Go-Mer's Debate Thread

I said they are "how it went" when not contradictded by the films.

This 6 film saga is getting into the story of Anakin Skywalker and Palpatine. There isn't enough time to explain the entire millenia or more the Jedi have been around.

Palpatine is specifically talking about how long the Republic has been around, and Obi-Wan is talking about how long the Jedi have been around.

If you want to see that as a contradiction, that is your choice.

 

Lucas said he will contridict EU if he sees fit. If it's written in the books and not in the screenplay, it's EU, and thus, not reliable, because Lucas has already admittedly given himself permission to change it (and we've already seen him do it!)

 

Once the films are complete, anything that isn't contradicted, especially in the novelizations for the films is considered "canon".

I am just saying that in the end, what they both say makes sense. I also do not fault you for seeing it as a contradiction. But if you are going to ask the question: "Why does that seem to be a contradiction?" and you don't follow through to find the answer to that question, then that is simply your choice.

I don't fault you for that, but it may be why you aren't enjoying this as much as you could.

edit: -suddenly realized how sharp my tone was getting.

I think you guys are cool people, and I don't mean to imply otherwise. I understand what you guys are saying, and I don't think your logic is "flawed". I am just saying there are other ways to see this that may allow you to enjoy it more.

 

The problem with your "how you choose to see it" argument Go-Mer is that it can be applied to everything. Hence there are no absolute right and wrongs, good and bad. Everything comes down to interpretation. If that is the case, then the point of debating these films is pointless for both parties.

In fact, the point of debating anything (ie: court of law) would be pointless because anyone's interpretation can be right according to the person. Hence, we could make awful interpretations justifying murder, incest, rape and TPM ).

The point is, you always fall back on how we choose to see it because you had no problems with it. Hence, your logic entails none of us are right and that no films (hence nothing really) can be deemed as bad or sub-par.

How do escape this problem? Seriously?

 

You let go and apply it to the things you want to enjoy.

---

[b]Hawk:[/b] [i]"The problem with your "how you choose to see it" argument Go-Mer is that it can be applied to everything."[/i][hr][/blockquote]Actually, that's the good thing about it.

If these things were actually contradictions, then I could see the insistance on distaste. But as it stands, you have to use as much of an assumption to believe they are contradictions, as I use to allow them to make sense. It really comes down to wether or not you want to work with George, or against him.

 

Middle ground there is not, either you support TPM whole heartedly or you advocate it's demise.

 

---------, makes a good point. You are asking for "working" with George or not. Where's the so-called middle ground then? And you didn't really respond to my post. How do you get around the idea that everything is open to interpretations (no facts) that your way of thinking entails. A murderer could claim they did not commit murder or that the person is not even dead! Your logic leads to complete uncertainty and works against you as much as it works for you.

 

Is this 'Middle Ground' or 'Middle East'?

 

The middle ground is working with George. He came across tha chasm 3/4 of the way by spending three years of his life putting each of these films together. I am only asking you to meet him 25% of the way.

Lucas did the hard part, now all you have to do is enjoy it.

I figure our common ground is we want to like these films. Not that you have to. And Hawk if you can allow the film to make sense, where is the problem with that? I don't understand why you would see that as "uncertain".

If you can use your powers of assumption to work with George, then there -is- nothing working against it.

If George had killed someone, I could see your point Hawk, but he just made a bunch of movies.

 

Go-Mer, if you're going to adhere to an inherently relativist position, there is no point for argument. Matters of "interpretation" by definition cannot be false (much like moral relativism does not advocate claims of moral truth, just perception). By only choosing to put it into practice with certain parts of the movie, you simply are choosing to be incoherent.

"If you enjoy something in the film, great more power to you, you don't need any help. If you aren't enjoying something, it's your fault for not choosing to let yourself be pleased, and therefore you need help." Please, cry me a river if someone takes issue with this.

Pick a methodology and stick with it. This kind of wishy-washy nonsense (which you state earlier that you won't abandon) is absolutely ridiculous, and no different from what you're doing elsewhere in the forum, which makes the idea of this "Sanctuary" farcical and redundant.

Fans should not have to rely on other material (from *different* authors) to explain what is not in the film. Best of all, if we apply your logic, we can simply disavow all EU as simply being the particular author's *perspective* on the way things happen, so *nothing* is canon.

There is a problem with the films, not the viewer. On screen, we have two different terms used in reference to the same thing with very different meanings. That's sloppy writing which shows an inconsistency. If you choose to ignore it, then it isn't a problem. If you recognize that it is there, it is a problem, because suddenly there are differences made explicit between the two trilogies.

This choice is not reflective upon the chooser. Choosing to recognize it is not choosing to "let yourself get hung up on it," it is not choosing to "let yourself be bothered by it," or any other projections of the films errors onto the viewers. If anything, it reflects poorly upon those who choose to ignore it - it demonstrates the type of fandom that is unquestioning, which is unhealthy. It's much akin to suggesting that there is no problem when Moses writes about the events after his death in Exodus, just a problem in the reader.

You've got to do better than this wishy-washy, "only apply critical principles when they support GL's vision" nonsense. It's incoherent, unbelievable, and unfounded.

Remind me again why I left this thread open?

 

"I am wondering how you can blame Lucas for assumptions you made. "

I don't BLAME Lucas, but I think that the vast majority of people made the same assumptions based on what is heavily implied in the OT.

 

Wow! A sanctuary is needed just for having a certain opinion!

 

"If you enjoy something in the film, great more power to you, you don't need any help. If you aren't enjoying something, it's your fault for not choosing to let yourself be pleased, and therefore you need help."

So if take my brothers hand and place it on a hot stove element and he complains its his fault for not letting himself enjoy it?


Aren't there films that you consider to be poorly made? Are all films good? This is what I don't understand about this arguement.

 

Well, I do like about 25% of the two films together. What a silly debate. What's the point in discussing the 1000 years/generation thing? It *is* a mistake, especially in the context of the one and same story (or so GL would have us believe) to first have a character say "...1000 generations", then later (or earlier) in the story say "...1000 years".

And stop refering to the EU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

To me it comes down to this. The PT would make little sense if you don't know the OT. But the OT makes perfect sense if you haven't seen the PT. (Actually it makes more sense if you haven't seen the PT then if you have)

 

I sometimes wonder if you understand what I write Go-Mer or choose to play the "infinite-loop" game with me so I will slowly go mad. I have spelled out what is wrong with your line of reasoning. Ignore it if you will if you can't get your head around your own logic or attempt to reply to my post.

In order to accept TPM, it is up to us? If that is the case, then it is perception which determines quality. I figure you are not just applying this to SW films but films in general. But it also can be applied to all aspects of life. Hence, you do not believe in any true "facts". Everything is up to the observer. In that case, a person could justify any action and your own argument turns around to bite you on the bottom because I could just as easily apply the logic to your posts. My interpretation is that they don't really exist or that they exist to sicken George Lucas. Cut the nonsense and be "open-minded".

 

That's true Hawk, you can enjoy or despise anything you want to. It's all up to you. That's my point.

I am just trying to make sure that if you guys aren't going to like what Lucas is doing with the prequels, it is for the real reasons. For example, the real reason these particular issues bother you is because you won't let go of the assumptions you made based on the classic trilogy, not because Lucas is actually contradicting something. I always hear about how Lucas is contradicting what he did before, and that's really not true. This much seems to be a fact.

The subjective opinion here is that some of you believe Lucas should have made the same conclusions you ("and many others") did based on the part of the story you knew back when the classic trilogy came out. Can we agree on that much?

Rebel Scumb, why wouldn't the prequels make sense on their own?

 

EDIT: Evidently he does reference the Old Republic in the statement. Every quote place I went to had the term galaxy in it. Whatever, he still seems to be qualifying his terms in the form of the Order and not the government, he also refers to it as the "Old Republic" which seems to be a qualifying ststement meant to seperate it from whatever. I mean he wouldn't need to call it the Old Republic just to seperate it from the Empire. So why exactly is he calling it the Old Republic, it's it's really only 18 years since it was around, and the Empire isn't exactly the New Republic. Which seems to be referencing the change in gov't the galaxy went through during the war previous to the Clone Wars (which happened 1000 years previous according to Sio Bibble, which also coincided with the disappearance of the Sith according to Ki-Adi Mundi) This tends to jive with the description of pre-OT events that's been used since the ANH novel. Peace and harmony for years, giant war and Jedi/Sith war, re-forming/renovation of gov't into the form we see 1000 years later in TPM.

Obi is still talking about the Jedi and Palpatine is still talking about the Republic. They still don't have to coincide. The only question is whether Obi was generalizing entire millenia of differing governments for a point (because how realistic is it for a galaxy to only have 1 or 2 forms of gov't for 25,000 years). Because Obi does lay the basis for the Jedi's existance and an old form of gov't, but multiple sources lie the foundation for the Republic being a newer form of gov't and a giant war that formed it all consistent within the thousand year period.

It does seem however that Lucas did want to introduce the whole war to reformation concept happening 1000 years before that had already been in a number of books, both movie adaptations and EU.

 

ULTIMATE: You said "Seems you people leaped to a few conclusions. "

But Obi-wan clearly says:
"For over a thousand generations the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice IN THE OLD REPUBLIC"

I don't understand what is confusing about this. Where is the leap. Its as straight forward as possible. The term jedi order is never even used in the OT. Its only in the invent of the PT that that term comes into use, and the seperation made between the two entities.


GO-MER:

Because most of the jokes are based on knowledge of the OT. The force is never explained, nor are the jedi, they point their hands at droids, and the droids fall over. Qui-gonn waves his hand and boss nass does as he is told.

Where as ANH explains the force before we ever see it being used or even mentioned.

The PT, altough GLs camp claims is meant to be watched before the OT doesn't really work that way, since all the surprises are blown.

As for contradicting the OT, look at it another way. If you had never seen the OT and watched the PT instead, then watched the OT do you not think the way things are related about the past is decidely inaccurate or at the very least strange way to describe things?

Everyone keeps saying enjoy the pT for what it is, its own story. But it feels like the story is just a lot of "and this is where boba came from, and this is where the stormtroopers came from, and this is how Obi-wan met Anakin, oh and this is where the droids fit into it"

example: Yoda. I know people love yoda. I love yoda to. But from apure story stand point Yoda has done nothing to garner the amount of screen time he has in the PT. IF there was no OT, Yoda would not have all these scenes, and he certainly wouldn't be engaging in pointless duels that only degrade his character. It makes as much sense for yoda to show up and have the final battle as it would for him to fight vader at the end of ESB.

We should be focusing on the main characters who are getting little development, they talk a lot, yet say nothing. For that matter who is the main character? I honestly couldn't say. Qui-gon was agreat main character, but now he's dead, and the other characters had little or no dialogue with each other in TPM, only with qui-gon so they don't really know each other, it feels awkward.

Why do we care about Padme, because she's luke and leias mother. But we only know that because of the OT. We have this ridiculous romance so Anakin can marry Padme, but its because they have to marry for the OT to work, the ends suddenly justify the means. Padme and Anakin have to get together, the hows and whys are irrelevant, so we wind up with a supposedly intelligent world leader marrying her teenage murderous stalker.

Like wise Obi-wan and Anakin constantly bicker, but why? becuas eventually they msut become enemies. Because of the oT. But why are they fighting. The Anakin of AOTC in no way resembles the boy from TPM, what happened to him in those 10 years, "anakin is arrogant, he's reckless" but other then the fact that we are told this and Anakin simply acts this way in the most straight forward way possible there is no real mostivation for him to act in this manner. He's the chosen one, he has exceptional skills. But what of it do we really see? I feel like GL says Anakin turns bad because he's possessive and rrogant, yet basically all we get of this is Anakin more or less saying that he is arrogant and possesive. Luke was arrogant, and reckless, and it comes across in a very subtle and natural way.

THe plot is so overly complex yet the most important elements seem passed over an ignored. Its all cake and cookies, but where are the meat and potatoes?

 

"I always hear about how Lucas is contradicting what he did before, and that's really not true. This much seems to be a fact."

Except that it is not a fact. You are choosing to see it as a fact. You are willing to bend over backwards and contort logic to it's breaking point simply to justify what Lucas is choosing to do. Some of us are not.

See Go-Mer? Two can play this game.

 

Exactly, why couldn't palpatine have jsut said "...this republic which has stood for 1000 generations."

What would have been so horrible about that? But there I go again, REwriting things.

The point is, most writers would try not to leave these sort of discrepencies. Sure you can explain it away, but that doesn't amke it good writing.

Here's a non-SW example. In Star trek 3, kirk and the gang capture a klingon ship after the enterprize is destoryed. They are now fugitives and hide out on vulcan.

Star trek 4 opens with them preparing to go back to earth aboard the captured klingon ship. The bridge is now entirely differnent in layout, colour, lighting, and overal design since the previous film and looks more in keeping with the klingon bridges of the recent TV series and films.

Now, of course Kirk and spock and scotty might of retrofitted the bridge to make it more to their liking between the films, afterall, theyhave had several months, and they are all technical experts, and there is nothing to say that they didn't. But Would it not have been better to simply have the bridge be the same? Can we not jsut admit that is an inconsistency? Does it ruin star trek 3 or 4? No. But it is sloppy. Sure there's a ways to explain it, but lets face it, we shouldn't have to. But the level of denial is high on these boards that if this was in a PT film, and not a star trek film there would be posts like "I don't see how they're different, you can't prove it, you're just nitpicking"

 

I am just saying there are no "actual" contradictions, only ones that you have assumed to be. I am not saying you guys don't make sense, or that your assumptions weren't logical. I am just saying Lucas didn't make them, so therefore, he didn't contradict himself.

When it comes to things like the thousand generations/years thing, it is the same kind of thing we have in ESB when Han says he made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

A parsec is a unit of distance, not time.

As far as explaining why the Jedi have powers, I don't see that as necessary. All you really need to know is that the Jedi have these powers.

Yoda is one of the main players of the prequel era. He is going to be one of the only surviving Jedi in the next film, it makes a lot of sense to have him in the thick of things, even fighting in the final duel. From where I sit, his showdown with DuKoo was the highlight of the film. I thought it added even more reverence for his character over all, and the feat they pulled off to make it possible was nothing short of astounding.

 

yeah but thats not quite as extreme. Either way, GL wrote ANH on his own, so it still fits the pattern.

 

The pattern you used to be able to roll along with.

Actually, the rationale behind Han's "parsec" issue is that Han talks over his actual expertise to show off.

 

That's true Hawk, you can enjoy or despise anything you want to. It's all up to you. That's my point.

Ok, by your logic Lucas cannot be credited for creating excellent films like ANH and TESB. He didn't create the masterpiece. WE created it with our interpretation. And as Agent Coop just pointed out, your OWN logic can be used AGAINST you in every single argument you now make. Hence, you really don't belong in these forums as you do not entertain that there are "facts" or any criteria for quality as it is all up to the spectator. I say "you" because nobody else here has fallen back on this line of thinking. Either retract your opinion that everything is down to interpretation or wave the white flag and say "Oh well, none of my arguments can be grounded because everything comes down to interpretation." The point of debate usually entails working toward a fuzzy conclusion. Since your logic suggests there can never be this conclusion, everything you now say is utterly pointless.

I suggest you retract. You have painted yourself into a corner.