Saga How does the PT improve the OT?

You mean the Vader who planned to overthrow the Emperor the entire time? Oh yeah, that sounds like a Vader who feels guilty for killing children and wants to punish himself. Try again!

 

Well, I'm not that much into symbolism. I view charakters rather as people instead of symbols for something. I'm philosophically a materialist too (means I don't believe the spiritual exists) so it is to be expected.

But whatever floats your boat. The good thing about fiction: everything's up to speculation. Makes it exciting.

 

Do or do not. There is no try.

That's exactly my point. If Vader "planned" to overthrow the Emperor, why didn't he simply do it? Think "THX". What he merely said and what he really felt were often two different things. Like I said: a being rife with contradiction.

You're not going to do well with Star Wars, then. The characters can be viewed as people, sure. After all, they have a kind of "person hood" within the story, and a concrete reality without (e.g., actors and actresses who played them). But to not care for symbolism? At its essence, that's what art is: endless symbolism/signification.

 

Why should he overthrow the empire when he still has things to learn? I think he has learned some humility after his defeat at Mustafa and now knows it isn't wise to act too hasty.
And later ... well, a rebellion makes a rulerswitch really difficult and dangerous.

Those are my preferred IU theories.

 

Well, Palpatine is also the father he never had. As Ian McDiarmid as said, if you want a subtitle for these movies, it could be "Fathers and Sons".

 

Agreed! You rebell against daddy, but you will not kill him unless your hand is forced. When Luke appeared on screen and the emperor became more and more unhinged I believe that was what drove Vader to act.

 

Argument 'ad signaturam'???

 

Curious that you jump on drg's remarks, but not the ones that prompted them:

Yes... I think we know where your intelligence-level resides at by now, thank you.

 

Prompted, schmompted. Melancholy answered/addressed the OP. drg4 addressed Melancholy's sig.

Will the above go unpunished? Probably.

Or, the thread will get locked (a.k.a. "scorched earth")

 

After Melancholy issued sweeping, derisive remarks -- I believe they're called bashes.

Of course, you would be blind to that kind of thing, right?

BTW: Last time I checked, signatures, like avatars, were public entities, fit for commenting upon, should an occasion arise.

Oh, that's right. Still drooling for punitive measures in 2011; and not-so-subtly bashing this board in the process. You know where the door is.

* * *

Well, this has been fun, but unless you have anything of substance to commit to this thread -- somehow, I don't think a one-line comment like "Argument 'ad signaturam'???" makes the grade -- I guess we'll be leaving things here.

 

Are you next gonna go on about how Lucas literally raped your childhood?

 

BTW: Toschi, you're right. "Intelligence-level" was harsh. My first impulse was to write about knowing where "your allegiances lie". You're an intelligent guy. I just find it sad you would snipe at drg without adding anything else to the thread. drg4 has made more than that one post -- and even that post of his you find objectionable is actually elucidating a (counter) position (i.e., it's no mere slight).

 

Great analogy. It's just such a strange -- and, it seems, ironically crude -- way to behave.

Yep. And why attempt to sow discord with snarky one-liners and baiting?

* * *

It's 2011, folks. If you have problems with the movies, fine. If you have real big problems with the movies, why continue to post here -- to the STAR WARS SAGA forum -- of all places?

Other forums have been set aside for you (et al.), including, but not limited to, the "CLASSIC TRILOGY" forum on this board. Really, now, how hard can it be?

 

But the STAR WARS SAGA of the prequels isn't the ACTUAL Star Wars Saga as it was originally revealed!!!

http://jahtruth.net/starwar.htm

No, folks. They aren't kidding!

 

I'm not following the comparison.

Nobody has peed, pooped and vomited on their creation the way that Lucas has. Nobody.

 

Bashes? How are they bashes?

I believe the PT has been a cancer to the OT. If anything, the PT has probably damaged Star Wars irreparably. That's my opinion. But since my opinion doesn't coincide with your gushing, well, I guess it must be bashing.

Your analogy makes no sense. There is a huge difference between the OT and PT. I cannot emphasize this enough... A HUGE DIFFERENCE. He may have had the ability at one time, but he either lost it or he simply didn't care anymore. You can choose.

Lucas is criticized (not bashed) for the failure that was the PT. No amount of posting on a Star Wars messageboard by a bunch of "supporters of all things George" will ever change the view of these films by the masses. The PT was an total disaster and an utter embarrassment that he will never live down. And trust me when I tell you, he knows it. Believe me, it haunts him everyday.

Raging? That's kind of a stretch, no? Valuable time? Here? Few of any importance post here anymore. They know what this place has become. I hardly post here.

As for the vast array of artistic material available, there are plenty of things I like. I like the OT. I loathe the PT. See how easy that is?

 

Is that a joke? It's hilarious.

Anyway, I see no point to this debate. No one is gonna change their minds. In my opinion, the OT was better executed, but the prequels are no cancer to the saga. You just have to give them a chance. They are not the stand-alone movies that the OT were, but I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks they weren't made with good intentions. Lucas obviously loves the OT, even if his vision for the entire saga changed over time. I do see why people don't like the PT. The dialogue has it's flaws, and there are a few OT plot holes created, but not so much that I can't enjoy watching them all together. meh, it's subjective.

 

Since you and he must be close personal friends, can we count on you to pass along our questions on various plot points?

 

LOL.

That's almost as bad as --> http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

Or if you want the longer version --> http://www.av1611.org/hell_proof.html

Why it is it that whenever someone is "against you" it's "Satan" trying to turn you away from "God", and whenever good things are happening, it's "God" being benevolent? Worship your leader, shun outcasts -- lest you become an outcast yourself. The totalitarian impulse in religion is so pathetically transparent.

What also makes me laugh about that article is something the guy says at the end, when he talks about becoming "an angel again" and "never having to wear crude, smelly, clumsy, human-matter again". Well, I suppose that half-agrees with Yoda's statement, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter"; but it also places him alongside the Emperor, who shows great disdain for Jar Jar and the race of "smelly" (swamp-dwelling) Gungans (watch TPM and pay attention to some of Palpatine's/Sidious' put-downs).

I'm also reminded of a classic remark by H.L. Mencken: "A sense of humor always withers in the face of the messianic delusion". Note how seriously he takes all the visuals, events and lines in Star Wars; and heavily focuses on the original movie, at that? There is no room for comedy, irony, satire or subversion. He's living in his own Death Star. George Lucas did not make these films so people could graft their own simplistic moralities onto them; let alone use them to evangelize for their morbid cult. But people will see what they want to see. And that goes for us, too.

 

Let's keep it straight here dude. There's literally no point in going on an anti-religion tirade.

GL did not make these films for any other reason than to tell a story he wanted to tell with the aim of creating a modernized construct of the ever constant heroic myth in human culture. In so doing, he has borrowed heavily from the simplistic moralities you are ridiculing and is indeed greatly indebted to religion for the most mythic aspect of Star Wars.

And while his intent was not that any religion in particular evangelize their beliefs with reference to Star Wars, he made it very very possible and wanted it to be a vehicle for young people to think about the existence of God.

The real silliness of that particular link, and considering the name of the website there I can assure you it was written after copious amounts of ganja were smoked, is the idea that GL telepathically "received" the story. Not the simple fact that they are using Star Wars as a springboard for communicating an understanding of God and religion.

Asking why is it always about God or Satan on such sites is like asking why in Star Wars it's always a question of staying with the will of the Force or being tempted by the dark side.

 

Yes, always an intellectual opening.

Did I hurt your feelings? I wasn't "going on an anti-religion tirade". I was saying a few choice words about the kind of things that lie at the base of religious belief.

He borrowed signs and signifiers from all manner of cultures and belief systems; not from "simplistic moralities" per se. I'm just as entitled to be critical of religion in this context as someone else is of, say, fascism, or corporate greed, or a-million-and-one other things that, in their own ways, big and small, inspired Lucas and found their way, in some shape or form, into his art. But I guess there's always some toadie willing to be indignant about any criticism of religion that comes down the pike (I see in your profile you say you're a Muslim; so let's not pretend you don't have a dog in this fight).

Perhaps the biggest tragedy of history is the way the concepts of the numinous, the transcendent and the divine -- and morality itself -- have been hijacked and debased by religion. That which can be believed without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

So, believing in a superintending cosmological being, who is apparently omniscient and omnipotent (paradox), cares about what you do and knows about what you do before you've even done it, including what you eat and which people and which holes you choose to have sexual relations with and through, and, in the case of the author, a superintending cosmological being who is also his own father who can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humanity because a woman created from a man's rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree ..... that's all perfectly sane and normal. But believing that a divine force inspired or worked through Lucas .... no, that means the author was on drugs/hallucinating?

And that person is manifestly not using Star Wars as a springboard for "communicating an understanding of God and religion". That's, in part -- and as you yourself have peripherally acknowledged -- what Star Wars itself is for. They've simply jumped on Star Wars and chosen to use it much the same way members of the Westboro Baptist Church jump on funerals to stir up fear and hatred; which, in their minds, is no doubt every bit as justified as the author of that article (they are, after all, pontificating on exactly the same subject matter). If that author had any intelligence or discernment whatsoever, they'd realize that Star Wars is bigger than any one religion or belief system; and using it to bolster slavish devotion to Bronze Age myths is an egregious abuse of the art (and, for that matter, an abuse and (unconsciously ironic) repudiation of the Internet and modern communications technology; and all the steps it took to get us here). Perhaps

 

Well, at least you're admitting that the 'problem' is only with the 'Abrahamic' religions. Most from the 'secular' side play the game of being equally 'objective' towards 'all' religions (or they pull the Sam Harris classic, "Abrahamic religion X adherents are 'atheists' too*, but I happen to believe in ONE LESS god than they do" fallacy....).

*because they don't believe in Thor, Zeus, etc.

 

Tribalism/parochialism is an enlarged problem in the Abrahamic sects. The clue is in the name: Abraham. A patriarchal figure revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims for his unbending faith in his "god" (he was so devoted that he was willing to murder his son by building a pyre and slitting his throat; and he almost did until an angel/voice-in-his-head told him he should stop). In the Pentateuch, it is inscribed that a particular god, claiming to be the mightiest of all gods (there were many others back then), promised land to a particular tribe, but they had to genocide a lot of other tribes along the way (as well as raping the (young, virginal) women and pillaging the various unfortunate tribes' lands and property); indeed, they were commanded to, by this "god"-being and his proxies (e.g., Moses); and any that refused were to be executed. All religions are pretty much the same, however, deep down. How could they not be? Despite their faults and blindspots, people like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have written and said many eloquent things about the fallacies of religion and religious dogma; especially those of the major sects arising from (and still fighting each other today inside and outside of) the Middle East.