Go-Mer's Debate Thread

ok, I'll bite-


It was implied that Anakin was older when Obi-Wan met him, that it was Ob-Wan who discovered Anakin, that it was Obi-Wan's idea to train him, and to an extent Obi-Wan's failings as a teacher that caused Anakin to fall to the darkside.

Now, let me say this - I do not think these things not happening the way they were implied to have happened is what makes the PT inferior to the OT. IMO, these changes are not what is wrong with TPM or AOTC. But I can understand the POV of fans who complain that this isn't what he said happened, and that GL is changing the story. Whether the differences are for the better or worse is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.

 

A very good idea Go-Mer-Tonic.

ferelwookie, you're the one here that seems to be stirring trouble already. If you don't like what you see and read, don't post here. I'll be back later.

 

Could you be more specific RogueSith? For example what points to that assumption? Perhaps the dialogue would help.

As far as how long the Jedi Knights and the Republic have been around, Obi-Wan says the Jedi Knights had been the guardians of peace and justice in the old Republic for "over a thousand generations", and Palpatine says the Republic has stood for "over a thousand years".

It isn't definative enough to call it a contradiction, because in both cases they are understating the actual amount of time which is never actually stated.

 

My main beef with PT is that it seems to be telling a different story to that of the OT (when they're meant to be 12-hour saga).

On that note, what is the story of the PT?

We haven't gotten to know Anakin that well.
We haven't seen him rise yet to warrant a dramatic fall.

Any thoughts?

 

You would be correct in that they're different stories. Great insight.

 

I hate to go to EU on this, but pre TPM the books mentioned that there had been a Galactic Republic for "a thousand generations" but there had been a war, things got reconfigured into the form we see in TPM and it was basically a thousand years until it eventually fell in Episode 3. So in terms of the books the statements that Obi-Wan, Palpatine and Sio Bibble made were all correct.

But even ignoring that, there didn't have to be the Republic and Senate as we know it for a thousand generations for the Jedi to be the guardians of peace and justice for a thousand generations. It just probably would have been less organized and instead of being assigned to go help somewhere, they probably were asked to go help. You can have a justice or diplomatic system (if that's what you want to call the Jedi) that exists through multiple govermental changes. Besides I don't really believe the Republic and the Jedi order sprung up and organized on the same day.

 

ferelwookie, you're the one here that seems to be stirring trouble already. If you don't like what you see and read, don't post here. I'll be back later.

That's always a good "arguement". Gomer argues and gushes all the time in the BASHER'S Sanctuary, and he is RARELY told to go elsewhere...so I find your comment ironic.

If asking for TRUE "open-mindedness" is stirring trouble, then (stir stir!)

I gave TPM several "chances" and went into the movie with an open-mind...I came away NOT liking the movie. There are a few elements of the film that are not that bad, but overall, it is a dispointment and a poor movie IMO. I thought Lucas did a bad job with the script and a worse job directing the movie. That is my honest opinion after MUCH consideration and thinking about the movie. How is my point NOT valid and NOT open-minded?

To be CLOSE-minded would to go into a movie "knowing" you're "going to love it" or "going to hate it"...I suffered from NEITHER of these syndromes like many people on these boards. I WANTED to like TPM, but after viewing it, honestly "giving it a chance" and being as objective as I could possibly be, I still dislike the movie. Please tell me how anything I have stated in this post is "stirring up trouble".

 

For this thread's purposes, closed mindedness means not allowing differing opinions, not disliking a film in the SW saga. Whereas you aren't allowed to debate in the other sanctuaries, here it is allowed. The reason this thread has been re-made is only because I am apparently not allowed to take an opposing stand in the basher's sanctuary.

 

So, if someone doesn't like ONE SW film or even parts of a SW film, then they are "automatically" close-minded, even if they've really thought about it?

Is that what the last post means, or am I interpreting that the wrong way?

 

It was implied that Anakin was older when Obi-Wan met him, that it was Ob-Wan who discovered Anakin, that it was Obi-Wan's idea to train him, and to an extent Obi-Wan's failings as a teacher that caused Anakin to fall to the darkside.

Those are all assumptions you made based upon the slimmest of evidence. "You must unlearn what you have learned!" You have to accept the story as it is told in order, starting with Episode 1. When you do that, as Vader would say, "There is no conflict."

 

Yes, you are misunderstanding me Ferelwookie.

You don't have to like anything about SW, but to be in here, you have to be willing to hear out opposing views. You can then retort as in a normal debate. The main difference here is we need to respect each other's views, no matter how different.

 

I can handle that.

Honestly, I wasn't sure if I was reading your post correctly, so I asked. I will try to do my best to be respectful and decent in here (which, I THINK, I usually do anyway), but you should expect that I will LIKELY have at least SOME negative personal opinions of TPM. I am TOTALLY willing to listen to other people's takes on TPM, and try to hear "where they're coming from". Honestly, I DO try to understand why people feel the way they do, EVEN IF I don't agree with them. Thanks for the clarification Gome.

 

"Those are all assumptions you made based upon the slimmest of evidence."


I very clearly, and in bold type, said that I do not have a problem with these implications, but that I can see how someone else could.

If you're going to quote a person, then at least read the whole post before you start with the whole "unlearn what you have learned" routine. I think the first step in having an open-minded conversation is to listen to the other person, or in this case, to read what they have to say.

 

Here's something I have wondered:

Say Palpatine was struck down at some point in TPM. Do you think someone else would have just stepped up to take his place, or do you think no one would and the OT would change forever?

 

If Maul had survived, he would probably try to carry on the Sith order as well as he could.

 

This really has the potential to be a powderkeg of a thread, but I'll allow it.

First, while I understand that you wanted to rename the Gusher Supplemental, you need to provide something concrete that makes this thread distinct from any of the other threads here (i.e., what makes it not redundant).

Second, I agree with Stryphe that prima facie the title can be construed negatively, but if we're sticking to your definition of "open-minded" as "open to both praise and criticism of the PT," [paraphrasing], then we're okay. Still, I'll be keeping an eye in here.

 

I hope you will. I am trying to make a clean break from the gusher/basher wars by eliminating those concepts here. Everyone is just another guy with an opinion, and as long as we can disagree without disrespecting each other, everything should be okay.

I think this is just the place to be when you don't want to be a basher or a gusher, even if only for a little while. That's what sets it apart from the other threads in my mind. Hopefully this will allow the other threads to avoid the "positive/negative" back and forths, and dissipate that sort of thing in a more neighborly way. Sort of like an enthusiast/detractor swimming pool with "courtesy" life guards.

 

Personally, I am glad this thread exists.

There are opinions I have that are both gusher and basher-oriented and I try to keep the neutral stance. Having a home thread to focus those opinions in (instead of having new thread after new thread build up) is very useful, IMO.

But yeah, keeping a close eye on any Sanctuary is vital.

 

I've said it before, but trying to get bashers and gushers to agree on Star Wars is like trying to get atheists and Christians to agree on the meaning of Christmas.

 

That's why neither are allowed here. If you can't separate yourselves from the "basher-gusher" connotations, then this isn't the place for you.

 

Yeah and I think it's not getting opposing factions to agree so much as getting them to debate maturely and constructively, instead of:

Person 1: "Hey I liked QGJ's character."

Person 2: "Well I didn't and I think u r a st00pid 4 thinking differently!"

Person 1: "Hey! Don't push your beliefs on me, buddy!"

Person 2: "But my beliefs R right, u are a st000pid!"

etc.

 

I dunno.

 

Here is what is wrong with this thread.

By naming it the "Open-Minded Santuary" it implies that the Gusher/Basher Sanctuaries and their members are not open-minded.

Ideally, all threads should be considered "open-minded" because they all encourage debate. The only two threads that discourage it are the basher/gusher Sanctuary but that does not mean they are close-minded.

A Catholic Priest may be open-minded about his views and consider debating them but that doesn't mean he has to do it 100% of the time to be open-minded! He doesn't need debates in his church while he gives his sermon. It isn't because he is not willing to hear other's opinions. It COMES DOWN TO CONVENIENCE. None of us want open debate CONSTANTLY and the sanctuaries allow TIME OUT from the other hundred plus threads that do not have this rule.

I think not seeing the benfit and "fun" of Gusher and Basher Sanctuary threads is not open-minded.

I hearby boycott the "title" of this thread. The idea of open-minded discussion is fine by me as we all post in threads other than the two that don't ask for debate. However, IDEALLY all threads should be like this one. This thread is sort of in limbo. It is called an open-minded thread. That's a bit like starting a thread called "A SW thread". Its purpose is nothing more than for one member to release his opinion of the Basher Sanctuary and undermine it with its implied meanings.

At least the Basher Suplemental thread had purpose. This one truely is a limbo thread.

 

"If maul had survived he would probably try to carry on the sith order as well as he could"

Now Gomer, maybe YOU think this but I tend to think more open-minded. Im not being disrespectful its just that GL's writing stinks nowadays and if you could be more open-minded about that...then that would be great. How do you know maul would try to carry on the sith order if he hadnt died. Pure opinion, and it sounds anal. My money was on him starting a shish-kabob stand in the heart of coruscant. Since Im open-minded, Im sure that what GL meant for him.

 

A shish-kabob stand would make sense...

Hawk, If that is how you choose to read into this, then I can understand you wanting to boycott my thread.

Anyway, It turns out that while there aren't any actual contradictions in the films themselves, the things some people are upset about revolve around assumptions that were contradicted.

Is there anyone who wants to bring up any more "actual" contradictions?