imperialscum

Bingowings said:

King Arthur is King Arthur because of the blood of his father yes but that's because authority is passed through his family not any particular abilities.

King Arthur is good and swinging a sword because he was squire to his step-brother and trained by his step-father (both trained knights).

Now you can still say his family (he and his father) was good at sword fighting, can you? Both were good at sword fighting, period. It would be an observation of facts that doesn't have to do anything with any kind of inheritance...

Skywalker family was strong in the force. An observation of facts - Luke was strong, Liea was and Vader was. The sentence itself doesn't mean it was inherited. Yes?

Bingowings said:

That doesn't mean that every child born to and raised by depressive parents is going to be the same it just makes it more likely.

Child's mental development is not subject to any genetic al inheritance from the parent. There is just no evidence what so ever that a child will be a good composer/writer/painter because the parents were.

As I said... the factor may be parent's social influence after the birth. Not any kind of inheritance.

Bingowings said:

So the only source for this family strength that Ben and Vader hopes to use against the Emperor and Palpatine fears is genetic.

Didn't I just go through this? The family strength that Ben hopes to use is his ability to trigger Anakin's return. While Vader was purely after Luke's powers (which doesn't have to have anything to do with them being related). Vader only tried to exploit the fact that Luke was his son as social tool to accelerate his turning to the dark side.

Bingowings said:

imperialscum said:

Bingowings said:

Ben : The Emperor knew, as I did. If Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him. That is the reason why your sister remains safely anonymous.

That would seem to imply there is something special about Luke and Leia and their connection to their father that worries the Emperor but interests Ben and Vader.

The only real connection they have this point is blood.

The look of horror on Leia's face when she discovers Luke is Vader's son doesn't make it seem that affection for her absentee father is a threat Vader or Ben can use against Palpatine.

Though ironically Anakin's latent affection for his child is what defeats Vader and his Emperor.

You have crushed your own argument. The threat that Emperor was afraid of was the very same thing that ended his life in the end. That is Luke triggering something good in Vader that eventually led to return of Anakin.

How is that of any use to Vader?

How is that of any use to Ben who pushed Luke into killing Vader?

Sorry mush but if anything is crushed it's it your wet cardboard thinking.

Who said that this thing was of any use to Vader? Vader was hunting Luke purely because he felt that he was strong in the force during the battle of Yavin. That alone made Luke useful to him.

But it was of use to Ben of course. I mean it ended exactly in that way. Who said Luke wasn't just an expandable asset to trigger Anakin's return? In fact a lot of things suggest that, including: Ben not training him before his late teens, Yada not trying harder or even force him to stay on Dagobah and of course Luke actaully triggering Anakin's return in the end. In addition, does at any point in the trilogy look like Luke can actually defeat Emperor and Vader? The answer is no.

Bingowings said:

There is a connection between the mind and genetics

Speaking from the evolution point of view, the brain capacity and genetics are connected.

But certainly not from one generation to another. If you have a good imagination that allows you to be a composer you certainly didn't inherit it genetically from your father. The only factor is his social influence when you are growing up.

Bingowings said:

Ben : The Emperor knew, as I did. If Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him. That is the reason why your sister remains safely anonymous.

That would seem to imply there is something special about Luke and Leia and their connection to their father that worries the Emperor but interests Ben and Vader.

The only real connection they have this point is blood.

The look of horror on Leia's face when she discovers Luke is Vader's son doesn't make it seem that affection for her absentee father is a threat Vader or Ben can use against Palpatine.

Though ironically Anakin's latent affection for his child is what defeats Vader and his Emperor.

You have crushed your own argument. The threat that Emperor was afraid of was the very same thing that ended his life in the end. That is Luke triggering something good in Vader that eventually led to return of Anakin.

Bingowings said:

imperialscum said:

Bingowings said:

 

Luke and Leia are seen as strong in the Force due to inherited traits which suggests something biological rather than mystical.

So if you say "a familily of good composers" because both father and son happen to be talented in music, does that suggest a biological inheritance?

Obviously not. Same goes for the Force in OT.

Err...

I suggest a family of good composers would be a mixture of nature and nurture.

The kind of brain and ear that understands the nuances of music (nature) and hanging around with an enthusiast keen to pass on knowledge (nurture).

Leia and Luke have hardly hung with Vader in any form of nurturing way.

They only point they both know they are both related to him is in the last act of the last film of 'their' trilogy.

So the only thing connecting them to each other and Vader is genetics.

The film is suggesting the Force ability that Vader and the Emperor fear from his children is biological, which is a bit crap for the little kid in the cinema who dreams of being a Jedi knight one day but I guess it does mean he is less likely to jump out of the window onto the nearest television aerial.

Actually being a good composer has very little or nothing to do with the ear (ie biological structure and so on). Being a good composer is all about mental capacity, perception and imagination which are not genetically linked.

What I was trying to tell you is that the quote doesn't necessary mean that Luke and Liea are storng in the force because of their father. Like I said, it can simply mean that they all happen to be strong in the force. An observation, nothing more.

An example: "my family is good at math"

Bingowings said:

 

Luke and Leia are seen as strong in the Force due to inherited traits which suggests something biological rather than mystical.

So if you say "a familily of good composers" because both father and son happen to be talented in music, does that suggest a biological inheritance?

Obviously not. Same goes for the Force in OT.

Heilemann said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at no point in the prequels does anyone say that the force isn't available to anyone; only that midichlorians determine their power. Which is probably analogous to height having an influence on your future as a basketball player.

That is not the point. The point it that the whole idea of midichlorians is stupid...

I like the part where he is gradually turning to the dark side by doing the missions.

In contrast, in PT Palpatine directly admits to him that he is the Sith Lord. Then he knowingly commits a crime to "save" his wife. And a few moments later his IQ drops to 50 and he thinks the Jedi are actually evil...

I suggest you play Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast and Jedi knight: Jedi Academy video games. They deal with both imperial remnant and new Jedi Order. In my opinion they are the best post-Endor EU material.

"I have failed you for the last time... you can choke me."

In case this is about cheating on girlfriend I suggest using: "Don't blame me. I'm an interpreter. I'm not supposed to know a power socket from a computer terminal."

Hey, it's me. said:

With Empire, his overall influence was minimal. He obviously he had the treatment and gave the ok to this and that, but everything else was left in the hands of others.

So taking all of this into account how much credit does Lucas actually merit for the Original Trilogy? 

You can't take that into account because it is not true. During the ESB he helmed the pre-production and post-production. In addition to having last word on pretty much everything, he worked with art designers to define visual looks (McQuarrie, Johnston), he wrote second (actual initial) draft of screenplay, oversaw the writing of subsequent ones, and participated in editing (had final cut). I don't see how that is "minimal influence".

These are my favourites:

SWTOR
KOTOR
JK2
JKA
EAW
KOTOR2

generalfrevious said:

imperialscum said:

generalfrevious said:

SilverWook said:

To believe Lucas had nothing to do with the creation of Star Wars is a whole new level of loathing and denial.

That's buying into the revisionist history of the franchise. Lucas wants to be seen as the father of SW but does not deserve that title. Gary Kurtz and Marcia Lucas are the real people behind SW.

Don't be ridiculous...

ANH was saved in editing. That is a fact. Marcia Lucas was one of the editors to the film. That is also a fact. Kurtz managed to rein in George's overindulgences during ANH and most of ESB's shooting. This yet another fact.

With ROTJ George Lucas was trying to remake ANH the way he wanted to before common sense saved the day six years earlier, before he contemplated remaking the whole trilogy in the form of the SE back in the 90s. The silver lining to Jedi is that Kazanjian, while no Kurtz, was no sock puppet like Rick McCallum would be during the making of the PT. So the movie ended up not being an unwatchable disaster like the prequels later would.

Surely editing was important (as well as other aspects) but the fact is also that Lucas pretty much had a complete creative control over all 3 films of original trilogy. Even in ANH because the studio didn't care too much and gave him free hands. I mean he probably got more feedback from producers and hired directors than in PT but in the end he had the final word over everything. So saying that he did not have creative control is ridiculous.

generalfrevious said:

SilverWook said:

To believe Lucas had nothing to do with the creation of Star Wars is a whole new level of loathing and denial.

That's buying into the revisionist history of the franchise. Lucas wants to be seen as the father of SW but does not deserve that title. Gary Kurtz and Marcia Lucas are the real people behind SW.

Don't be ridiculous...

NeverarGreat said:

imperialscum said:

Oh please, not the film critics and their crap. If anyone, I despise the film critics. They consider themselves as an "experts" of film and are presenting their subjective opinions as something objective. Films are an art and art is purely subjective. There is no science it and certainly no objective measure.

If you intend to make an enjoyable piece of entertainment and the result is The Star Wars Holiday Special, well I don't think that anyone would consider that enjoyable. It fails in its purpose, and does so objectively. The fact that we've been using the same formula for good storytelling for almost two thousand years means that there are some objective measures of good storytelling.

Okay so now because I find Citizen Kane not enjoyable, that means it "fails in its purpose, and does so objectively" according to your "measure"?

adywan said:

imperialscum said:

It's been pretty well documented that it was because he had already introduced Chewie as a character that can fly a spaceship and have intelligence and that Wookiees could no longer be the "primitive" race to defeat the Empire that George wanted.

I agree, that was one of the main reasons too.

Even Gary Kurtz said that he became disillusioned with George after ESB  when he noticed that his priorities had changed from Story and character and focused more on selling toys.

Well not "even". Kurtz was pretty much the one who came up with that crap. It was in that interview where he tried to convince people that he left because Lucas changed his priorities... to suppress the fact that he got fired because ESB spiralled over-budget.

yeh, right. he got fired because of the budget problems with ESB. You don't seriously believe that revisionist bull do you? If that crap is supposed to be true then wouldn't he have been fired once ESB was finished and NOT well after this had already been released and they had already started work on Jedi? They fell out over the direction Jedi was taking and they parted ways. If it was down to him being fired over ESB's budget then he would have been gone long before work started on Jedi.

It's so easy to see through the revisionist lies.

Well I am just stating what is generally known. Some sources even state that Kazanjian was brought in the middle of ESB.

According to Secret History of Star Wars (which I would consider very "anti-Lucas"), Lucas intended to get rid of Kurtz after ANH but Kurtz persuaded him to let him stay for ESB.

It's been pretty well documented that it was because he had already introduced Chewie as a character that can fly a spaceship and have intelligence and that Wookiees could no longer be the "primitive" race to defeat the Empire that George wanted.

I agree, that was one of the main reasons too.

Even Gary Kurtz said that he became disillusioned with George after ESB  when he noticed that his priorities had changed from Story and character and focused more on selling toys.

Well not "even". Kurtz was pretty much the one who came up with that crap. It was in that interview where he tried to convince people that he left because Lucas changed his priorities... while in reality he got fired because ESB spiralled over-budget.

Oh please, not the film critics and their crap. If anyone, I despise the film critics. They consider themselves as an "experts" of film and are presenting their subjective opinions as something objective. Films are an art and art is purely subjective. There is no science it and certainly no objective measure.

AntcuFaalb said:

Star Wars =/= Citizen Kane

I think that Star Wars (OT) is way better than Citizen Kane.

I just don't see what is so great about Citizen Kane. I mean yes it is a good film and has some amazing cinematography but I don't enjoy the story and the characters. A few useless film critics labelled it as "the best film of all time" and now people are blindly following that crap.

Well according to my information, Lucas provided the basic story treatment. Please correct me if I am wrong (with link/reference).

One thing that gives hope is that the new trilogy probably won't be a story about annoying troubled kid growing up (like PT). I hope Lucas now wrote an enjoyable story. If so, I have no doubt Arndt will write a good screenplay.

georgec said:

The good news is that if JJ Abrams doesn't meet expectations, everyone will call him "Jar Jar Abrams".

Hahaha.

Well I have already seen some people call him that. :)

CP3S said:

This can be true, I suppose. But a bad director could turn a great script into a disaster, and a great director could technically take a lousy script and turn it into something enjoyable to watch. There are movies with awful writing that are still visually and stylistically engaging to the point of being a decent films. I feel the director is still the maker or the breaker. 

I kinda disagree with this. If the screenplay/idea is great and the director is bad the film will probably turn out good. If the screenplay is bad then there is no director who can make a good film out of it.

I mean the thing is that there are so many people in involved in the production. If a great script is given to a good art department they will come up with something stimulating. If actors are given a great screenplay they don't really need much direction to make the scenes work.

While on the other hand writer/s is/are alone and have the most crucial task from creative point of view.

CP3S said:

imperialscum said:

Film director (if not also a writer) is basically more or less an operational director. In general, I think writers should get more credit than the director since they are the real creative force.

This can be true. I feel like film as an art form really shines when it is conceived, written, and directed by the same person. Not to say you can't have amazing films with different writers and directors (Blade Runner comes to mind, and I think that film's triumph is far more the direction that the script), but it seem the majority of films I feel are truly special are written and directed by a single creative force.

I have to agree with Bladerunner. But I think it is a rare example when the film is so great primarily because of the visual aspects rather than the screenplay/idea.

If you look at Alien, the situation is reversed. It is the screenplay and the idea that is really mind blowing. Well it is visually great too but that is more thanks to H. R. Giger's art design than Scott's directing.