alansmithee85 posted:How hard is it for you to comprehend this. Concentration stays the same: little Anakin (who at that time was read to have more midis than Yoda) has a higher but comparable amount of CELLS as big Anakin, minus limbs, does. This is why making your Force potential equal to the sum total of midis in your body still wouldn’t explain Anakin being weaker after Mustafar. Size doesn’t matter. But YOU imply that it does by assuming losing a number of cells = loss of Force affinity. Or perhaps you’re not aware of what you’re saying; you want to say mass doesn’t matter yet losing his extremities does matter. Hmmm. Do you realize that in general more mass = more cells? Or maybe you think the cells just get really really big; that Yoda and a Hutt have the same exact amount. I can only guess what you got in high school biology. I yet again challenge you to rationally support your argument, which you can’t, other than vomiting quotes like a fundamentalist that fail to actually advance the point at all; the statement it is indefensible.
alansmithee85 posted:No, if the plot point given in an interview is contrary to the established concept given in the films, which are the only cannon, and cannot be supported by logical reasoning or evidence from the movies, than it is wrong. For directors’ commentaries are little better than the EU; plenty of times they can exaggerate or make statements in interviews that are somewhat questionable about their own work. In responding to your rather sad response to me, I pointed out as an example a time Lucas’ friend Coppola made an untenable statement about the Godfather movies. And Star Wars is not merely Lucas’ creation, just like the Godfather wasn’t merely Coppola’s; Lucas owes so much to Kurosawa, Asimov, Herbert, von Reichenbach, Buck Rogers, and Campbell. He creates a concept meant to echo real life in the midichlorians, just as he echoes the Od, chi, and Prana with the Force. Why do we critique or analyze movies at all then Sinister, if we cannot hope to come close to the ‘creator’s’ understanding of it, who you seem to hold as infallible.
alansmithee85 posted:You care quite obviously. There is no “point.” You have no point. You have a claim, a position, but you cannot elaborate upon it nor substantiate it with the films. And I am not obsessed at all, I just don’t take kindly to your bullying people with quotations and hubris every time they ask this question and others: why are you so obsessed with it? You also have little right to even respond to me when you have not responded on the Dark Lord thread. Though I’m sure you’ve seen it, you just can’t come back with anything.
ForumAuditor posted:Yeah, thats what I was trying to say. Anyway, if you look at OT Vader, he is bigger and more massive than he had been in ROTS when he had all his limbs, he has more cells, but he is still less powerful. You guys who that claim losing cells = losing power yet body mass has no bearing on power are really contradicting yourselves.
alansmithee85 posted:It is not impossible given the rules of science, it is impossible given his established logic. To borrow a tactic of yours: “Star Wars is a fictitious environment that has to have some reality to it," Lucas says. Sound and fire in space is part of our suspension of disbelief for dramatic effect: but that suspension has its own limits, and this is generally that the little universe a film/s build must be consistent. I am I no way saying we must impose upon it all the limitations of our world; it would hardly be fantasy then. However these films have to be within reason—if they make no sense on closer inspection it goes from symbolism to just plain sloppy.
alansmithee85 posted:In Kill Bill the Bride has the stormtrooper effect going for her (another suspension of disbelief) when she fighters the Crazy 88; but it would be a whole ‘nother ballgame if Tarantino said on the DVD commentary the reason she can fight like that (let’s say twice better than when she was Black Mamba) is because she had a baby, and her motherhood has empowered her. Yes it has a symbolic meaning and thematic purpose, that mothers will perhaps transcend their usual limitations to protect or avenge their children (lifting the car cliché), but it still is rather ridiculous that because she gave birth she can fight with superhuman acumen. Lucas has said he wants to create a modern mythology with Star Wars—which means a mythology that can be bought by the more cynical and discerning audience of modernity—it has to be make sense even in a fantastical context. So while you have a point of rationalization of the story following the story itself, so do I have a point that that rationalization is key for the saga to work. Without it working, Star Wars would fall into the trap of many pulp and space opera stories: a disconnect with the audience and being disposable because their reality has no boundaries—it is changed to suit their needs. On the ROTJ commentary he said as much: the movies are in-between not taking themselves seriously (i.e. bogged down in details or self-importance) but not being able to just be written off as silly and worthless. Not rules of science, rules of logic: it has to make sense/cohere.
alansmithee85 posted:We see that he is injured physically and emotionally, we are told he is less than before. Told outside the movie as clean up to reconcile why TPM’s prodigy is still letting old man Sidious play the Watto role in his life. Now that would be fine, but as I have shown, the explanation for why he is less is not reasonable. Even forgetting midichlorians and mitochondria, Lucas has said that because of his injuries he is less a living thing and so less in touch with the Force. Now there is less of him material wise, but is he less a living thing? Were you to get into a very bad car accident Sinister, or I for that matter, and we had double amputation, spinal fusions, and incredibly bad burns, would we be less human, less alive, less connected to the rest of the world/circle of life? Is that which makes life sacred innate to how functional the organism is? And if so, should the physically disabled and vegetables of the world be treated as something less than human? These are dark thoughts if taken to their conclusion, and this is my biggest problem with the Mustafar injury = lost Force rationale.
alansmithee85 posted:In the monomyth that Lucas apps, the hero must go through immense loss and a state akin to death, but becomes even more powerful. And a common motif in mythology is physical loss or injury allows a character to heighten their spiritual side or gain new self-mastery (both would point to greater, not less, faculty with the Force from Mustafar’s consequences).
alansmithee85 posted:In real life, the blind strengthen their other senses more than a normal person to compensate—to the point of actually developing a human version of echolocation in one case. It is more conceivable both as a symbol and mythological motif that a being who could touch the Force so strongly compensate for his being a cripple by touching it even more so, not losing his connection. Like Plato said, ‘dying’ to this world (the suit) should put us into the world of the Pleroma (the Force/oversoul/Brahma etc…). And in fact there is something of a nod to this in Yoda: he says size matters not, luminous beings are we and not crude matter—what makes one powerful is far greater than something of this world.
alansmithee85 posted:Now this is certainly Lucas’ thought on the matter. In the rough draft of “Revenge of the Jedi,” Palpatine makes an explicit statement that Luke is far more powerful than Vader. But that, like many, many things of that script, was dropped. This statement is not there in the movie: all we have is the far more ambiguous statement in ESB that the son of Skywalker could destroy them both. Which he does, in redeeming Vader, from a certain point of view. Now considering the Emperor’s dependence on his visions at this point, Sidious could be misreading the whole thing—just like the Jedi did with the Prophecy. In his Sith obsession for power, he misreads the vision of his demise centered around the figure of Luke as Luke being able to kill him. But he beat Vader right, so that’s proof that Vader is less and Luke is Skywalker 2.0. Perhaps not. Up until Luke hides in the shadows they were matched about even. Luke has grown into his power nicely, and Vader could no longer play around like on Bespin. When he beats Vader it occurs within a minute—he surprises Vader with both his attack and ferocity of his rage. Now even if an opponent is stronger or more skilled than you, they can still lose a fight—it happens all the time. Most especially if you get the jump on them like Luke did, and let’s not forget of the inner conflict plaguing Vader at this point. Let me quote you now Sinister: “As I pointed out earlier, the most powerful don't always win. In Highlander Endgame, Jacob Kell was supposed to be unbeatable. Duncan MacLeod proved the Watchers wrong, even saying that no one is unbeatable. In 1996, the Chicago Bulls had a great season. But despite being number one and considered the best, they lost ten times in the regular season. Ali was considered the greatest boxer, but he did lose a few fights in his day.” So really, if we were to think that neither Vader is lessened in the Force nor is Luke his father 2.0, that plot makes perfect sense still. Then why does Palpatine demand Luke take his father’s life? Because three is an untenable number: eventually the subordinate two would unite to take out the leader—him. (I know there is a Lucas quote to substantiate this Sinister if it makes you happy.) Because Vader has failed and fallen, no matter the reason, and must be disposed of to make way for the victor—that is the Sith way. And also because a very important but seldom noticed bit that did make it into the script: VADER (after a beat) My son is with them. EMPEROR (very cool) Are you sure? VADER I have felt him, my Master. EMPEROR Strange, that I have not. I wonder if your feelings on this matter are clear, Lord Vader. Vader knows what is being asked. VADER They are clear, my Master. Luke is supposed to be wavering between light and dark, and the audience isn’t supposed to be sure of his ultimate choice until he makes it (hence the black). Luke is ripe for the plucking to Sidious (he thinks) if the right screws are twisted. In Vader however, it is not only Luke who feels the conflict: the above shows the Emperor can as well. Contact with his son has agitated the long buried Anakin Skywalker/shred of decency. This would make him just as an undesirable apprentice as lost Force potential would: Sidious is losing his grip on his little Frankenstein. For what it’s worth (incredibly little), the OS non-EU databank seems to agree. See, it all works even without the Vader is Less, Luke is More line. I’m not saying this is the only way of looking at it, but it certainly has its own merit and grounding in the saga.
alansmithee85 posted:I do ignore things said outside the movies that seem to be contrary to them, though I am always open to being convinced otherwise. Remember, if he is not infallible he can be wrong about something. And the creator’s understanding of the film isn’t the only one, this is why it is a film and not a monologue by Lucas stating all his personal beliefs or simply telling an oral tale where there is nothing but what he explicitly says. It should always be kept in mind, but it also doesn’t have to be slavishly adhered to if we can see another angle.
alansmithee85 posted:Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying Lucas is bound to recreate those concepts and must mirror them unchanged. But by collecting them into this little mélange of ideas called Star Wars, he thinks there are some kind of ultimate truth within them—especially when dealing with the concepts that formed the Force. That is what a myth is: a story that belies a universal truth about the universe, life, human nature etc… And the seemingly unimportant technicality of how Anakin partially loses his connection to the Force can have huge possible implications: meaning of what makes us human, what merit life has etc… As far as the midichlorians goes, as I stated above: bend science to suit purposes yes, but to do so in reason so it still makes sense and is believable.
alansmithee85 posted:Well now what? Midichlorian loss does not follow, not just with real-life knowledge but it doesn’t make internal sense of itself. And going the metaphysical route and saying Vader is less connected to the Force because he’s less alive holds rather dangerous moral implications that I don’t think Lucas meant to imply.
alansmithee85 posted: Now I’ve supplied a rather reasonable interpretation of events that show being without “Luke has more potential because Vader lost it” can still work and the story loses no dramatic impact or logic. But Lucas has clearly wanted Vader be subordinated to the Emperor in power since the OT and Luke to be able to surpass him as a warrior, so how can we reconcile the prodigy with the downgraded apprentice without the Force potential loss as we understand it? Well for one I’m sure Sidious never completed Vader’s Sith training, never gave up all his trade secrets. But there is something far closer to Lucas’ statements which you have touched upon Sinister. Hear this one out. Anakin, for all his talent, is not very stable emotionally. Now here he was with all this power, drunk on himself in fact, in that scene on the Mustafar landing pad. Yet he loses to weaker, deluded, ignorant Obi-Wan. Loses the duel, loses a lot of his physical self, and loses Padme. Think of how that must wreak havoc on a man who passionately believes might is the guarantee of getting what you desire and hates to lose anything important. What if this creates a crisis of confidence in Anakin, a deep indelible scar on his psyche that is symbolized to him by his deformity—it reminds him of his failure every waking moment. He thought himself perfect, and now in his self-pity and despair he feels imperfect and weak, not whole. Those who undergo very traumatic experiences during key moments of their life often report a feeling of disconnect from the rest of the world and their own emotions. Not to mention uncertainty about themselves. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov, after committing the murder, feels this same alienation from the rest of reality. I mentioned before that there is a motif in mythology that has physical handicaps pointing to more and not less spiritual power/knowledge. But that is only after the afflicted character has underwent some kind of journey of self-discovery. There is also the Richard III path, where that self-discovery never happens and the deformity warps one’s mind (twisted and evil). If Anakin cannot get over his own emotional obstacles, which would derail most people in his condition, then he can never transcend what happened to him on Mustafar. We’ve been shown that one’s mental state and perception is incredibly crux to using the Force: Ben and Yoda advise Luke to put himself into a state very much like the martial arts’ No-Mind (feel, don’t think; unlearn what you have learned). The Force has been partially silenced to him because his mind cannot let it through; it is too clouded by that disconnect and self-hatred/pity/revulsion. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, Vader has become unconsciously convinced that he is weaker, imperfect, not whole, and cut off from the greater web/symbiosis of life; as a result his connection to the Force has diminished no matter the state of his midichlorians. His mind is in just as much a prison as his suited body is. So even though going by the exact words of Lucas’ makes no sense, saying that his injuries on Mustafar has weakened his affinity to the Force could be completely true, from a certain point of view. And if one is of the theory that the midichlorians are created by the Force within cells to reflect that person’s connection, rather than being the cause themselves of someone’s Force sensitivity, then Anakin’s psychologically-induced ‘maiming’ in the Force would in fact be also reflected with less midis. The concentration would go down. Which would be even closer to Lucas’ statement.
Carnage04 posted:Ben R posted: Midichlorians are not a power source. They're an indicator of someone's ability to use the force. If body mass & total number of midichlorians in the body = most power, then Yoda would not be the strongest Jedi in the force. Someone's "midichlorian count" is the number of midichlorians in each cell. It's the concentration of them in a cell. It's not the count in a whole person's body. In Episode 1, when Obi saw 20,000+ midichlorians in Anakin, it was his blood sample. He didn't scan his whole body. It's the number in each cell, not the whole body. And, it's not the power source. It just indicates potential with the force. This is exactely why I hate the midichlorian debacle. Anakin wouldn't be less powerful after losing limbs. He'd STILL have the same concentration of midichlorians in his cell, there are just fewer cells. The midichlorian part of the PT is the only gaping plot hole that I do no like. Andy
Ben R posted: Midichlorians are not a power source. They're an indicator of someone's ability to use the force. If body mass & total number of midichlorians in the body = most power, then Yoda would not be the strongest Jedi in the force. Someone's "midichlorian count" is the number of midichlorians in each cell. It's the concentration of them in a cell. It's not the count in a whole person's body. In Episode 1, when Obi saw 20,000+ midichlorians in Anakin, it was his blood sample. He didn't scan his whole body. It's the number in each cell, not the whole body. And, it's not the power source. It just indicates potential with the force.
