Whatever. I don't take Star Wars personally. But I will be seeing Phantom Menace 3D in the theaters on February 10th. If it isn't successful, they aren't making any more. And I, for one, really want to see cloud city in 3D.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think seeing the Darth Maul fight at the end in 3D would be worth the ticket price. Downside: seeing Jar-Jar Binks in an additional dimension.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Maybe. It really depends on the quality of the 3D conversion. I think there are a lot of people questioning whether it's even possible to have good 3D when it wasn't originally filmed that way.
Kind of disappointing that The Hobbit <edit: Star Trek> is being filmed in 2D due to Mr. Jackson's <edit: Mr. Abrams> artistic sensibilities, only to be converted after the fact for "people who're into that".
I guess we're about to find out if it can be done well. If anyone can, it's Lucas.
[ January 19, 2012, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I've heard reports of JJ Abrams being incredibly pleased with post-conversion to 3D of his first Star Trek film when trying to determine if post-conversion would be used in the release of his sequel.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Dang, I was thinking Star Trek . . . don't know why I said Hobbit. The Hobbit IS filming in HD.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I think seeing the Darth Maul fight at the end in 3D would be worth the ticket price. Downside: seeing Jar-Jar Binks in an additional dimension.
I rather doubt Jar-Jar is capable of more than one dimension.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
They managed to get the character into two-dimensions somehow.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I am ok with not making anymore Star Wars films. Return of the Jedi tied everything up quite nicely.
I WOULD like an Old Republic Movie, though I think it would be best as a TV series. Why Lucas wanted to do the years in between Episodes 3 and 4 and not The Old Republic baffles me. THe Old Republic has a lot more potential and you don't really run the risk of continuity issues.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now now, he had at least two dimensions: obnoxious fear and obnoxious jokes.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Those are sub-dimensions which fall under the single dimension of obnoxiousness, are they not?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I am ok with not making anymore Star Wars films. Return of the Jedi tied everything up quite nicely.
I WOULD like an Old Republic Movie, though I think it would be best as a TV series. Why Lucas wanted to do the years in between Episodes 3 and 4 and not The Old Republic baffles me. THe Old Republic has a lot more potential and you don't really run the risk of continuity issues.
Bah, almost none of the Old Republic stuff really interests me.
I've long said that what I want is a Rogue Squadron movie series or better yet, a TV series. It has built-in plots, romances, multiple leading roles, conflict, often intelligent scheming villains rather than the one-dimensional crap we get now. The only problem is the graphics budget for the dog fights would be astronomical, but not unheard of given what Lucas was talking about as the major hurdle to a Star Wars TV show. I think it's doable. And I think casino Sabacc would become the hottest new game in America.
I would also like to see the Thrawn series as a movie trilogy, but they'd have trouble recasting the three or four main roles (Lando, Han, Leia and Luke) and still making people happy, but I think it could work quite well. Thrawn is such a diabolical badass.
Other than that, I'm happy leaving Star Wars alone on the big screen or the little screen.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Lyrhawn, what is the reason The Old Republic does not interest you? I think it has a ton of potential. Sith and Jedi at their peak, both training new Force Users? I'd love that. I think it would be easier to do than trying to recast characters.
I suppose now that Mark Hamil is older they technically could do some of the books well. They could show Mark Hamil as Luke Skywalker training Leia's kids.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not to heap any scorn on the state of Zap2it.com's quality reporting but 'he's saying that there will be no more Star Wars movies because fans are so critical' is not at all what Lucas was reported to say in the NYT article. He's saying that he himself is not going to be involved in the biz anymore. Odds of more star wars crap coming out = high
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I loved Star Wars and would have been perfectly happy to have the movie we only knew by that name be the only movie in the franchise
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not having Empire Strikes back and Return of the Jedi would be a big loss. Their effect on media of all forms is undeniable, and positive IMHO.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I could probably do without Return of the Jedi, but I agree it'd be blasphemous to raze Empire Strikes Back from the public consciousness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Don't you touch the original trilogy you heathens. A few ewoks don't spoil the broth.
I kind of want to hope that the way lucas is acting now and why he's giving up on his big movies all fundamentally boils down to him learning about the Plinkett reviews, sitting down, starting them up, and getting a god-sized punch straight to every part of his soul that was him trying to convince himself he did a good job with the prequels and it was just railed on by angry geeks who don't know nothin. And now his cognitive dissonance is broken, it still flaps around and talks but it's broke and on the inside he knows, he just knows
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'd give up several toes (not any fingers, I type with them!) for the new series to be helmed by Joss Whedon and Bryan Fuller, with 100% complete creative control. Maybe with David Fury, Jane Espensen, and Steven Moffat as staff writers.
A geek can dream! But what am I kidding. It ain't never getting made.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I just hope he watches the new Plinkett review for The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. He deserves what's coming to him!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You could see some pretty straightforwardly good things come out of lucasfilm — probably even good star wars series or movies — now that Lucas is effectively retiring from it. One way or another, the guy just has to accept that for whatever reason he got too weird and full of himself to not be mind-poison to whatever he threw his influence into. Four bad movies later, it seems like reform is impossible. He should just sit back and relax and concentrate on the good, and above all come to grips with the fact that he really has not been a good steward of his franchises. Absolute creative power ate him alive.
Case in point: there's pretty much no way that Red Tails is going to be a good movie. The best it can hope for is mediocre. Probably it will just be a bunch of wow-factor cgi spectacle airfights yet hamstrung by script, lines, and plot alike. I will eat a hat if it is a good movie.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
No fair. You've been reading the reviews for Red Tails, haven't you. It's currently at 38% on RottenTomatoes.
Lucas said recently that there may be another Indy movie. I'm with John Casey (from Chuck) on this one . . . there will only ever be three Indy movies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'd give up several toes (not any fingers, I type with them!) for the new series to be helmed by Joss Whedon and Bryan Fuller, with 100% complete creative control. Maybe with David Fury, Jane Espensen, and Steven Moffat as staff writers.
A geek can dream! But what am I kidding. It ain't never getting made.
I probably wouldn't watch a Star Wars directed or written by Joss Whedon. I like him, and I like the things he has created, but everything he touches ends up coming out sort of the same but different, and I don't think I'd appreciate his particular style applied to Star Wars.
If Jane Espensen was writing, I'd be more than interested.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: No fair. You've been reading the reviews for Red Tails, haven't you. It's currently at 38% on RottenTomatoes.
No, haven't been reading the reviews, but its too bad that I didn't think to make the claim before any reviews came out. I should have done so before the screenings and seen if I could have gotten something out of the deal!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Aww, man! I was hoping it would be great, because I saw the first one when I was a kid and loved it and it's interesting history anyway. I really did hope the modern Lucas stink wouldn't get all over it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Lyrhawn, what is the reason The Old Republic does not interest you? I think it has a ton of potential. Sith and Jedi at their peak, both training new Force Users? I'd love that. I think it would be easier to do than trying to recast characters.
I suppose now that Mark Hamil is older they technically could do some of the books well. They could show Mark Hamil as Luke Skywalker training Leia's kids.
If your thing is lightsabers-a-whirling, then sure, it'd be fun, and don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good lightsaber duel. But I'm not particularly invested in any of the characters or story lines from that period. I never really got into much of the prequel stuff. The EU has a couple with real potential, but even then I've never really read it because most of it never really felt like Star Wars to me.
They'd really have to do a great job of setting up characters I care about, because I never really feel like that happened in the prequels.
I was never hooked like I was with the original trilogy. I'm willing to be hooked in the future, but for the moment nothing about it excites me.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: ... there will only ever be three Indy movies.
Raiders, Crusade, and Skull.
Temple of Doom was much less entertaining than Skull. Its attempts to be gritty and edgy were focused on trying to gross out the audience rather than create real tension. The love interest character was pure annoying and had no arc. The depictions of Hindu culture were laughably racist. The only improvement from the first movie I can think of, unless you're into comic sidekick characters like Short Round, is that at least Temple of Doom had Indy actually do something in the climax, instead of stand tied to a pole and wait for a literal deus-ex-machina. Oh, and the scene with the snake in the forest is kind of funny.
Whereas Crystal Skull, while it suffered from the same deus-ex plot device climax from the first movie and had a lot of groan-worthy moments, did have a much better ensemble (yes, Shia is no Ford, but I didn't find him any more annoying than Markus Brody in Last Crusade, and Marion is a far better love interest than that whiner in Temple of Doom). The ridiculous swordfight and vine-swinging is both easier to swallow and more entertaining than the crap in Temple of Doom with the heart-grabbing rituals and the pointless and unimpressive minecart ride.
Not that I'm a big fan of Crystal Skull, but it is definitely a more watchable and enjoyable movie than Temple of Doom. My personal canon for the Indy franchise is just Raiders and Crusade, but if I were to endorse the idea that there were "only" three Indy movies, I'd put Skull over Temple any day.
Anyway, back on topic, since I'm sure these comments will otherwise derail the thread: Lucas is an inspired visionary, but not a talented storyteller, and the critics are right to bash the storytelling failings in the Star Wars prequels. I'm reluctant, however, to throw my weight in with the people who, say, bash Phantom Menace because of Jar Jar or podracing. I think much of the backlash was a case of subverted expectations, though RedLetterMedia's criticisms of the story itself remain valid. In addition, I want to distance myself from the anti-revisionist crowd who deride the Special Edition releases, because I don't think it's wrong for director to alter his art to better match his original vision. Lord knows I've often wanted to do the same with video games I've made. Yes, Han not shooting first doesn't make much logistical sense, and it deconstructs his "edgy" character, but if Lucas' vision for the character was to make him a tough, but fundamentally good-at-heart mercenary, then he ought to have the right to present him as such. Yes, stormtroopers on dewbacks are unnecessary additions, but 1) it doesn't ruin anything, 2) it adds some context to a formerly desolate and uninteresting scene, and 3) Lucas has the right to incorporate it into his art if he feels it better represents his original vision.
That said, Star Wars is a work of art by a large and skilled team of artists, and at its best, the performances and workmanship of all the contributors, not just Lucas, are fully prominent. At its worst, Lucas stifles the contributions of his fellow artists and contributors. This is why the prequels were a train wreck when Lucas was omnipotent, not allowing outside input regarding his vision.
However, it is a misrepresentation to say the original trilogy was saved from Lucas by more competent underlings. The production was plagued with misfortune and adversity from the start, and the actors mocked the material as a "kid's movie" and whatnot. Yes, they had to trim Lucas's proposed title crawl from six paragraphs to three, but Lucas's vision of using a title crawl in the first place was a bold (if not original) move that helped codify the legend of Star Wars. Between rain and dust on the Tatooine set, ILM's wasteful spending on shots that were ultimately useless, and financial difficulties, it is no small miracle that the film was even finished, much less the runaway blockbuster it became. The audacity and resolve of Lucas' vision was critical to the success of the movie, and I respect that vision as what makes Star Wars what it is, even if there are many ways the movies themselves could be improved (and not just the prequels, at that).
Re: Expanding The Old Republic into a movie/TV series. I haven't played The Old Republic, but I've watched my brother play it, and from what I've seen, it combines the memorable archetypal characters and plots from the original Star Wars trilogy with the grandiose settings and spectacular action of the prequels, while adding a uniquely Bioware take on the deeper political and moral issues at play in the story, making it more-or-less "the best of Star Wars." I think the setting makes more sense for an MMO than a movie, though, if only because the Great War in the game is all about being a conflict much larger than any single player, while providing context for the myriad quests and missions that don't greatly alter the galactic status quo while still providing compelling stories for the player to get attached to. In short, the setting works best for letting many players invest in their own stories, rather than a wide audience invest in a single character's story. But I'm sure a competent writer could get a story to work that would measure up to the previous movies in terms of scope while delivering a compelling narrative, so I'm not going to dismiss the idea as unfilmable.
quote:I've long said that what I want is a Rogue Squadron movie series or better yet, a TV series.
I like this idea. The space battles were always my favorite action sequences from the films, and the X-wing books are great at best and decent at worst. The show would need writers who know how to create a good narrative when the X-wings are idle in the docking bay, however, rather than rely on special effects. Seeing the space battles in The Clone Wars (the CG cartoon), I'm convinced it could be possible to pull off regular convincing photo-realistic space battles, since the models are largely static (no moving parts on a TIE fighter) and are very recyclable.
Re: Lucas-blaming-critics-for-killing-series. I actually do feel a bit sorry for Lucas, who took a lot more crap than he deserved from an overzealous fanbase that had its own conception of the Star Wars vision. When I try to analyze the prequel films with my nostalgia filter turned off, I find Phantom Menace unremarkable, but far from bad. Attack of the Clones is a drag at parts, and an eye-rollingly clumsy romance at others, but it has a few redeeming values (or maybe I was the only one on the planet who enjoyed Anakin and Obi-Wan's banter). Revenge of the Sith had a spark of goodness in it that counteracted the spark of dumbness residual from the previous movie, and what's left is the guilty-pleasure of the special effects and the enjoyably hammy performance of Palpatine. So all in all, the prequels aren't horrible. The only one I cringe at watching during Star Wars marathons is Attack of the Clones, and whatever stupid parts remain I enjoy making wisecracks at with my friends and family.
To those who would indignantly assert that we have no right to derive entertainment from this trash, I would cite the cultural impact of 2001: A Space Odyssey, a movie with sluggish pacing, incoherent narrative, forgettable characters, and an overly trippy ending that fails to resolve anything satisfactorily. And yet its influence is immeasurable and its cult following is substantial. Because beneath the flat acting and the good-for-their-time special effects, there lies a vision that resonates with people. Star Wars is a similar vision, one which defies the ineptitude and misfortunes of its creator(s) and invites the audience into a simpler and more elegant world of technology and religion, of heroes and villains, of good overcoming evil and doing so using flashy swords of light, telekinetic powers, and spaceships armed with friggin' laser beams. All to an awesome soundtrack.
For us, Star Wars is a common ground through which we can connect in a profound way, and a grand artistic vision that, despite being often clumsily-implemented, resonates through generations. I have no doubt that Star Wars will be remembered a cultural milestone for decades to come. But what do I know? I'm a borderline-autistic amateur video game programmer who once proclaimed in his creative writing class that he doesn't see what's so wrong with cheesiness in writing; that cheese can be quite tasty and is absolutely essential for many a delectable food.
As for the 3D re-releases, I'll probably skip them, unless I have a weekend with absolutely nothing to do, which is unlikely. I'll probably wait for the DVD of Red Tails and Netflix it, rather than watch it in theaters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The 'common ground which we can connect in a profound way' and which 'resonates through generations' is pretty much entirely the original trilogy. If you just had the prequels there would be nothing of immeasurable influence, no cult following.
They're just bad movies. I don't think it should be controversial that they're bad, but, eh. I guess I'll frequently be surprised, like I occasionally am with movies that nobody should like (not star wars, but I know a few)
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Episode 3 wasn't a bad film. In fact, I thought it was one of the best movies of that particular year. Sure, it's no Original Trilogy, but compared to Episodes 1 and 2 it's a masterpiece.
I think people are too critical. Honestly, look at Return of the Jedi. It has a LOT of problems, but we overlook them mostly because we love the franchise so much. The Ewoks were quite possibly the most retarded part of the film, just like Jar Jar's people make Episode 1 much worse than it could have been.
Fact is, in Return of the Jedi, there's a lot of plotholes and flaws that nobody focuses on anymore. But that's OK because we were all kids back then, which caused us to not care so much. Just like when Episode 1 came out, kids went to see it and they enjoyed the hell out of it, while the adults thought it was dog poo. I think that's an important difference. Star Wars was made for kids, and that hasn't changed, but we've all grown up since then so our views on all this stuff is different than if we were still ten.
Now, do I think the prequels could have been better? Yes. I think having a trilogy of films that focused more on the relationships rather than the politics would have made for a much better story. I think watching two films about Anakin and Obi-Wan running around the galaxy saving each other's lives, with the final film involving the betrayal, would be much better than what we got instead. Still, as stories go, I think the prequels get a worse rap than they deserve.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I forgive plot holes in the original films, because then the dialogue and drama were enjoyable in a very silly way. Most of the drama and dialogue in the newer films are just cringe worthy and annoying.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
C3PO: I can't believe you're defending Crystal Skull. I just. . . .
Let me walk you through a few things. - Indy is an old man that can live through atomic blasts by hiding in a fridge. - His son is a champion sword-fighter that can swing on vines faster than a speeding jeep can drive (really?). - The Russians have the power to control people's minds. - There are strange crystal aliens in a spaceship waiting for. . . .
<Shrugs> Whatever.
[ January 20, 2012, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I don't really get all the hate for Crystal Skull either. I've often defended it for being better than its reputation. There were certainly some elements of the film which treaded far too close to the silly (ie Shia Labeouf swinging from monkey vines), but I felt it successfully captured the essence of the character. And I don't get why people get so up in arms about the aliens. Temple of Doom was focused on a more supernatural element. Provided the film is set in the 50s when the paranoia about the bomb led to a boom in science fiction stories, the ending makes total sense within that context. It's really not so different from all the people being smote by the forces within the Ark at the end of Raiders.
I think a significant portion of the Indiana Jones character has been his attempt to maintain reason in a world which keeps throwing him into situations which attempt to shake his belief in a reasonable world. He doesn't believe in superstition or magic. Yet he faces the Ark of the Covenant, a pagan mystical artifact, the Holy Grail, and then an alien being (which is something often credited by more extreme "crackpot" historians as being the root of much of the more mystifying archaeological finds).
It wasn't perfect. There was no way a new Indiana Jones film could be perfect so many years after the originals had so much time to cement themselves and be idealized in pop culture consciousness. But it was enjoyable and, for me, was a nice nostalgia trip. I wasn't born in time to see the other Indiana Jones movies on the big screen, so I relished the opportunity to see Indy on the big screen regardless of the flaws.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Some of the problems I had with Indy 4: - Marion was there for no obvious reason, and she didn't do anything. - No one was shot. Part of the action / adventure of the other movies came from the fact that Indy would FIGHT the bad guys. This was very much toned down. - The action was TOO over the top. Sure, it had been over the top before. But this movie fled into cartoon territory. Beyond Labeouf's amazing Tarzan impression, we had people straddling two moving jeeps, and miraculous nuclear bomb escapes. - People dislike the aliens because Indy really only dealt with supernatural elements of the religious variety before. I know that Lucas thought that since it was set in the fifties, science fiction would be more appropriate. But this makes no sense. Indy already had its pulpy adventure trope going. Why suddenly change? - The mind control elements brought back the worst of Temple of Doom. - Redlettermedia does a better job than I can explaining, but there were MANY things recycled from previous films.
Frankly, the movie wasn't terrible. It was entertaining and had a handful of great scenes (until the ridiculousness of some of them broke disbelief). But it was a throwaway action movie with plot-holes Shia Labeouf could swing through on a vine. It wasn't a classic like the others (whether you include Temple or not in that category).
Some of us wanted another Raiders. And we're disappointed that we got another Episode I.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
If you guys want to see a real Indiana Jones movie, play the Uncharted series. It's basically Indiana Jones for modern audiences.
I thought the problem with Crystal Skull was simple. The first three films focused on supernatural elements from various religions, while Skull focused on aliens. I don't think Indiana Jones was ever meant to delve into the science fiction genre.
And if that doesn't convince you, let me give you the following list:
-The space between spaces -"nuking the fridge" has since become an internet meme that basically means you've completely screwed up the film -Shia -Shia swinging from vines -Shia sword fighting -the marriage scene -the TRIPLE crossing best friend -falling off a 300 foot waterfall and nobody gets so much as a bruise -The fake Russian accents -CGI gophers -Shia -High school kids racing government vehicles in the desert
There are just so many bad decisions in this film that it almost feels like a spoof of itself.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I've said it before, I'll say it again: The only good Indiana Jones movie was Raiders.
The rest of them are varying degrees of suck, often with occasional redeeming factors (like Connery/Ford chemistry). Crystal Skull was better than Temple of Doom and worse than Last Crusade but none of those three were actually good.
I second what Jeff says about Uncharted being a better Indiana Jones than most of the Indy movies. The entire point of the Uncharted games is to be as close to "Playing a Movie" as they can possibly get.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lucas apparently got several scientists to sign some sort of document that says it IS possible for someone to survive a nuclear blast in that particular fridge, provided he doesn't break his neck when the fridge lands, and is actually able to open the door.
Personally, the only one I watch over and over is Last Crusade, though I like Raiders. I've only seen Temple twice and have no desire to see it again, but I would probably watch Crystal Skull if it was on TV. Just chill out and watch the movie. I can understand thinking "Ah but it could have been better!" but it's still watchable and enjoyable. You can nitpick ANYTHING to death if you REALLY want to. Or you can not.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lucas apparently got several scientists to sign some sort of document that says it IS possible for someone to survive a nuclear blast in that particular fridge, provided he doesn't break his neck when the fridge lands, and is actually able to open the door.
The fact that he had to do this at all should have been enough to tell him that it was probably a bad decision.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:He doesn't believe in superstition or magic.
I'm not sure that's true. Where do you get this impression?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll confess: the point at which Crystal Skull lost me was at the warehouse, where we discovered that the powerful magnetism of the skull was going to be an occasional plot device but no one associated with the filming seemed to bother with, y'know, knowing how magnets behave.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think Indy still trying to save the double/triple whatever crossing friend at the end was the part that made me say "oh man, whatever." And how many best friends that we've never heard of can Indy have?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Other than the Uncharted series of games, I thought that the new Tin Tin movie was one of the better movies in the Indiana Jones series.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Other than the Uncharted series of games, I thought that the new Tin Tin movie was one of the better movies in the Indiana Jones series.
Lol
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Episode 3 wasn't a bad film. In fact, I thought it was one of the best movies of that particular year. Sure, it's no Original Trilogy, but compared to Episodes 1 and 2 it's a masterpiece.
I mean it is fine to like bad movies. I like Kung Pow. Kung Pow is an awful movie.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
My big problem with the prequels is how quickly Anakin went from "I don't want my wife to die and I can't tell the Jedi about my illegal marriage, so I'll make a deal with Palpatine to save her" to "I'm going to murder a bunch of tiny children just because I was told to!"
Frankly, the "Oh, see, the Dark Side was dominating his destiny" explanation just doesn't cut it. He went -way- too quickly from morally compromised to total monster.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Only vaguely related, but this is kinda cool.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Episode 3 wasn't a bad film. In fact, I thought it was one of the best movies of that particular year. Sure, it's no Original Trilogy, but compared to Episodes 1 and 2 it's a masterpiece.
That reviewer has a horrible voice, but he has a lot of good points.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: My big problem with the prequels is how quickly Anakin went from "I don't want my wife to die and I can't tell the Jedi about my illegal marriage, so I'll make a deal with Palpatine to save her" to "I'm going to murder a bunch of tiny children just because I was told to!"
Frankly, the "Oh, see, the Dark Side was dominating his destiny" explanation just doesn't cut it. He went -way- too quickly from morally compromised to total monster.
Exactly - it's not that I don't understand the idea of corruption, it's that corruption is a process, not a jump from "I'm on the white side of the line" to "I'm on the black side of the line." The line, especially in corruption, is a wide, wide thing. Sure, Anakin had already done some pretty sketchy things - but in very emotional state (when his mother had just been killed). While I still don't buy his betrayal of Mace, it made a bit of sense. But to go straight from that to killing children personally...no.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Exactly - it's not that I don't understand the idea of corruption, it's that corruption is a process, not a jump from "I'm on the white side of the line" to "I'm on the black side of the line."
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Exactly - it's not that I don't understand the idea of corruption, it's that corruption is a process, not a jump from "I'm on the white side of the line" to "I'm on the black side of the line."
White/Black as Good/Evil is not a throwback to days of racism. Its roots go back much further than that.
If anything, it's closer to a Day/Night or Light/Dark paradigm.
But, if you weren't trying to make a philosophical point and were just being a smartass... carry on. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Exactly - it's not that I don't understand the idea of corruption, it's that corruption is a process, not a jump from "I'm on the white side of the line" to "I'm on the black side of the line." The line, especially in corruption, is a wide, wide thing. Sure, Anakin had already done some pretty sketchy things - but in very emotional state (when his mother had just been killed). While I still don't buy his betrayal of Mace, it made a bit of sense. But to go straight from that to killing children personally...no.
This has to do with what it means to be force sensitive, and the extent of what is really going on when someone "falls to the dark side." You can make a parallel to the mages in Dragon Age: they have amazing powers because of their connection to the fade, but it made them extremely dangerous, both to themselves and to everyone else. Their connection to the fade comes packaged with a vulnerability to a very profound force of corruption. The Towers, Templars, Harrowing? It was society's best possible idea at how to manage this issue. Similarly, the jedi code and all its regulations on the life of a force sensitive — including their disconnection from all family, and the prohibition on relationships or sex — were all considered tragic necessities to prevent vulnerabilities to corruption. The corruption would usually be slow and subtle, with a force sensitive doing things or acting on desires which would become slowly more and more addictive and drawing, but it doesn't have to be slow at all. It could happen in an instant of terror or rage that would overwhelm their self-control and get them hooked/enslaved right away. And it's a very real thing, like a profound madness or instant psychopathy, that even comes packaged with physiological changes. Your irises change color, and the longer you have been dark and feeding on the dark side of the force, the more this makes your skin turn pale and withered and discolored and veiny and whatever.
The short of it: light side force sensitives are always perched above a slippery slope wherein they have to play it pretty straight and avoid a wide degree of temptations, fears, and aggrivations. little misdeeds and emotional events risk making them progressively more and more vulnerable to the switch.
And it wouldn't be too hard to make this make sense for people watching a story about Anakin and the Jedi, but of course Lucas fails at this because he is a bad writer and a bad filmmaker.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Another thing that lucas did an absolute laugh of a job on was force sensitives and lightsabers. There's really neat and compellingly well-designed reasons why force users gravitate towards and stick with lightsabers, but the prequels made them look wildly impractical and easily outclassed. good job lucas!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Temple of doom is not my favorite movie, by far, but I still include it in the Indiana Jones linage, where as Crystal Skull I do not. Temple has it's flaws, but an annoying female lead and some over the top mysticism don't fundamentally change it from being an Indiana Jones adventure. Indy is a good guy, he fights for the right and protect kids and kicks ass and is lucky and funny.
One of the big problems with Crystal Skull (one of many) is the Russians aren't really evil. They even go so far as to make the Americans out to be just as bad, the CIA grilling Indy, the anti Communism rally (Better Dead then Red), the double, triple back stabbing friend with the gay neckerchief, etc. And in the end, the Russ are seeking knowledge, yes to be used to further their country, but they are trying to learn stuff...through archeology, and for -some crazy nonsensical undisclosed reason- the pay off of seeking knowledge, of the aliens, is a gruesome death, with no real answers or truths learned in the end. The movie movie lacks any moral backbone, decent ending or even a decent villain for that matter. Add to that a useless aging heroine, not a lick of realistic violence and some of the lamest fight scenes known to film and you don't have an Indy adventure, you have a movie that was fun for the stars and directors to make instead of just going to a reunion dinner and catching up like they should of. We don't care that you had a good time making this movie, it is a steaming pile. It does have some of the series iconic visuals, some entertaining sequences but it is not and never will be what it was intended to be and because of this it is an affront to fans who are invested in what it was supposed to be. Lucas need to stop pissing on his own legacy and let us fans retain the love of his past work instead of poisoning the well with his half assed attempts to rekindle what has clearly been lost.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam you just sprayed nerd all over this thread.
And just to be really clear, this is a Star Wars thread.
You managed to drown a Star Wars thread in nerd. I'm seriously impressed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When in rome, do as the romans do. When in a star wars thread, do as nerds do.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I always hated the way that Star Wars handles the turn to the dark side. It ruined the paper RPG.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
You know, if Lucas had seen Breaking Bad before creating the prequels, he'd probably have a better idea of how to write a good character turning to the dark side. In fact, Walter White is essentially Darth Vader in a modern setting, except instead of the Force, his power is chemistry.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I haven't read any of the Extended Universe material, so I assume that's where Samp is getting his information.
Given Samp's evaluation of what makes a person accede to the dark side:
1) Obi-wan's friendship with Anakin should have been a route to his own dark path. As Anakin's relationship with Padme turns him to violence and tyranny to protect her, Obi-wan should have felt similar forces drawing him to protect his padawan against all sense and discipline. 1a) ...which would have gone a long way to explaining the comment in ROTJ about how Ben thought he could train Anakin better than Yoda. 2) It would have been a hoot to discover that Palpatine was really after Kenobi all this time; or even that Kenobi would have been a suitable second to Anakin, should Kenobi destroy him. Palpatine could have even encouraged Anakin to train under Kenobi so that he could snatch them both to the dark side. 3) One of Lucas' first mistakes in the Kenobi/Anakin relationship was starting Anakin so young. He should have been near to Obi-wan's age in the first movie so that they could be peers.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Samp: They've made it canon that in the Star Wars-verse, switching from good to evil really -does- make a Disney cartoon look subtle and nuanced by comparison?
Well! That got rid of my last vestige of interest in the setting.
I don't mind the Dark Side being depicted as a malevolant influence and temptation, but I can't swallow "Anakin was just its puppet from the moment he made a dim-witted deal."
Especially since the in-film jedi still treat him as being responsible for his actions, so we're supposed to treat it seriously that it took him five minutes to switch from "I don't want Padme to die, even if it means making shady deals" to "I love killing babies."
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I should add that the second season of the Genndy Tartakovsky "Clone Wars" shorts and the Paul Dini-penned episodes of the CGI spin-off show a much better look at the build-up and reasons for Anakin's eventual turn. So I know it could have been done.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: so we're supposed to treat it seriously that it took him five minutes to switch from "I don't want Padme to die, even if it means making shady deals" to "I love killing babies."
I agree. It's a little hard to swallow. The strangest part is that the actual Darth Vader (the one from the original trilogy) turns good again in a VERY gradual way, which is why it is believable. I think people were expecting the opposite to happen (after all, why wouldn't it?), but then it didn't and we all felt ripped off.
If the movies had started with Episode 2 (other than finding Anakin, what did the first episode matter?), we probably would have had more room for character growth. Plinkett's reviews of the prequels also mention the fact that there's no main protagonist in the first movie, which is, as he points out, one of the reasons you can't connect with anything. I never noticed it, but it's totally true.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: There's really neat and compellingly well-designed reasons why force users gravitate towards and stick with lightsabers
Really? As someone who loved the first three movies as a kid, had his interest in the series knocked onto the ropes by the 4th movie and stamped out of existence by the second, and never in any case got into it enough to read any of the EU books, I wasn't aware of that; I assumed that it just boiled down to "because they look cool". What're the reasons?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Samprimary's explanation matches my understanding, but I'm not sure you even need to go to EU.
I kinda assumed that it was implicit from the Yoda/Skywalker training in ESB and Emperor/Skywalker confrontation in ROJ that we aren't dealing with gradual shades of grey tempting trope, but that for example, if the Emperor could force Skywalker to act out in anger against his father that he would fall to the Dark Side with no real hope of return.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Samp: They've made it canon that in the Star Wars-verse, switching from good to evil really -does- make a Disney cartoon look subtle and nuanced by comparison?
*shrug* It really depends on the author telling the story in the EU. Sometimes it is simply that absurd. "I'm going to save Padme-somehow-by trusting this man who wants me to massacre a bunch of kids. Sounds kosher!"
In other cases, it's an extremely gradual descent that takes months of psychological manipulation and torture (as well as the usual physical kind), and at the end of it it's not entirely clear if he has turned to the Dark Side, at least for awhile.
quote:I kinda assumed that it was implicit from the Yoda/Skywalker training in ESB and Emperor/Skywalker confrontation in ROJ that we aren't dealing with gradual shades of grey tempting trope, but that for example, if the Emperor could force Skywalker to act out in anger against his father that he would fall to the Dark Side with no real hope of return.
It wasn't explicitly stated, but the Emperor (and Vader) did get Luke not just to be angry, but to lash out from anger and even use the Force while doing so from anger repeatedly. What they couldn't quite seal the deal on, though, was to get him to take one decisive, premeditated step-execute/murder Vader, his father, as he lay defeated, out of anger. But even then it was a close thing-had Luke not been reminded so specifically of himself, and had such a clear warning of the larger scheme at hand, who knows if he would've gone through with it?
-------
As for lightsabers and force users, I've read a lot of the EU material (in fact up to about, say, 10 years ago I'd read nearly all of them). I'm not sure what Samp is talking about, but I think some of the reasons given in the stories that Force users go for lightsabers is that the construction is somehow special, requiring some kind of meditation that encourages growth (other people in the universe could, of course, build lightsabers of their own, but in canon both Jedi and Sith do something metaphysically with the components to take it beyond a glowing turkey carver). They also help lead to personal confrontations, keeping Jedi grounded, and they also help keep things close for the good guys-after so much training, and the way they immerse themselves in the Force while dueling means that even though the lightsaber is extraordinarily dangerous, they are sufficiently aware that they're not going to be-if properly trained-lopping off bystander limbs and stuff. Things might get sticky if they were, I don't know, shooting lightsaber arrows or something.
I'm just reaching, though, I'm not entirely sure what Samp was talking about.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: kinda assumed implicit
Hmmm. I'm sensing a reluctance to commit to this opinion. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: When in rome, do as the romans do. When in a star wars thread, do as nerds do.
I think it was mainly the "Look the way falling to the dark side works in the SW mythos is tricky, so to clarify it I'm going to compare it to Dragon Age" that sealed the deal for me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... What they couldn't quite seal the deal on, though, was to get him to take one decisive, premeditated step-execute/murder Vader, his father, as he lay defeated, out of anger.
I know, I'm just saying that if this a "modern" story like say the BSG reboot then Luke could just have killed his father, maybe have got all angsty about it, and then have switched back to the light side a few hours later.
I treated it as a quirk of the Star Wars/Jedi world* that the slippery slope is extremely slippery and that things don't need to be moving in gradual shades of grey.
* until maybe the EU or Bioware depictions
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I always assumed lightsabers were used by the Jedi because they were multi-functional and could only be used properly by a force-sensitive person. If you think about it, they can deflect laser fire, cut through basically anything (except other lightsabers), and, of course, act as a regular sword in a fight. A regular person wouldn't be able to do most of those things properly without serious risk to themselves or others (think about it for a moment, seriously), but someone who can see half a second into the future at any given moment could easily manage it with a little practice (really, how long did Luke train before he was able to properly use his lightsaber? A few days? Idk).
Anyway, for a person like that and compared to a blaster rifle (or whatever), it just seems more practical.
Oh, there's also the fact that these guys are basically knights, and knights use swords. This is a scifi story set in space, and everything in space glows, so why not have glowing laser swords? Makes sense.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I think my main problem (other than horrible execution on nearly every aesthetic level other than "oversaturation") with the way the Light/Dark fall/redemption aspects were handled in the prequels is that the Light side is so utterly self-obsessed, blind, and generally unattractive (other than pretty actors and cool skills) on a moral and philosopical level that despite my utter hatred for the Sith, and my sadness at Order 66, I still hated the Jedi. Which I know is sort of the point, but I think it's really kind of a dramatically uninteresting point to make (but then, clearly millions of people disagree).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Samp: They've made it canon that in the Star Wars-verse, switching from good to evil really -does- make a Disney cartoon look subtle and nuanced by comparison?
Not really. It's a good vessel for dramatic flair. It can work very well. It usually has. Even in the depths of the extended universe's horrid meandering adolescent pulp, it has done okay (or well, as in the original trilogy). But when we're talking about any theme of star wars' swashbuckling space opera thematics, you can always append how the prequels are an example of lucas failing to use it compellingly or coherently, because he can't write a movie. To wit: anakin was not a puppet from the first moment he started cutting deals, but he was being stupid angsty due to a number of contrived plot situations, did some real crappy stuff that represented very serious corruption to the dark side in and of themselves. To recall: he watched his mom die, flipped out, and went all My Lai on the sand raider village. He was all but completely gone by then, but then lucas had to backpedal because this was a movie too early and we had to wait for Palpatine, so the third movie threw out some weak bones about how anakin is still pretty much a good guy or whatever. He wasn't able to tie this all together into a coherent slow creep of corruption, so it turned into Palpatine going "Evil now thanks" and Anakin going "kay" — I think Plinkett talked about this some.
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Really? As someone who loved the first three movies as a kid, had his interest in the series knocked onto the ropes by the 4th movie and stamped out of existence by the second, and never in any case got into it enough to read any of the EU books, I wasn't aware of that; I assumed that it just boiled down to "because they look cool". What're the reasons?
It always boils down to 'because it looks cool,' but you gotta come up with a compelling system, mechanic, metaphysic, etc, to flesh out that coolness. Can't have the tardis without the wibbly-wobbley timey-wimey stuff, as it were.
The big thing that makes trained force users awesome isn't pushing things around with your mind, or force persuasion, or lightning, or choking, or any of those things. It's that the force makes you precognitive, and the more you train in the force, the better your precognition is. You learn to see the world as a fractal pattern of potential futures, and then use them to decide what you should or should not do. It's why something like a sniper is an impractical means by which to try to kill a trained force user. Every jedi and every sith is working hard at the ultimate goal of being so strong in the force that they're essentially like nicolas cage in Next. Combat, for a force user, is the art of angling through potential futures to reach the optimal desired conclusion. The better you are at staying focused and clear in your visions of potential futures, the better you are at avoiding the bad ends. This works fine with any weapon, but lightsabers are the best. One reason for that is because they are effectively attunable to the force. They extend your perception in a fight. In addition, training with a lightsaber is perhaps the absolute perfect way to train yourself for this kind of precog fighting, since you're swinging around a stick of plasma that has very clearly delineated Bad Ends that you're trying to avoid (cutting your own face off, for instance) and this tends to sharpen your forcey-worcey future-timey skills. As it were.
The most important part, though, was that fighting with these blades was the most effective way for force users to fight each other as well as keep themselves in a bubble of protection from fire: When they are fighting each other's precognition, swordplay with these massless, attenuated blades works to create a lattice of Bad Ends that confuse and eventually overwhelm the opponent so that you can start getting wounds or fatal cuts in. Melee combat was the only really practical way for these duels to happen in the flesh without horrid stalemates, so early force users gravitated to melee weapons well before lightsabers ever existed. Then lightsabers came around and it was practically flat-out unfair to non force sensitives. It was just the perfect weapon.
AS USUAL, lucas couldn't do shit with any of this in the prequel. He did the exact opposite through contrived, lazy, and messy screenplay, ending up with all of the jedi just standing in the middle of a coliseum getting shot to death hopelessly from afar by robots so that the clones could save the day. He did his absolute damnedest to make lightsabers seem like an impractical weapon that jedi tend to drop in any serious fight.
So now we're up to dragon age, dr. who, 2007's Next, what else can I shove in here.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Nerd on, my friend.
Nerd on.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Do you really think that Lucas understands any of the philosophy of the Expanded Universe? He really should've hired a Star Wars consultant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's a clip of the Behind the Scenes footage that plays in the RLM reviews where lucas is saying something about the upcoming production completion on the fight between dooku and yoda. He's lying on a couch, I think, and he's saying something like "it's exciting, because we haven't gotten to see him, pull out his little, uh, laser sword thing, and fight" —
As usual, the employees around him are standing around nervously, smiling and nodding. It's not about him understanding the Expanded Universe (frankly, I would prefer it, as it's often just terrible). It's about him not really understanding what made his own original trilogy work. And, more to the point, it's not about him understanding little nerd details like lightsabers or how the force works — it's about him not being able to make a compelling story, compelling characters, setting, theme, or a coherent transmission of a dramatic or personal arc.
It's not about his attention to nerd detail. It's about the language of cinema, of storytelling.
To what degree he knows or cares about his own canon ceases to matter. Crystal Skull sure ain't got no lightsabers or force or any of that in it, but he was able to dick that up all the same, for many of the same overlying deficiencies.
When I watch the parts of the reviews where Plinkett is observing what is happening at lucasarts as they struggle with their own product the sense I get is that Lucas has entrenched himself into a position of supreme executive dysfunction. It reminds me of studying Japan's Lost Decade and why their extreme social power distance and the extreme untouchability and unchallengability of their company's executives led to the complete and utter dysfunction of their corporate culture.
It was notorious. Everything was stratified, with everyone having a clear level above or below each other, and you were not supposed to challenge or question or even inform anything your company's leaders did because they were your business and social betters. They could not be challenged, nor could their paths be righted. To try to inform them that they need to change strategies was made into a direct challenge of their worthiness by a person who IS wrong because they are new or below them. The higher-ups were often left in a bubble of extreme misinformation, because the culture made people terrified to upset their 'betters' with the truth, and considered it more impolite to correct an executive than to simply be polite and nod and support that misinformed view or strategy. Lucas has turned Lucasarts into that for himself, and ends up with nervous people around him at all times who operate on the maladaptive strategy of "make lucas happy and don't challenge him" in order to keep their jobs. So, lucas ends up in the same distorted executive bubble and makes terrible movies. He's not the first who's done that to himself, but he's certainly the best and most potent example, especially considering that he's doing this with multiple franchises that people care about, as opposed to new things that won't go anywhere because they're failed visions from the onset.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Nerd it again, Sam.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Seriously though you're spot on about Lucas.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Damn, Samp, talk about long winded.
Anyway, how long do you guys think it will take them before we see another star wars film in theaters? I'm going to go ahead and say that it probably will happen after Lucas dies. If you think about it, by that point it will have been long enough for people to forget about the prequels (not entirely, but the same way you forget about Ghostbusters 2 or any other bad sequel) and the companies that take over his franchises will start looking at how much the films made. Say what you will about them, but the prequels look great on paper from a financial perspective. They made a lot of money. I think it's only a matter of time before we see another live action film.
There's also the live action TV series that they've been working on for a few years. It hasn't started yet because they want the special effects to be amazing, yet affordable for TV. Once that happens, we'll probably see it. Who knows when that will be. Strange isn't it? 40 years ago Stars Wars looked worse than a modern B-movie on the scifi channel, and yet it was so ingeniously made and filmed that people love it. You'd think they would look at the TV show in that light and try to film something affordable, but with really well-written scripts. Oh well.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Strange isn't it? 40 years ago Stars Wars looked worse than a modern B-movie on the scifi channel, and yet it was so ingeniously made and filmed that people love it. You'd think they would look at the TV show in that light and try to film something affordable, but with really well-written scripts. Oh well.
At the time, the special effects in the original movie were mind blowing--the best that audience had seen; they were absolutely cutting edge. They as much as anything (or maybe more than anything, looking back at how clumsy the first movie really was, and how thin its plot) were responsible for the movie's success.
Sam, thanks for the explanation about the lightsabers; very interesting stuff. I never caught even a whiff of that from the movies. It sounds pretty Dune-like, honestly.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Among the grievous faults in Star Wars is the way the Jedi council is shown to be against the "entanglements" of love and caring for people--the very things that are needed to keep people with Jedi powers human. Specifically, Anakin is forbidden to have any contact with his mother, or attempt to deliver her from slavery. Until finally he gets up the nerve to do what any decent hero would do, and goes to save his mother--only to find that he is too late, she is already dead. That would turn anyone to the dark side. In my opinion, the Jedi council deserved to be wiped out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are actually quite a few really good reasons why, within the story, the Jedi conducted themselves that way. And y'know, for hundreds of millenia it met its goal which was stability and minimizing Jedi turning.
Their mistake with Anakin was applying their standard policy to a very non-standard new pupil. He wasn't like the vast majority of candidates, in that he was found at a very young age and separated (a little shady just how voluntary this was in many case) from his family, replacing it with the Jedi themselves. He already had a family, and had built powerful attachments. And then of course there was the knowledge that not only did his mother love him, personally, but the knowledge that she was still a slave (actually, I don't remember if the story ever handled this part of it-was she still a slave in II?), and furthermore there were the many memories of a mother-son relationship.
So yeah, deeply stupid policy for Anakin on their part. But then, my thoughts on the Jedi of the Old Republic is that they were already morally bankrupt because of how prevalent slavery was in the galaxy. If they had been fighting it, attempting to abolish it where it existed, that'd be one thing. Instead their policy seemed to be 'these guys have slaves; tough break!'
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]So now we're up to dragon age, dr. who, 2007's Next, what else can I shove in here.
In addition to the Dune books, there's also Philip K. Dick's short story "The Golden Man".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Jake: Well since Lucas has admitted to being way into Dune while writing Star Wars it's hardly surprising.
When I first read Dune about two years ago I was like "Hey look, Jedis!"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Among the grievous faults in Star Wars is the way the Jedi council is shown to be against the "entanglements" of love and caring for people--the very things that are needed to keep people with Jedi powers human. Specifically, Anakin is forbidden to have any contact with his mother, or attempt to deliver her from slavery. Until finally he gets up the nerve to do what any decent hero would do, and goes to save his mother--only to find that he is too late, she is already dead. That would turn anyone to the dark side. In my opinion, the Jedi council deserved to be wiped out.
Interestingly, I agree. It is clear from Lucas' later comments about the "consequences" of love and attachment, that he envisioned the perfect person, the Jedi, as essentially a nihilist sociopath. They don't value family, they don't respect the rule of law, and they contribute in no way to society, except for acting as assassins and bully boys for the senate. And as Rakeesh said, they apparently don't care about slavery, or other *serious* social ills.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So yeah, deeply stupid policy for Anakin on their part. But then, my thoughts on the Jedi of the Old Republic is that they were already morally bankrupt because of how prevalent slavery was in the galaxy. If they had been fighting it, attempting to abolish it where it existed, that'd be one thing. Instead their policy seemed to be 'these guys have slaves; tough break!'
That was my understanding. The Jedi had become blind to fighting for good in the universe and had become broiled in domestic politics and dogma. I've read a good bit of the expanded universe, and you certainly wouldn't see the new Jedi council withdrawing so much from Republic affairs.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Among the grievous faults in Star Wars is the way the Jedi council is shown to be against the "entanglements" of love and caring for people--the very things that are needed to keep people with Jedi powers human. Specifically, Anakin is forbidden to have any contact with his mother, or attempt to deliver her from slavery. Until finally he gets up the nerve to do what any decent hero would do, and goes to save his mother--only to find that he is too late, she is already dead. That would turn anyone to the dark side. In my opinion, the Jedi council deserved to be wiped out.
Interestingly, I agree. It is clear from Lucas' later comments about the "consequences" of love and attachment, that he envisioned the perfect person, the Jedi, as essentially a nihilist sociopath. They don't value family, they don't respect the rule of law, and they contribute in no way to society, except for acting as assassins and bully boys for the senate. And as Rakeesh said, they apparently don't care about slavery, or other *serious* social ills.
I think that to understand the Jedi philosophy as Lucas understood it, it helps to be really familiar with Mahayana or possibly Tibetan Buddhism. They seem pretty obviously modeled after it.
I'm not actually disputing your negative characterization, by the way. I think you aptly sum up a lot of flaws in Buddhism.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
It's ironic if you think about it. The jedi are supposed to be on this high moral ground, but they don't mind using slaves/clones as cannon fodder. I guess life isn't actually as precious as they make it out to be.
quote:At the time, the special effects in the original movie were mind blowing--the best that audience had seen; they were absolutely cutting edge. They as much as anything (or maybe more than anything, looking back at how clumsy the first movie really was, and how thin its plot) were responsible for the movie's success.
I can appreciate that, but there's a difference between theatrical success and the lasting appeal of a film. Star Wars has lasted as long as it has because of its characters and the amount of memorable scenes and characters. The new films looked great and were the pinnacle of their time (as far as green/blue screen CGI goes anyway), but when you look back at them they had almost no interesting characters. What's more, Lucas didn't do all the work in the first set of films (directing, writing, etc), but he took a much more substantial role in the new ones. There's a big difference in who is doing the story-telling, and it shows.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, the whole clone army thing was another incredibly corrupt thing they did. They would sooner create millions of people with the exclusive purpose of killing and being killed than they would, say, tasking 20 Jedi to assassinate Dooku or the other Separatists.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of moral hazards with that, but for the good supposedly life-revering guys? Clone army not the way to go.
Man, one of my larger nerd wishes would be for, say, Timothy Zahn to have been the writer for all of the prequels.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I spent some energy trying to figure out whether any given thing the jedi order was doing was intently (1) written in purposefully to serve as evidence of their fossilizing moral and structural degeneration, (2) palpatine using his hazily defined "make every character stupid" power, or (3) just really bad writing
It is the worst experiment, don't bother
But at least knowing as much as we do about the old jedi order allows us to see how important Luke Skywalker, Future Voice of the Joker is. Not only did he save the jedi order, but he was its most important reformer, figuring out how to make being a jedi work without the need for many of the orthodox cultinesses and disconnections of the old order.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I spent some energy trying to figure out whether any given thing the jedi order was doing was intently (1) written in purposefully to serve as evidence of their fossilizing moral and structural degeneration, (2) palpatine using his hazily defined "make every character stupid" power, or (3) just really bad writing
It is the worst experiment, don't bother
But at least knowing as much as we do about the old jedi order allows us to see how important Luke Skywalker, Future Voice of the Joker is. Not only did he save the jedi order, but he was its most important reformer, figuring out how to make being a jedi work without the need for many of the orthodox cultinesses and disconnections of the old order.
Not just the Joker! He's an all-around awesome voice actor.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)