PT A Better Continuity Between Prequels and the Original Trilogy

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Kyris Cavisek, Nov 13, 2012.

Moderators: Bazinga'd, heels1785
  1. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4

    Regardless of whether Anakin was "an ordinary man" or "a son of the Force", his choices became a tragedy to me. For me, it was not about what he "was", but about the choices he made as an individual. And I can say the same about the other major characters in both trilogies.
  2. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    But it didn't. Those aspects of the OT weren't really in the OT. They were apparently imagined by some viewers, or at best expressed in one of the radio dramas.

    Not everyone "brought up on the OT" feels the same way. And finding several others who make the same claim ultimately means nothing. It doesn't matter how many people make this claim. An imagined majority cannot place things in the OT which were never there in the first place.

    There's no need for such an extreme interpretation, though even so it would serve as the kind of implication alluded to. Luke and Leia don't have to be the only potential Jedi in the entire galaxy; they may simply be the only potential "Anakin-class" Force-sensitives whose existence is known to Obi-Wan and Yoda.
    Samnz likes this.
  3. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    I know exactly where you are going with this, but you seem to be missing the point. What people 'imagined' as an extension of it is exactly what a story is about, and I have little doubt that your own, and everybody's, personal version of Star Wars is not what was on screen, but is rather based around what is on screen.

    As I say, I think you misunderstand my position on this, and this (and the previous quote) verges on being an insult. Kind of, 'how stupid of you to have thought that.' So, here's how it is. GL can do whatever he pleases with his story, and the story as it now stands is what it is. But your proposition seems to be based upon an idea (easily falsifiable) that GL always had the story as is in mind, and by extension that such was obvious from the OT and only a fool would not have seen it. This is preposterous nonsense. I am not saying how the story should be - it is what it is. But, the thread here is about what, personally, we would have done differently to have a better continuity. From a personal point of view, though one that I know I am not alone in, the PT made dramatic changes to the story we knew from the OT - new scenes have even been added and existing ones edited. To just tell me "it didn't" isn't going to change my opinion on that. To try and tell me I understood it that way because I'm stupid is not addressing anything that I have said.

    What I have tried to do is impart how I (and others) feel it has changed and why I think those changes have had a detrimental affect on the story. Particularly with regard to the Jedi. Because the PT Jedi are following an ancient prophecy, rather than aligning themselves with, giving themselves up to, the Force (as was evinced in the OT) they are open to the accusation of being an order of religious zealouts - a position that is difficult to defend. And, as Qui-Gon states in TPM, those with high midiclorian counts are taken at a young age by the Jedi Order, to be trained as these warrior monks. That opens them up to the accusation of being child stealers, and one can hardly argue against that. Now, the arguments that are made against that are not within the films at all. They are simply the imagination of those watching, desiring to put that into the perspective they have of the story - but that is exactly what we who see a changed vision of the saga are accused of doing - reading more into the story than we 'should' have.

    What do you mean "there's no need for such an extreme interpretation"? Doesn't this imply that there is an interpretation to be made? Were we, then, wrong (at the time) to have interpreted it as we did? And, that it requires an interpretation undermines the principle of your argument, that we who saw something else were not only mistaken but that it was obvious that it was so that all we had to do was see the film as it really was. Taken literally, at face value, what the line says is that the only potential Jedi in the galaxy are Luke and Leia... Just as what Qui-Gon says in TPM is that had Anakin have been born in the Republic he would have been discovered and trained as a Jedi - not discovered and possibly trained as a Jedi you'll note, would have been.
  4. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 7
    It's left a bit grey- some books suggest that Citizens of the Republic don't legally have the option to refuse to hand over their children- and that there's parents who grieve when they learn their child is force-sensitive, because of this. Tatooine, however, isn't exactly part of the Republic.
  5. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Which is exactly my point. You can't claim that the PT changed aspects of the OT if in fact the truth is that it changed nothing that was actually in the OT. It only changed things you made up yourself - but those things you made up yourself can't reasonably be called "the OT".

    Is it really "stupid" to rely on an implied appeal to majority, or just misguided?

    There it is again. It really doesn't matter. Finding other alleged people who share your view doesn't somehow make your view more objectively correct.

    That is a strawman, so you're right - it does count as preposterous nonsense. The point is that your version of "the story" was not actually presented in the content of the OT. By implication of the above you seem to imagine that Lucas secretly shared your view of things in the OT era, only to change his mind with the advent of the PT. But this ideation is only the well-known fantasy of all revisionists. It cannot be proven because there is literally no evidence backing it up anywhere.

    Oh, so that's what you're talking about - the new scenes added to the OT, and the existing ones that were edited? These scenes comprise the allegedly important aspects of the OT that were changed by the PT? I'm setting my stopwatch...

    Click. And nothing in the above has anything whatoever to do with the new scenes added to the OT and the existing OT scenes that were edited. Nor does it actually constitute any kind of change from the OT, because you imply mutual exclusivity where none exists.

    [face_laugh] One can always argue against outright lies.

    Wrong. The argument against this popular though false claim is indeed within the films, TPM in particular. Anakin - the only case of Jedi induction we see in the films - is not "stolen" or "snatched". He is offered a choice. Meanwhile, knee-jerk denials aside, there is no evidence whatsoever of "baby-stealing" in the cases of younger candidates. You are, shockingly enough, doing exactly what you are accused of doing.

    According to your previous claims, at the time you believed anyone could be trained as a Jedi. And as has already been discussed, there are factors in TESB and ROTJ that work against that position. And again, even under the opposing interpretation we are not required to assume that Luke and Leia are the only Jedi potentials in the entire galaxy.

    Wrong. He never says Anakin would have been trained as a Jedi. He says only that Anakin would have been identified as a potential Jedi. And let's not forget that Palpatine was born in the Republic.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 26, 2012
  6. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    Okay, so you are going to ignore the point I am making and insist on this being the primary discussion. You are going to tell me how I should have seen the OT. Here's the thing though, the reason there are a number of people who have this view is not because of some shared delusion, it is because it is based upon things that George Lucas said at the time and shortly after ROTJ. It isn't something I made up myself.

    and...

    Implied appeal to majority? If it is based upon what GL said then it is not implied, it is what we were meant to get from the movies, as they were. Strange how so many of us shared the same 'delusion', don't you think?

    That isn't explicitly what am on about - as I am sure I have tried explaining - but to say the OT hasn't changed when scenes have been added and edited, sometimes for purely aesthetic reasons but sometimes to introduce GL's new version of Star Wars - the one that he tries to claim was always as intended.... It seems absurd to say the PT has not changed the OT when scenes have been altered in order to better fit...

    But, as earlier with the 'equality of outcomes' sideshow, this is simply a distraction, flim-flam which in no way addresses what I have stated I am actually trying to say.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not crying into my cereal every morning because GL has changed Star Wars. But to try and pretend nothing has changed, to try and pretend you never said things you clearly did say...what? GL spoke of the ewoks as in some way being representative of the Vietnamese situation, whereby those without technology could overcome the technologically superior forces. GL was the one who said that the rebels won the space battle, that what went on on the Death Star was a mirror of that, that Luke won a separate battle. GL talked of his interest in Buddhist thought (something that had a great deal of cache in Hollywood circles at the time the OT was produced), which oozes from the screens in the OT movies.

    Sorry, but don't tell me it was my imagination that created any changes, just as it isn't a coincidence that so many at the time thought the same way. It wasn't some sort of inexplicable mass psychosis, it was because that was what GL told the world the movies were about.
  7. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Said where? Do you have any quotes? Is there a link? Or am I supposed to just take your word for it?

    Not really, no. Still a fallacy. Nor is it strange when revisionists claim that Lucas agrees with them.

    Speaking of "distraction" and "flim-flam", as I already pointed out, the scenes added/changed in the OT have nothing to do with the alleged changes made by the PT that you've focused on. This is partly due to the fact that the SEs and the PT are different entities. The SEs preceded the PT. Most of the changes we see in modern versions of the OT are SE changes. The OT was only changed to reflect the PT in 2004. Anakin's eyebrows have been removed and his ghost looks different. Are these the fundamental changes to the meaning of the OT that you're referring to?

    Show me where I said these things I "clearly did say". You've confused your own strawman with me. Doubling down on this strategy will be no more successful than its first implementation.

    In what way is anything in the above changed by the PT? Distraction. Flim-flam.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 26, 2012
  8. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    @Arawn_Fenn , it seems you are determined to have an argument rather than a discussion.

    So, not content with claiming I am delusional, or 'misguided' you call me a liar too? Nice. And just in case there is any doubt that that is what you are claiming...

    The irony being that it is George Lucas who is the revisionist, claiming that the saga as is is as it was always intended to be... a claim that makes no sense to those of us who remember what was said before*

    As I took the time to explain that this was not my aim, but was, rather, a sideshow, I wonder why you would ask whether these were the changes that I meant - and by doing so accentuate the point that I made that to concentrate on such an issue is a distraction from the discussion that I was trying to take part in. Given that you actually quote-mine my response (not for the first time), carefully reducting the relevant section "That isn't explicitly what am on about - as I am sure I have tried explaining" I wonder what exactly your aim is here. It doesn't seem to be a discussion. Have you had a bad day?

    As I say, you seem to be intent on having an argument. * I thought it would be clear that this was in reference to George Lucas. Normally here I might give the benefit of the doubt and perhaps apologise for any misunderstanding but it seems that you are intent on having an argument and this is exclamation is within a context that under normal circumstances would be clear is not with reference to you.

    As I have already expressed why I believe the PT changed the above, reasonably comprehensively, perhaps you might like to read back what I originally said on this matter.

    Here's the thing. You tell me that I am 'misguided' or downright wrong in how I originally viewed the OT. Even if it wasn't based on what GL actually said himself at the time (which, btw, it is) you seem to fundamentally misunderstand one of the strengths that Star Wars has which is that it engages its fans. It engages its fans and asks them (us) to fill in the blanks because, let's be clear about this, there is not a great deal of content in terms of anything other than visual storytelling. The dialogue is incredibly limited. What you have done here is enter the discussion seemingly to tell me that I am misguided in engaging with the story.

    But, enough, if an argument is what you want then I will ask you this simple question - a point that I notice you have been reticent about responding to - do you think the Jedi are child stealers?
    Last edited by only one kenobi, Dec 26, 2012
  9. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    That's what I thought. No quotes, no link, nothing. I asked for documentation, not noise.

    Said before where? When? Did Lucas sneak into your room at night and coo this into your ear while you were sleeping?

    In other words, we can throw out your reference to the SE and DVD changes because they're irrelevant to your claims about the PT, which was the point.

    Well, in that case it's not "clear" that he said what you're claiming he said. You merely continue to insist that he did, without offering any proof.

    "GL spoke of the ewoks as in some way being representative of the Vietnamese situation, whereby those without technology could overcome the technologically superior forces."

    How is this changed by the PT? Oh wait, you already explained that, and I missed it. [face_laugh]

    "GL was the one who said that the rebels won the space battle, that what went on on the Death Star was a mirror of that, that Luke won a separate battle."

    How is this changed by the PT?

    "GL talked of his interest in Buddhist thought (something that had a great deal of cache in Hollywood circles at the time the OT was produced), which oozes from the screens in the OT movies"

    How is this changed by the PT? Do you believe, for some reason, that the things said about the Force in the OT somehow stopped being true when Lucas made more films? Or is this another case of things assumed by you but never actually presented in the films themselves?

    I used the term "misguided" to refer to your appeal-to-majority tactics.

    I see that you carefully read my post where I called the allegation an outright lie. In your world, I suppose that's considered being "reticent about responding" to the issue.
  10. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    Putting aside the insults for now, I shall respond in a much fuller way to that later, I will ask you why you believe that it is an outright lie when the only reference that we have for how the Jedi are chosen in the movies is from Qui-Gon, and he says that had Anakin been born in the Republic he would have been discovered and trained as a Jedi? Are you not guilty of putting your own interpretation of this? Because what is there is pretty explicit, there's not much room for manouvre , and yet... you've managed to read something into it that isn't there.
  11. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    No, that's you. You're reading "baby-snatching" into a saga which shows precisely one Jedi induction of a child, and in that one instance that is shown, the choice is left up to the child, and it occurs with the parent's consent. No instances of alleged baby-snatching are shown in the series anywhere. And you continue to fail at reading posts:

  12. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    No, I didn't get the chance to carefully read that part because I started my response at a point when you had not said that, you were in the process of editing while I was responding. I have gone back and read that post, so I was mistaken in thinking that you simply had not responded.

    This is where you have me wrong. I don't believe that at all. BUT, there is nothing explicit within the movies that leads you to call it an outright lie. We know that the one instance is an aberration, that it is most certainly not the normal circumstance by which a child is inducted into the Jedi. You are quite right that Qui-Gon did not say as much as I thought he did. You even cite that Palpatine was born in the Republic, but that raises more questions than it answers. Surely the Jedi keep records (we know they do, Jocasta Nu oversees the library which is full of records) Had Palpatine been discovered as a child then, while searching for a dark Lord of the Sith within the Chancellor's circle stumbling upon the fact that Palpatine had been identified as force sensitive might have helped their cause a little. There are a couple of reasons one could conjecture that he did not turn up on their records. That he wasn't discovered (hidden, perhaps) or that Dooku deleted those records also. However, we also see that Anakin is tested before the council, so this - it seems - is expected of any inductee. So.... none of the Jedi council can remember this Palpatine being brought before them? One so powerful in the Force (his midiclorian count must be exceptionally high, one would think).

    The reason I brought this up, and was looking forward to a response from you about it is to highlight how much of the story we see is not explicit. You call it an "outright lie", but you have nothing explicitly to back that interpretation up. If GL decides, at some point, to highlight that the Jedi did take all force sensitive children to be trained as Jedi then what you see in the movies would become 'wrong'? What's more, somebody might point out Qui-Gon's line and tell you how clear that is that it does not match you interpretation. But that line says nothing about whether they do or not. Only in retrospect would it seem obvious.

    That is why I cited the extreme reading of Yoda and Obi-Wan's discussion about Luke and Leia. There is, as you say, no need to invoke such an extreme meaning, but neither is there any need to invoke the meaning you say is clear, except with the additional knowledge of the PT. That a more extreme interpretation is possible shows that the line says very little, and only with the retrospective knowledge of the PT is it 'obvious' that that was what GL 'intended'.

  13. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    So, you might ask, what is my point. Here it is. I'm not telling anybody how they should, or should have, seen the movies. I'm putting forward how I think the PT changed the OT, even just for me. And I was then trying to explain why, from a story-telling perspective, I think the addition of the chosen one, prophecy and genetic elite were a bad idea - in as much as it creates more problems/questions than they add to the story.

    What I find doubly confusing is that you first tell me that what has changed was only ever in my mind...then, seemingly, protest that they have not changed.

    What I was hoping for was a discussion of what those changes meant for the Jedi (in particular), instead I have you @Arawn_Fenn telling me how I should have seen the movies, and then being pretty strident ("an outright lie") about how the saga should now be seen on exactly the same basis that you claim I had no right to bestow meaning in my original understanding of the OT.
  14. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    By the same token, there is no evidence anywhere in the films supporting the charge. Anakin's case may be unusual, but its noticeable focus on consent seems applicable to the standard Jedi inductions we don't see. For if consent were not important to those other Jedi recruiters, why should it be important to Qui-Gon?

    Let's say I decide, based on no evidence, to accuse my next-door neighbor of being a child molester. Let's say my only defense of this charge is to say that he has not somehow proven that he did not molest a child when no one was looking. Would he not be justified in calling my accusation an outright lie?
  15. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    Well, first of all, what occurs outside of the Republic is very different to what occurs within it. There are anti-slavery laws in the Republic, but Qui-Gon can do nothing about it on Tatooine - "The Republic does not exist" on Tatooine. So, whatever rights he has in the Republic can not be judged by what occurs on Tatooine. Secondly, Qui-Gone never asks for permission. Schmi asks Qui-Gon if he is to take Anakin with him, and will he be trained as a Jedi, to which he responds? Certainly not with a request.

    I'm not sure whether you have missed the point, or whether you believe there is a 'hard' argument for the position you hold. If the former then I will re-iterate that I don't believe that the Jedi are 'child-stealers', my point was to highlight how loosely some of our (yes, even your) interpretations are actually based on the evidence of the movies. For all that I don't agree, I could counter any evidence you put up for your position - I could play devil's advocate - without us ever really reaching a definitive position from anything actually said about this in the films.

    The example you have chosen as a simily is far, far away from the discussion that I'm not even going to go there. There are reasons to question whether the Jedi do take force sensitive children. For example, what might become of those who aren't taken? As you say, Palpatine was born in the Republic. Seems like it could be, well, dangerous not to have force sensitives trained within the Jedi environment. It is because it raises such questions that I consider it to be a mistake, in terms of story-telling.

    If you understand my point but think your position is a 'hard' one, then I am afraid you are subject to the very delusion you seem happy to tell others they have suffered. At least I know that what I believed (regarding the Jedi) was created within my imagination around the story I watched.
    Last edited by only one kenobi, Dec 29, 2012
  16. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Anakin asks his mother for permission, and she responds to the effect that it is his choice. As such we are not shown a situation which sees her wishes summarily overruled or left out of the decision.

    Which implies that being born in the Republic and being Force-sensitive is no guarantee of being taken as a Jedi-to-be.

    Agreed.
  17. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    But, it isn't Qui-Gon who asks. Not only is what occurs outside of the Republic, but even here Qui-Gon does not ask for permission.

    But, for all the reasons that I mentioned before (remember?) the fact that he is not on record and not one of the Jedi remember him - one with such a high midiclorian count would be noted one would think - implies that he might have been hidden from the Jedi. So, nothing firm can be read into this. That he is a Sith Lord rather highlights why the Jedi may indeed have to take force sensitives into their fold - what may become of them otherwise? (One of the problems I see with a genetic elite within the Republic)

    Just a pity that you are blinded by your arrogance, and fail to see that your understanding of the movies is based on exactly the same.
  18. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    But he sits there in tacit support of what's going on in front of him, and watches as the parent leaves the choice up to the child. This goes completely against the popular fan revisionism which insists that the choice is not made by anyone other than the Jedi. You act as if Qui-Gon would have simply grabbed him and dragged him out if he had chosen not to go. However, this contradicts the characterization of Qui-Gon as presented in the film and there is no evidence whatsoever that it accords with the intent of the writer.

    Are we talking about the same Jedi order whose council members believed the Sith to be extinct? The supposed danger posed by untrained Force-sensitives is highly exaggerated by certain EU authors in comparison with the films. To become a Sith, one must be trained by a Sith, and the Sith were believed to be gone. And the point about Palpatine being hidden works against your position. If Force-sensitives can be hidden, of what practical use would a mentality of "we have to take all Force-sensitives into the fold" even be?

    The arrogance on display here is in your apparent belief that a baseless claim can be converted into truth through ceaseless argumentation. That doesn't work, either generally or in this case. If you have to fabricate false allegations to make a case against the Jedi, your case against the Jedi isn't as strong as you think.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 30, 2012
  19. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    Subjective. You say he sits there in tacit support, others could easily say he simply does not participate. Schmi asks him will he be trained as a Jedi and Qui-Gon states that he will. He does not ask permission.

    "popular fan revisionism", seems a strange phrase for something that I simply made up in my head; for a baseless accusation. There's a point to be made about this, which I will lead into.

    I act as if? I have no need to conjure such images. Qui-Gon is asked whether Anakin will go with him and be trained as a Jedi and he replies that he will. No question as to whether Schmi agrees. I don't have to infer violence on his part. There is no question in his tone or in his answer.

    Ah. You are the arbiter of what George Lucas has in mind? As for whether it accords with his intent.... surely if he was asking permission he would have responded with "is that what you wish for him?" or something like that. No, he says that he will. End of. No discussion. No request.

    Oh, so again we have a number of people who see something different from you? What exerience of that galaxy far, far away do you have to be able to inform of the dangers or not to force sensitives outside of the remit of the Jedi Order? How are able to judge what is exaggerated and what is not?

    One does not have to be a Sith to misuse the Force. If a midiclorian count can be measured then what's to stop other individuals or groups from utilising that technology for their advantage?

    Hang on. Are you suggesting that Force sensitives can't be hidden? You know, of course, that the OT can only occur because they can? And if you mean the other then.... what's the point of having a police force and a justice system if people can get away with crime? It would probably take someincredible convolution to hide them but then the alternative is that Palpatine must have come to their attention...which means he is on record. I would suggest that his midiclorian count must have been pretty high so, you'd think somebody would have remembered. So we then have a situation where the Jedi are aware of a powerful Force Sensitive within the Chancellor's circle and scratching their heads wondering who it could possibly be....all of them suffering some mass amnesia about this incredibly force sensitive child from Naboo brought before them who didn't join the Jedi.

    I don't think that you are stupid, so I can only presume that you are being obtuse when you claim that I am "fabricating false allegations" (a strange concept for all sorts of reasons). I don't have a case against the Jedi, I am merely pointing out (and I shouldn't have to repeat this for - at least - the third time) that whatever I believe is not based upon what is in the films but what I have taken from the films. You seem to be under the impression that you actually know - even going as far as to claim to know what George Lucas has in mind.

    What we have here is this. There is a reading of the films that you have in mind. But the evidence that you think is hard evidence is simply not there. That there are a number of people who see the same films that you have differently. How is that possible if what you see is firmly within them? Have you never questioned that? Do you truly believe that anyone who does not share your view is stupid/misguided? How's this for a possibility; What you see is what you take from the films. Perhaps if you can't see that then, well, you really are lost.
  20. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    That's the point. Where he has the opportunity to show any indication that he intends to overrule the wishes of the parent if necessary, he does not do so. The evidence you need to back up your position is simply not there.

    Not really. Getting rid of the "popular" part, which only reflects the fact that others have made up the same thing, the term "fan revisionism" seems accurate.

    I said that child-snatching does not seem to fit Qui-Gon's characterization as seen in the rest of the film. If Lucas intended to depict otherwise, he didn't succeed in showing it.

    First, since she had already said that the choice was Anakin's to make, there would be no need for that question. What you also seem to have overlooked is that this may in fact be what Shmi wishes for him, and this may already have been indicated by things she said to Qui-Gon ( "he deserves better than a slave's life" ), and that Qui-Gon may sense as much.

    Argumentum ad populum fallacies aside, the point is not that anyone sees something different from me. It is that the stance taken by a subset of the EU appears to differ from the situation implied by the films ( something which happens frequently in the EU ). The Jedi Council in TPM is all too ready to exclude Anakin from Jedi candidacy until the end of the film. In addition, Anakin is threatened with expulsion from the order in AOTC, and for this to have any weight at all it must not be an idle threat. The prospect of an untrained Anakin - or even a trained one - running loose in the galaxy doesn't seem to trouble the Jedi all that much.

    In the films we never see even one character learn to "use the Force" at Jedi/Sith level without training. This works against presumptions of the danger of untrained sensitives. With the Sith believed to be gone, where is the necessary dark side training supposed to come from?

    Where did I say that?

    [face_laugh]

    I don't see why it would be all that difficult.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 30, 2012
  21. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    By the same token, if he intended to show that the choice of the parent(s) was of importance to Qui-Gon he does not do so.

    This seems to be the point you have a problem understanding.

    Firstly, he does not have to be a child snatcher. He simply has to show an expectation ofthe right to take Anakin, which he does. As to whether it appears to fit Qui-Gon's character.... what Lucas intended is not firmly established.

    Schmi had not already said that when she asks Qui-Gon the question. I haven't overlooked anything that may be the case, you have simply extrapolated what may be the case to become what certainly is the case.

    Here's the problem, I think, n a nutshell. You are using an argument that has incredible voracity within a scientific discussion. In that case argumentum ad populum is fallacious. This, however, is a discussion about the meaning to be found in scenes and films. The 'stance' taken (implying an agenda, an emotive insert on your part, as opposed to a 'different view') appears (this is important) to differ from the situation implied by the films. Really it is all here, the part of this that the you are either incapable of understanding or unwilling to cede. It only appears to differ from what is implied in the films because what you have taken from the films is, as it is with all such medium, based partly around what you have added to the films. It is implied within the films because you have interpreted the films to imply that.


    In the films we never see the Jedi consider the moral implications of the use of a clone army; essentially a slave army of sentients shorn of their free will. Does that mean they did not? You mention that it was made clear that the council were ready to expel Anakin in AOTC. So, you have the possibility of at least partly trained former Jedi, perhaps with a chip on their shoulder, with the potential to find force sensitive children.....and there's no potential danger there? This is exactly why I consider the whole 'superbeing' haves/have nots to be a mistake. I simply think this is an area where GL did not think through his choices.


    Why? Nothing ever suggests that in the films. When Qui-Gon speaks about what would have happened with Anakin if he lived in the Republic he replies that he would have been discovered. Not probably.

    Everything that you stridently argue as a sure thing turns out simply, rather, to appear to be implied by the films. Just take the time to think on that if you would.
    Last edited by only one kenobi, Dec 31, 2012
  22. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4

    I hate to say this, but your argument is not working for me. From what I had seen in TPM, Qui-Gon left the matter of taking Anakin to become a Jedi up to Shmi. And she left the decision to Anakin.
  23. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    The point that "Jedi are child snatchers" is revisionism? No, I'm not the one who has a problem understanding that point. I'm the one making that point.

    Hardly. Not only does he leave the choice up to Anakin, even going so far as portraying the down side to him, Tatooine's not even in the Republic. The right to take Anakin against objections - something you're certain of, just as you're certain Qui-Gon assumes it - does not even exist.

    I'm talking about the point at which Anakin made the decision to go, after the race. By that point Qui-Gon knows Shmi wants some kind of better life for Anakin.

    And that means appeal to majority is no longer a fallacy? Sorry, but its status as fallacy is not topic-dependent.

    Where is the Sith/dark side training supposed to come from? At some point this begins to look like circular reasoning. If the Jedi Council lean toward rejecting Anakin at the outset, or threaten to expel Anakin later, it seems that their understanding of the relative danger differs from your own... in other words, again we have a number of people who see something different from you. Your insistence that Lucas didn't think things through is undermined by the fact that you're making assumptions Lucas probably never believed in the first place.

    Then your problem is with a broad swath of fantasy and SF ( including various influences on Lucas ), not just Lucas.

    Yet Palpatine wasn't.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Dec 31, 2012
  24. only one kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 4
    No, the point that all interpretations are "revisionism". You simply don't understand this it seems.

    There are a number of points I could make about this, but this is simply an example. As I have already said - on at least three occassions - I don't agree with this interpretation. How could you think I am certain of something I've told you I don't agree with....? The point is, nothing is certain, though you seem certain that your interpretation is the "correct" one. Anything other than your interpretation is deemed, by you, as "revisionism".

    Yes it is. This isn't a scientific proposition where there is a testable truth, it is a medium of art, of storytelling. Stories speak to the viewer/reader/listener and - as with all art - the viewer transforms the work. I tend to believe in trying to understand what the artist was attempting to convey, but even with that in mind, without the definitive word of the artist on a subject it becomes conjecture. You can argue your position but you instead insist that your interpretation is the only valid one. That is, I have to say, an arrogantly misplaced position to take.

    And, conversely, a number of people who see something different from you (and isn't this a call to the very fallacy you are so keen to oppose). As to the point itself, GL has the council members prepared not to train Anakin, and prepared to throw him out of the Jedi Order. But think about that for a minute. At the time they are prepared to throw him out of the order there is a Sith Lord in operation. Are we seriously supposed to believe that having such a powerful force sensitive out and about, outside of the Jedi Order when there is a Sith Lord in operation is not dangerous? So, there is an argument that GL hasn't fully thought that one through*.

    It has nothing to do with what I feel GL believed or not, it is a matter of whether you can have the one (genetically elite superpowerful beings) and not the other (ensuring that those beings are within the purview of the structure of the order, to avoid them becoming a danger to the galaxy). It's not a matter of what GL believed, but whether he thought through the implications. Another example being; if Luke and Leia are force sensitive because they are Anakin's children then, why are there not a host of Kenobis, or Windus, or Koons etc. within the Jedi Order?Why, if force sensitivity is genetically inherited, would the order forbid Jedi from having families - thereby reducing the numbers of Jedi?


    *Though within any story we are, to a greater or lesser degree, expected to suspend disbelief that does not carry over into motivations and the logic of choices - that being the matter of any story. So it may be possible to suspend disbelief as to the existence of elite superbeings their existence would still have to fit into a logical framework of their existence. It is not a coincidence that others see a possible interpretation that is different from your own - it is because there are possible logical inconsistencies. Especially in a saga, and most especially one which many have brought into and which has In Universe answers to questions, it matters that one think these things through. Whether it matters for the flow of the story, which is primarily GL's focus is another issue. So, I am not accusing GL of anything other than concentrating on telling his story, and not giving much heed to the intricacies of a "larger world".

    As I said before, I was talking about my personal 'journey' with Star Wars, and what I felt the PT altered about the OT. If you wish to argue from your own personal perspective then I am more than happy to discuss that. But don't, please, presume to tell me that I am simply wrong, as if you somehow have a deeper access to George Lucas' mind than all others. What you interpret into Star Wars is "revisionism" as well. That is the whole of it.
  25. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    I fail to "understand" it because it isn't true. The interpretation of Lucas, whatever that happens to be, is not revisionism. Nor is an interpretation which merely reflects the content of the film and doesn't add anything extraneous to it.

    Because the interpretation you now claim you "don't agree with" is the same one you've been insisting is accurate.

    No, it isn't. Logical fallacies are not topic-dependent. Look it up. To try to pretend that they are is nothing more than a desperate tactic. But you're trying to canonize revisionism, so resorting to desperate tactics would be somewhat inevitable.

    And that's what permits differing interpretations to exist in the first place while maintaining a bare minimum of possible credibility. However, it does not mean that your interpretation somehow becomes more right by simply finding other people who agree with you.

    "I know you are but what am I" games aside, they see something different from you, as you're about to again demonstrate for the third or fourth time:

    Since you can't handle that Lucas - and his characters - see things differently from you, you resort to "GL hasn't fully thought that one through". Because if he had actually thought everything through, he would agree with your position, right? The fact remains that your assumptions conflict with what he presented. You're not really interested in his intent, since you seem determined to rewrite aspects of the plot.

    Might have something to do with Jedi not having children. ( Also, Anakin is a special case. Force potential at a lower level might not come equipped with the same degree of exact heritability. )

    Because they think 10,000 is enough to manage all by itself? And the reason for the lack of families is adequately presented in the films, AOTC specifically.
    son_of_skywalker03 likes this.
Moderators: Bazinga'd, heels1785