darklordoftech

Am I the only one who's afraid of Abrams becoming all-powerful like Lucas was?

DuracellEnergizer said:

Why do I get the feeling that the Star Trek EU is handled a lot more healthily than the Star Wars EU, even though I've read next to nothing of the former and far too much of the latter?

 

 Because the Star Wars EU obsesses over a stupid concept called "canon".

I'll be so happy if Marvel destroys Legacy!!!!!!

DuracellEnergizer said:

^If only it made me laugh. A head shake and a facepalm are my only responses. 

 I agree. I was using the term "laugh" because of the thread title.

Another laugh: "If there's no Sith in episode 7 I will leave Star Wars behind."

skyjedi2005 said:

But that is later.  In the 1990's the terms were used as if they were the same thing.  or as if Licensing did not allow the use of the term Sith.

Darth Vader was already known as the dark lord of the sith and in Zahn he is referred to as a dark jedi, that is frankly stupid.

It wasn't known what Vader's "Dark Lord of the Sith" title meant. For all we knew, he received the title from the same spirit that gave the title to Exar Kun.

skyjedi2005 said:

he even used Dark Jedi  confused as to what Sith meant. 

 A Dark Jedi isn't necessarily a member of the Sith while a Sith is.

DuracellEnergizer said:

skyjedi2005 said:

But no more stories will be told in the old EU prime universe.  Its gone and replaced with whatever Disney is replacing it with much like replacing the real star trek with the JJ version.

The "Prime EU Universe" started coming to an end when TPM was released and stories started being printed which reflected the universe depicted in that movie. When AOTC rolled around, the prime universe collapsed completely.

What's happening now with Disney are only the final aftershocks of that cataclysm.  

 Agreed. The Thrawn books don't match the prequels at all.

DuracellEnergizer said:

darklordoftech said:

Dra--- said: ↑

darklordoftech said: ↑

Dra--- said:↑

darklordoftech said:↑

Dra--- said:

"Falling in love" is an idea. "Character trait" is an idea.

All ideas are made up of language; all language is made up of ideas. All actions and events are semiotically packed with language. You can't get beyond language and ideas. What you take to be natural are all socially produced constructs (made of language and ideas).

That's why ideology is so powerful and difficult to destroy.

Passions are not ideas. I'm sorry. An animal that's alone its entire life would still have passions.

What you're talking about is a human concept. "Passions" is an idea. In fact, I doubt any biologist would describe animal "drives" or "instincts" that way. It's too human centric. They would use different language and concepts. Over time, these concepts might change.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some real phenomena out there in the world that language aims to describe. But the only way we can talk about "thing-in-themselves" is through language and ideas. Hence, everything is an idea.

All of Western and Eastern philosophy, including science, embrace this concept. Even science talks of "phenomena" rather than "noumena." The noumena are the "thing-in-themselves" that we can only know through human social constructs.

Let's create a planet. Planets are ideas, after all. Let's resurrect George Washington. George Washington is an idea, after all.

You're still not understanding the difference between phenomena and noumena.

Let's say you have planet making technology. You wouldn't be able to make a planet without the idea of what a planet is.

Let's say you have cloning technology. You wouldn't be able to make a George Washington without a whole range of linguistic and ideational data about what his "identity" was made up of. Identity is a social construct. You could produce an exact clone of GW, but if you didn't fill his mind up with the same ideas and language, you wouldn't have GW.

Anyway, if you really want to argue this position, take a philosophy class. Just because you don't understand a well-accepted concept, I shouldn't have to be your teacher. 

I'm guess this has something to do with the "Sith is an idea" thing. I can't make heads or tails of what the hell the argument being made is, though.

 Don't worry about it.

darth_ender said:

He says he is not, but I'm still pretty sure this is Sam, just a little better behaved.

 Not sure what that conversation has to do with Sam.

Dra--- said: ↑

darklordoftech said: ↑

Dra--- said:↑

darklordoftech said:↑

Dra--- said:

"Falling in love" is an idea. "Character trait" is an idea.

All ideas are made up of language; all language is made up of ideas. All actions and events are semiotically packed with language. You can't get beyond language and ideas. What you take to be natural are all socially produced constructs (made of language and ideas).

That's why ideology is so powerful and difficult to destroy.

Passions are not ideas. I'm sorry. An animal that's alone its entire life would still have passions.

What you're talking about is a human concept. "Passions" is an idea. In fact, I doubt any biologist would describe animal "drives" or "instincts" that way. It's too human centric. They would use different language and concepts. Over time, these concepts might change.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some real phenomena out there in the world that language aims to describe. But the only way we can talk about "thing-in-themselves" is through language and ideas. Hence, everything is an idea.

All of Western and Eastern philosophy, including science, embrace this concept. Even science talks of "phenomena" rather than "noumena." The noumena are the "thing-in-themselves" that we can only know through human social constructs.

Let's create a planet. Planets are ideas, after all. Let's resurrect George Washington. George Washington is an idea, after all.

You're still not understanding the difference between phenomena and noumena.

Let's say you have planet making technology. You wouldn't be able to make a planet without the idea of what a planet is.

Let's say you have cloning technology. You wouldn't be able to make a George Washington without a whole range of linguistic and ideational data about what his "identity" was made up of. Identity is a social construct. You could produce an exact clone of GW, but if you didn't fill his mind up with the same ideas and language, you wouldn't have GW.

Anyway, if you really want to argue this position, take a philosophy class. Just because you don't understand a well-accepted concept, I shouldn't have to be your teacher. 

SilverWook said:

darklordoftech said:

SilverWook said:

darklordoftech said:

Am I the only who finds it hilarious that Dark Horse is being celebrated with a comic that brought Palpatine (and Boba for those who don't think he could have made it out of the sarlacc) back from the dead?

1. Marvel brought Boba back first. And put him right back, but arguably the survival odds were better being trapped inside the sandcrawler that fell in, which probably gave the Sarlacc one hell of a tummy ache.

2. Lucasfilm could have said no to bringing both of them back, and didn't. George has had veto power over what the comics do from the beginning.

3. More improbable things have happened in the prequels. ;)

2. If Person A could have stopped person B from murdering somebody and didn't, person B isn't guilty of murder?

3. If person A murders one person and person B murders two people, Person A isn't guilty of murder?

 You're comparing unfavorable plot points to murder? I give up.

 My point was that "they did it too" is not an excuse. My bad.

SilverWook said:

darklordoftech said:

Am I the only who finds it hilarious that Dark Horse is being celebrated with a comic that brought Palpatine (and Boba for those who don't think he could have made it out of the sarlacc) back from the dead?

1. Marvel brought Boba back first. And put him right back, but arguably the survival odds were better being trapped inside the sandcrawler that fell in, which probably gave the Sarlacc one hell of a tummy ache.

2. Lucasfilm could have said no to bringing both of them back, and didn't. George has had veto power over what the comics do from the beginning.

3. More improbable things have happened in the prequels. ;)

2. If Person A could have stopped person B from murdering somebody and didn't, person B isn't guilty of murder?

3. If person A murders one person and person B murders two people, Person A isn't guilty of murder?

Am I the only who finds it hilarious that Dark Horse is being celebrated with a comic that brought Palpatine (and Boba for those who don't think he could have made it out of the sarlacc) back from the dead?

DuracellEnergizer said:

I wouldn't mind seeing the license for Star Wars comics going back to Marvel if it meant that all this stupid fixation on the Sith would come to an end.

 Exactly. I'd rather see Luke and Vader fuse than more of that Sith nonsense.

The original trilogy novelizations seem to reflect the 1977-1983 intent. Padme survives longer but only Leia lives with her.

SilverWook said:

darklordoftech said:

SilverWook said:

Giving it back to Marvel simply because Disney owns them just seems like a decision only an accountant would make. Is the Dark Horse license up any time soon?

I meant after Dark Horse's license expires. Marvel WILL get the license back at that point. Giving a license to a competitor is simply not how corporations work.

 Dark Horse has been publishing Dinsey comics and selling other Mouse merchandise since the 90's though.

 That was in the 90s, when Disney didn't own Marvel.

SilverWook said:

Vader Vs. Doctor Doom comic? Because they will do that, wait and see. ;)

 I believe you.

SilverWook said:

Giving it back to Marvel simply because Disney owns them just seems like a decision only an accountant would make. Is the Dark Horse license up any time soon?

I meant after Dark Horse's license expires. Marvel WILL get the license back at that point. Giving a license to a competitor is simply not how corporations work.

I can't wait for Marvel to get the comic license back.

I can't wait for episodes vii, viii, and ix to anger those who claim to be "open" to retconning.

I would definitely prefer an Imperial villain over a Sith villain.

vacuum said:

i have a feeling this trilogy won't happen.

Why is that?

Anyway, TFN seems to want another black-cloaked, yellow-eyed, lightning-shooting villain. I had no idea that TFN is that bad.

Tack said:

If we attempt to outdo ourselves we're just going to end up with something lamer.

 Exactly. Attempts to outdo things are the path to the lame side.

DuracellEnergizer said:

How about Vader-Maul-Grevious hybrid clones with quadruple-bladed lightsabers in each hand ;-)

buddy-x-wing said:

It's hard trying imagine a new Big Bad that could compete with Vader, even if the prequels destroyed his character

 

 I don't want to see any attempt to outdo anything.