT influences this moment in RotJ?


Well, the point in ROTJ is that IF Luke kills his father, strikes him down in anger, drawing upon the Dark side to fuel himself, THEN "his journey towards the Dark side is complete". I.e. IF a Jedi kills in anger, THEN he will become a darksider.

In AOTC, Anakin kills an ENTIRE village of sandpeople in anger (their guilt in his mother's death is irrelevant) and REMAINS a good guy. So, if Anakin can do that, why can't Luke kill his father and still be a good guy at the end of ROTJ. So, what the PT is telling us is that this wonderfully balanced finale is all mumbojumbo and that Luke should just shove his lightsaber in his dad's face and then what the old chuckling geezer in the gape. And then maybe flip them some badass comment...cuz, why not?