Saga Star Wars, Lucas and TMIS

Well...sort of. But, of course, stories make an impression on us because of the 'truths' we find in them, don't they? In fact, a few posts ago you said;

"You don't have to be a person of faith to enjoy the films. I'm not a religious person, but I believe that there are things beyond our own understanding. That there is a possibility that there is a mystical field that does control our destiny, even when we like to believe that there isn't. That is is possible that what we define as free will is only a limited concept and that it might be a bit illusionary. I can't say with 100% certainty, but that's what life is. Certainty and uncertainty."


Given that....those of us who don't see the possibility of a mystical energy field controlling our actions will, on the whole, blanche from such an idea. I have to say I'm with Han on this... and that one line that appears to those who wish to embrace this notion; "Partially" - is rapidly followed by "but it also obeys your commands". "Partially" is almost flippant. Do you know why? Because what Lucas used to say about the original Star Wars movies was that they were about choice. About the choices that people make and how important they are.

Not the way I see it and the way I always saw it. He says this right after after Obi-Wan has just basically dismissed the idea that the Force controls your actions, but that it will also obey your commands - in other words...its not about a mystical energy field that controls your destiny, but about the choices you make that affect that energy field. It is the other way around.

Your second line doesn't match up with the first. If there is no correct or incorrect answer then there couldn't be an only one who can, as opposed to who does.

And. let's be clear about this...not only does this conception not tie in with what we were shown in the OT it outright contradicts some important conceptual propositions of the OT

For example. That the future is always in motion (absolutely an imperative if one's choices are to make a difference...because one's choices are what make that future). That the Darkside is not stronger, only faster, easier, more seductive. Yet here we have a future which is foreseen and/or a Darkside that is more powerful.

These are both powerful and important aspects of the story the OT told.

You accept that Vader is Vader because of the path he chose, yes? Then...how is Luke following his path? You knew that was my point....so you appear to be disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing on this point. The real point being, of course,that Luke's choices are nothing to do with faith in his father....

It has (had) nothing to do with faith in his father, it is about him understanding that his real enemy, the real Vader, is not 'out there'. That's the lesson he was supposed to learn from the cave on Dagobah. Imposing the prophecy story-line over those scenes blurs that...as you point out here with the idea that it is faith in his father (the chosen one...that did not exist in the OT) which has been my point - that the ideas introduced in the PT (because that is what they are, they are not in the OT) alters the whole context of the story. It is altered from being a story about choices, and how they affect and alter the future (agency) and becomes, instead about faith...in some notionally conscious mystical energy filed that controls our destiny.

And let us return to that. This is absolutely fundamental to the idea of agency, of the importance of choice. You have been, as I have said, dancing around this but letting slip throughout the difference this makes.

"That there is a possibility that there is a mystical field that does control our destiny....That is is possible that what we define as free will is only a limited concept and that it might be a bit illusionary. I can't say with 100% certainty, but that's what life is."


Controls our destiny is not compatible with our choices defining the future - these are two distinct propositions, especially when you add that what we define as free will is only a limited concept, and might (actually) be a bit illusionary......

But, despite what you argued at the beginning of this post.....it seems that you link this with what life is (ie the real world).

I see a lot of dancing here. An awful lot.

More dancing. Its not about his choices. You have said that everything happens for a reason, that reason being the Force. You have said that there may be (and this is what the prophecy story-line is actually all about, as you have said) a cosmic energy field that "controls our destinies", that free will may be illusionary.....so how can it be about his choices. How can he make choices if his free will is "limited" "illusionary" and his destiny is controlled? You are constantly contradicting yourself.

As for why he would have to better the position of the Republic and the Jedi... I was talking about how following the prophecy (training Anakin in the first place, putting faith in him such that he became a Jedi Knight despite his clear inability to act like a Jedi) actually aids Palpatine's rise to power. Not only does Anakin not destroy the Sith at the first time of asking, his actions actually empower the Sith. Anakin is an important part of Palpatine gaining power. He stops Mace from destroying him, he murders the witnesses who could undermine him, he gets Dooku out of the way, he leads the attack on the Jedi temple and for some twenty years afterwards he helps to impose the will of the Emperor upon the galaxy.

It doesn't matter whether Anakin knows he is the chosen one, it is what the Jedi know. It is, after all, their choice that matters here, their choice to train him and to continually turn a blind eye to his obvious failings because of their faith in him as the chosen one. But of course, I am talking here about a galaxy where characters make choices that matter, not a galaxy where everyone's destiny is controlled by a mystical energy filed; where their 'choices' are illusionary and limited.....

First...this contradicts (as I have already alluded to) two important messages from the OT. Firstly that the future is always in motion. secondly that the darkside is not more powerful. It also contradicts what Lucas said in the commentary regarding Mace Windu. He says that we see Mace defeating Palpatine....that he only feigns weakness at the end in order to get Anakin to act.

And you say here "Not the Force saying, this is what will happen"...but earlier you argued that the story is telling us that "there is a possibility that there is a mystical field that does control our destiny, even when we like to believe that there isn't.!" so how can it be telling that story if.....if it isn't the 'mystical energy field' controlling destiny? How can the tale be telling that story if it is not telling that story?

Dance then, wherever you may be......

See above.

Misinformed or misinterpreted is the same as incorrect.....and the idea that we should "not get ticked off because" is absolutely telling people they were wrong...and condescendingly telling them to 'hush...don't get upset because you were wrong all along'.....

...which you have failed entirely to show...except on the basis of some ideas that were in the drafts - that were removed from the original films and introduced by Lucas at a later date. They are not in the movies.

I have shown what Lucas had to say about the 'religious' elements in the movies close to the time (Yoda as Zen Master....). Jediism, which you think highlights the nature of those religious aspects, is a belief system that rejects a deity, doctrine and a 'holy man' as progenitor...seems like they got it "wrong" as well.

I'll ask you again, why not come clean and tell us what you think - which is actually all that you are arguing - rather than hiding behind a wall of Lucas quotes as if you have some inviolate 'truth' of the nature of the stories.

 

Lewis was selling his religion outright. All Lucas has ever said was that he wanted to build a universe and one of the questions he had was what did the characters believe in. Maybe he could get them to at least question if God exists, but he doesn't expect the audience to actually do so. Nor to put stock in one religion over another. He was looking for themes common in mythology, which included religions and prophecies and applied it to the storyline. But when you read what he was saying to Moyers, he wasn't saying, "Believe or burn!"

You can go the whole time without knowing it is there, as you have. Or even caring. But just don't be so upset that it is there and people discuss it. When you say, "Then why include it?" or "Was it necessary?", then all you're doing is just letting personal bias get in the way. It was necessary to the story he wanted to tell.

And as I've been saying, choice still matters in light of the PT. The Force didn't force Anakin to make his choices. He made them in spite of them, for good and evil.

And that is still true since everyone's choices in the PT results in the Force going out of balance.

Anakin is the one who can because he has the potential to be stronger than any Jedi or Sith. This was established with the Midichlorian test and then what Palpatine says.

OBI-WAN: "Strange. The transmission seems to be in good order, but the reading's off the chart... over twenty thousand."

QUI-GON: "That's it then."

OBI-WAN: "Even Master Yoda doesn't have a Midichlorian count that high!"

QUI-GON: "No Jedi has."


DARTH SlDIOUS: "You will not stop me. Darth Vader will become more powerful than either of us."

This puts him ahead of the curve and when you factor in that Palpatine was so powerful, what you have is someone who can defeat Palpatine because of his own innate potential. And he winds up being the only one who can despite his injuries, since Palpatine trusts him and cannot sense the conflict within him when the time comes.

Uh, in TESB, Luke foresees Han and Leia in pain. That happens. Han is tortured and it is unclear if Leia's pain is physical or emotional. What is clear is that Luke saw it happen. The only thing that he does not see is if they will die or not. As to the dark side, we have to remember that the Sith seek the dark side because it comes to them much faster than it does for a Jedi. Luke feels stronger when he's using his anger and hate, than he does when he doesn't use it. But as we saw the Jedi can fight the Sith, though it takes time for them to become strong enough to do so.

We're also seeing different philosophies. The Sith use the Force to conquer and rule, while the Jedi use it defensively and to gain knowledge of the cosmos. Yoda even says that the Jedi way is ultimately more powerful than the Sith.

YODA: " . . . to become one with the Force, and influence still have . . . A power greater than all, it is."

The dark side does grow strong because of the Force being out of balance and because the Jedi failed to continue to grow stronger and wiser, which leaves them diminished.

Anakin was a Jedi because he chose to be one. Just as he chooses to be Vader. Luke follows his father's path which is to become a Jedi and rejects his father's other path which was to become a Sith. That isn't arguing for the sake of it. Anakin did become a Jedi, just as he became a Sith. Luke follows his father's path to become a Jedi. Luke's faith in his father is that he won't kill him and that he can become a Jedi again.

1. I never said that Luke's faith in his father is because he is the Chosen One. His faith in his father is that he can stop being evil and become good again, because he felt the capacity for good within him on Cloud City. And now he is feeling it again, as Anakin struggles against the dark side within him.

2. You're misunderstanding me. When I say that is what life is, I'm talking about the notion of uncertainty about our existence and our purpose. We don't know everything there is to know. That there is a possibility that what we think is correct, might actually be wrong. Or at the very least, misinterpreted. We might have total free will, but then again we might have the illusion of free will. We don't know. As we are as human beings, we don't know. We're not at the capacity to know and possibly understand. People who say that they know one way or another, are really only making a guess that they know. Putting stock in that because of whatever reason, be it religious faith or being a more practical minded person. That is why I say that I am not 100% certain that I'm right, no more than you are 100% right either. In the Saga, the Jedi believe that there is more to the universe than they can possibly imagine. The stuff on Mortis and the Force planet support that notion. The belief is supported by knowledge and evidence that gives them the capacity to say stuff like, "The will of the Force".

I'm not dancing. The Force presents the destiny, but it is still and always has been up to the person to choose it. Han doesn't believe that the things in his life were more than just random luck and chance. He doesn't see that certain things happened that put him on his path, but it doesn't force him on that path. Han could easily say no to Obi-wan's offer, because he thinks he is full of crap. Or that Greedo could have shot him before he could pull his blaster on him. Or that Han could have made the jump to light speed and be on Tatooine in time for corn flakes.

And as I've said about Yoda and Obi-wan, they believe that their survival was for a reason besides skill and luck. They don't know what until they learn of the children and decide that this is the path to take.

If Anakin wasn't involved, other events would happen that would still allow Palpatine to become Emperor. He didn't need Anakin, but he wasn't going to pass up the opportunity for someone else to be his Apprentice. And when I say other events, Palpatine would have executed his plans without his involvement and had different scenarios set up that didn't include him.

You're confusing my beliefs about the real world for the Saga.

We see Mace beating him in a Lightsaber duel, but the fight wasn't over. When he hits the floor, that's when Anakin walks in. The fight isn't over and Palpatine changes gears. If Anakin had stayed behind, do you really think that the fight would have ended right there?

Let's see, Luke sees his friends in pain and they wind up in pain. Luke doesn't see if they die as a result of what Vader is doing to them, and as we know, they don't die. Anakin sees Padme die in childbirth, but he doesn't see that he caused it. Nor that his children will be hidden by Obi-wan. Palpatine says that he has foreseen their destruction at the hands of Luke. Vader says that he has foreseen this. Luke doesn't destroy the Sith himself, but he does cause the rift that results in it. Anakin saw Padme leading an army and she does on Naboo. Anakin saw himself as a Jedi coming back to Tatooine to free slaves, but then sees his mother disappear when he goes to her. Anakin returns to Tatooine to check on his mother, who was freed and later kidnapped and tortured to death. Ahsoka sees Aurra Sing shoot and hit Padme. This happens, but Padme doesn't die and is instead wounded. Ezra sees himself going on a mission that leads him to meet Senator Trayvis, who knew his parents and the vision ends right then. But he doesn't see that Trayvis is a Imperial double agent who has set them up. Yoda sees the deaths of the Jedi in the Dagobah cave, though how it happens differs.

All these visions come true in some form or fashion. Anakin destroying Palpatine was seen. How he got there wasn't. What he does isn't seen. The same with Luke's friends, or what happened with Ahsoka and Ezra. Each vision is a warning of what will happen, many of which are based on the actions of the present day events.

 

Unfortunately, Han is canonically, unequivocally wrong. Since he is a resident of a fictional universe, his dialogue should be taken to refer to the characteristics of that universe as opposed to our own. It is safe to say that he is not offering an opinion on the universe in which the audience lives, given that he presumably does not know that he is a fictional character.

No. Those are entirely separate issues. Anakin is the "chosen one" regardless of how he was created.

 

You keep saying this as if it is something you have shown....which you haven't. What Lucas said to Moyers was said some...20 years after the event. What Lucas says closer to the time is that Yoda is a Zen Master. This might be something of a 'whacky' idea but....might Lucas have changed his mind in the intervening years?

"The story he wanted to tell" that you reference here is the story that he decided he would tell when he created the PT, and that doesn't, by any means, say anything about what story the original movies told. There is no mention of the Sith in the OT, and consequently no mention of a generations long conflict between those later imagined and introduced Sith and the Jedi. There is no balance that is required to be brought back to the Force, and thus no prophecy of a 'chosen one' who will ultimately do so.

Those story elements were, indeed, introduced into the story by Lucas because he felt they were 'necessary' for the story he decided then to tell... in the PT.

You have said many things...not all of which are necessarily cogent with each other...which is why I ask you to explain one thing you say in terms of another thing you say. What you have done here is actually to not address anything that I have said that you appear to be responding to. But...never mind I'll address what little you have given me to work with.

How can choice be important if actually the story is about (as you have claimed) the idea that we may, indeed, be controlled by a mystical energy filed and that what we perceive as free will (the ability to make choices) is limited (presumably by the conscious guiding hand of this mystical energy field) and may be illusionary? Let's highlight what else you have said about that (and see that in terms of your idea of illusionary, limited free will) - that everything that has happened has happened for a reason...and that reason is the Force; so that it is faith in the Force (that it can sort itself out) that is the answer.

How can agency be an important part of a story in which the purpose is to question the very notion of agency?

So...just to get this straight - he is the only one who can because of his potential power. Am I right so far, yes? So that it is power that makes him the 'chosen one' who can, yes? But...it isn't his power that overcomes Palpatine - so the idea that he is the 'chosen one' on the basis of his power is actually incorrect. So...he isn't the chosen one because he can (in terms of power)..it turns out he's the chosen one because he does, despite not being more powerful (thus rendering the reasoning for his 'only one who can' as being without merit.)

So, the concentration and faith in Anakin as being the 'one who can' because of his power is a misplaced faith. Which is what I have said...that the Jedi faith in the prophecy (and what they understood of it) is entirely misplaced, and is what brings about the 'dark times'.

First of all...its not clear whether Luke is foreseeing Han and Leia being in pain or whether he is reacting to it as it happens (as with Anakin and Schmi)...and yes, Luke can't foresee whether they will die or not...and Yoda tells him why. Because the future is always in motion. I'm somewhat at a loss to understand why you bring up a scene that explicates that the Jedi cannot see the future because it is always in motion in order to try and show that the Jedi can see the future.....?!

Yes...but then, there's something about what makes the Jedi use of the Force stronger...isn't there? But, perhaps that is somewhat lost in the translation from OT to PT?

Well...no Yoda doesn't say that. Not in the movies anyway.

Except...in the OT there is no notion that darkside of the Force has 'grown stronger' except in the sense that the Jedi have been wiped out and those who use the darkside are in control of a totalitarian military Empire. There is no imbalance that needs to be corrected by some notional 'chosen one'

This is just silly. Luke makes his own choices about what he will do. It has nothing to do with his father. That is what he comes to understand. It isn't about faith that his father might change his mind, it isn't about being powerful enough to save the galaxy (which he has to accept he can't do), it's about what he will do right then, what he is willing to do. It is about humility, compassion and self-sacrifice. He understands how 'easy, quick, seductive' the Force is and how he can as easily become Vader as his father did - it is about his own choices, what he decides to become in that moment.

And the choice he makes is to reject the path he sees that his father has taken.

What Luke learns, after he has tried to cut dear old daddy in half, is that Vader is not evil 'out there' but inside him. He understands he can become Vader. That there isn't a 'good person' or a 'bad person', only good choices and bad choices. he understands then that he is being goaded into hatred and anger actually by his impotence. He can't actually save his friends, and that if he cuts down Vader he is acting purely to sate his own anger...and anger that in effect is at his own impotence, his inability to change the situation. It would be revenge, nothing more.

And...he can't make other people make good choices, he can only make his own. His epiphany, his understanding of what it is to be a Jedi is in recognising all of that. He is responsible for his own choices. That is it.

As I said, we tend to attach to stories because of a 'truth' we find in them. I, and many others, saw certain 'truths' in the OT, and thus found ourselves attached to the stories it told us. And the 'truths' we were attached to (or at least from my own perspective, and I would suggest the originators of Jediism, for example) do not match these concepts that you claim were 'always there'. Yet you insist on telling me (and others) that they were (without ever establishing that, btw) and that whatever we took from those movies was "not correct".

To move on, whether I might question how 'free' my 'will' is I find nothing...and I mean nothing, that would ever lead me to question whether my life is guided by a 'super-human' like conscious deity...certainly no more than I would believe I was controlled by dwarves who live in the woods or fairy souls who live in the flowers. Those ideas are all equally ridiculous to me. And yet....here you go again contradicting yourself. You said at the beginning of this post that the stories are still about choice, but here return to the idea that the story is questioning whether we actually have choice (is our 'will' real?)

As I say, Lucas tells us that Mace is defeating Sidious...yet you have said none of the Jedi are powerful enough to do that. What Lucas says in the commentary contradicts what you have said.

Hahaha...Luke doesn't see his friends die and that cam true.....that's priceless...

And...no Anakin didn't see that his children will be hidden...and yet they were hidden...


all very mysterious, I'm sure.....

 

You do know that Zen Buddhism is a religion? And mind you, Lucas also said this...

"I tried, in my going through mythology, to distill down into certain basic ideas things that seem to exist in a great deal of mythology. Again, to try to find the themes and ideas that continue over a great amount of time and across a wide spectrum of cultures. The Force is a result of that. The Force is the way that many people view the great mysteries of “Is there other realities at work other than the one we can perceive.” I think that the Force represents life—I mean another way to describe it is “life-force.” It’s the spirit of life rather than the physical manifestation of it."

--George Lucas, Laserdisc Commentary, Star Wars Trilogy Definitive Collection, 1993

"I wanted to have this mythological footing because I was basing the films on the idea that the Force has two sides, the good side, the evil side, and they both need to be there. Most religions are built on that, whether it's called yin and yang, God and the devil—everything is built on the push-pull tension created by two sides of the equation. Right from the very beginning, that was the key issue in Star Wars."

--George Lucas, Time Magazine Article 2002.

" I don't want to get into specific terms of labeling things to make it one religion or another, but basically that's one of the foundations of the hero's journey."

--George Lucas, Feburary 2005 issue of Vanity Fair, page 117.

Religions. Plural. He wasn't just basing it all on the Christian faith, anymore than he was on Taoism and Zen Buddhism. It was a mixture of all.

These elements were part of the story. He cut them because he didn't think he could make a whole bunch of films, but he also had planned to deal with these elements if he was able to do so. That's why it went from one film to three films to twelve. That's why according to Lucas and Kurtz that they had fought with the studio over including, "Episode IV" into the title of the film. Anything that he didn't get to with ANH, would have eventually made it into one of the other films.

Because we have the capacity to choose to act or to not act. The point is that many paths are laid out for you, but you still have the ability to choose to follow that path or forge a different one. Though in forging a different, if it is for selfish reasons, it can bring about great suffering to you.

If Anakin had not turn to the dark side, then his power would have been sufficient that when the time came, he could beat Palpatine in battle. But he chooses to join him instead and winds up having his power diminished thanks to Obi-wan. But he is still the Chosen One despite that, because even though he does not beat him in battle, he does manage to kill him and takes the Sith with him when he dies himself. That's why I said that how he destroys the Sith doesn't matter, but that he chooses to do so.

The dark times comes because Mace puts his faith in Anakin, but not because he is the Chosen One but because he is the only one there who can help him to stop Palpatine. But their faith wasn't entirely misplaced. They just failed to take into account that he would fall to the dark side. That he would choose to be selfish instead of selfless. Note that Yoda and Obi-wan place their faith in Luke, who almost becomes evil himself. Would you say that was misplaced?

Luke sees them suffering before the Falcon lands on Cloud City.

LUKE: "I saw...I saw a city in the clouds."

YODA: "Mmm. Friends you have there."

LUKE: "They were in pain."

YODA: "It is the future you see."

The point is that the Jedi can see the future, but not all the details. The future was seen with regards to Anakin, but not the details surrounding his actions. This final act is what served as the basis for the prophecy. The Jedi question it later on after the Sith were thought destroyed until it is proven that they are back. But then the question of whether it is true or not, remains in question.

It still counts.

And your point is?

The path to the dark side, yes. But his father also took the path of the Jedi first. Why do you ignore that he was a Jedi? Luke's faith in his father is part of it, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

I never said that it wasn't. But Luke still has faith in his father, which is why he is begging for his help as he's dying. If he didn't have faith in his father, he wouldn't have done so.

You're again conflating my own speculation with the story. I was talking about you and I, when I talked about free will. This is different from Han who doesn't realize how the Force can guide one on their path, but that they still have to take it or not.

He said that Mace is winning, but note that the fight isn't over.

I didn't say that. I said that Luke saw his friends in pain, which came true. I never said that they died. Luke had assumed that was where their pain was leading to, but Yoda says that it is difficult to see. But if that was their fates, then he would have to accept their sacrifice for him.

Not so much mysterious as they can only see so much.

 

Which renders the prophecy superfluous.

But, as you said, it "doesn't matter" HOW he destroys the Sith, so his 'diminished' power doesn't make a difference anyway.

And, it doesn't take much to 'fulfill' that requirement, seeing as there's only two Sith in existence in the first place.

His point is that it's nonsense to project such notions onto the OT when the OT itself didn't operate under those assumptions.

 

No. It is a philosophical idea. I'm quite careful about the term 'religion' - as is the OED. But...I'll explain this in context.

Firstly, this is all said well after the event. Secondly..as I addressed in another post, this discussion is about the overtly Christian iconography that is introduced in the PT...which you have argued was always in the OT (it is that you have tried to show that a conscious deity etc. are aspects of the OT that has been at issue here). At no point has anybody made an argument that there is not a spiritual aspect to the stories - in fact I quoted Lucas about exactly that.

The OED makes clear that 'religion' is particularly in terms of Christianity, and most particularly in terms of Roman Catholicism - that is because it is from the Latin root religio. Religion is a wholly Roman term for a wholly Roman (well Graeco-Roman, which is how the Romans considered themselves anyhow by the Imperial period) conception. This is where I have a problem with the ideas of , for example, Joseph Campbell.

"I tried, in my going through mythology, to distill down into certain basic ideas things that seem to exist in a great deal of mythology. Again, to try to find the themes and ideas that continue over a great amount of time and across a wide spectrum of cultures."

This is Lucas souting Campbell and his ideas of the 'mono-myth', some Jungian conception of a shared human symbolic language... The thing about this is, it completely obliterates the very real philosophical differences between various and distinctive societies. The most obvious is the distinction between the idea of Yin-Yang and good-evil. The two conceptions are a million miles apart and yet here Lucas manages to conflate them.

In the same way that, for example, the Greek and Roman aristocracy might make claims of divine descent (from Zeus, or Hercules, or Venus...) whereas we find in Northern European (unhelpfully called 'Germanic') conceptions such as all-fader. Odin is the father of all, and so, bizarrely in some way, is Thor...as well as there being a great mother. In fact now that serious studies are being made into such as the Poetic Edda (if you have ever read them they are incredibly obscure and ....disjointed, almost nonsensical) it appears that the stories are somewhat like koans, so that the idea that the Northern Europeans worshiped the Aesir in the same manner that the Romans worshiped their deities is seemingly very far from the mark.

Hence my care about using the term 'religion'.

Anyway, I have digressed once more. Suffice it to say that Lucas seems to always contend that what he has in his mind now has always been how he thought, but that he has been shown to be.....perhaps not the best judge of what he maybe thinks he has always thought.

First. They weren't in the movies. They are not in the movies. And, much as you might like to believe that Lucas always had a 'plan' in mind about what he was going to re-introduce from the drafts...that isn't what he actually talked about at the time regarding the other movies he was going to make. In fact he talked about showing the battle between Obi-Wan and Vader after Luke's father has been killed at one point. They were dropped from the OT because it wasn't possible to make a cogent story from all of the many and disparate elements that are in the drafts. You are putting two and two together and reaching five as the answer.

As I have said before, is Han Solo, then, really a reptile in disguise as a human? He must be by your reckoning because he is in at least one of the drafts. It is in the drafts and so must be an aspect of the story and..."Anything that he didn't get to with ANH, would have eventually made it into one of the other films"

You simply aren't addressing the question. "Because we have the capacity to chose to act or not" is not an answer to the question how that can be if the story is about questioning the basis of agency. But..even your idea of what is agency (that the characters are lead to their 'choice' and then have an option then) is like a series of multiple choice questions...and seemingly you get to go again if you messed up last time. This is not the same thing as agency - that you describe that everything that has happened has happened for a reason and that the reason is the Force is exactly the problem, the distinction That is not a description of agency, it is a description of predetermination, predestination. With agency the reason everything has happened is because...people made choices which resulted in the events that have happened.

You are still dancing around these ideas...

This, though, is just conjecture. We don't know that Anakin would be able to defeat Sidious. In fact...he gets his powers diminished ....thanks to, well, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Hardly the greatest endorsement that he would be capable of taking down Sidious.

So, it isn't (as I said) that he is the 'only one who can' vis-a-vis the conception of his importance in terms of the prophecy, but simply becomes the one who does which has nothing to do with the signs and portents of his supposed special-ness in the prophecy...and in fact is simply his reaction to his son showing him what he ought to have learned himself as a Jedi many years before. So, it appears that everything the Jedi put their faith in him for (that he would destroy the Sith, that he was the only one powerful enough to do so) are entirely incorrect.

Yes, my memory did not serve me very well (I cannot see the past, let alone the future very clearly..)

But, you seem to offer up a pretty complete picture of what Anakin is, of how he is the 'Chosen One'. You say that it is because he is the only one who can because he is the only one who is powerful enough (despite that this plays no part in the Emperor's downfall)..so if it was foreseen (as you argue here) without details then....the Jedi's faith in Anakin destroying the Sith because of his power is a misplaced faith. If what you are implying here (that they didn't know how it was foreseen...ie that what occurred was what was foreseen, but only partially) then the reasons they have for having faith in the 'chosen one' are entirely misplaced...because what was foreseen was the result of his falling to the darkisde and empowering Sidious...and the Jedi's faith in the Chosen One essentially brings that about.... Not to mention, of course, that we have then, again a causal loop paradox as with Anakin's own visions. They seem to be a bit of a blight on the Jedi....

How so? How can it 'count' in explicating what the movies show us?

Really? Perhaps my memory sometimes fails me but...you don't remember what this discussion is about? You have been claiming all these aspects of the saga were in the OT...

Hmmm...that's unusual though, isn't it, when the reason you suggested Mace can't defeat him is he is not powerful enough. And no, the duel is not over because....Anakin enters the room...and stops Mace from winning.

Maybe I misunderstood, then, what you were saying. You said;

"Let's see, Luke sees his friends in pain and they wind up in pain. Luke doesn't see if they die as a result of what Vader is doing to them, and as we know, they don't die"


I thought that you were suggesting that...his not seeing them dying was confirmation that he - in some way - foresaw that they didn't die....

 

There's nothing specifically Christian about it.

 

http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/161944

 

First off, when I said that religion was always there, I'm referring to what Lucas said about the fact that he wanted to create a religion in "Star Wars" and that was always there. It was there in each draft of ANH. And though technically it is not considered a religion, it is often conflated as one. Mainly because various temples that teach Buddha-Way view Buddha as transcendent being that is to be prayed to and to have faith in, this according to Ryoun Yamada, the abbot of the Sanbô-Kyôdan. Lucas himself most likely follows the temple belief more than what Yamada's school teaches. And yes, Lucas did combine the ideas. That was his intention. He wasn't interested in the separate philosophical notions, but the basic ideas of human expression regarding the concepts. The closest that he actually does is how the Jedi and Sith view the Force and how it should be used.

And yet you still miss the point. He talked about being able to tell the backstory, like he eventually did and in doing so, he could revisit ideas that he didn't have room for. Which he did. Not just in the PT, but in the OT. You know like the asteroid field sequence which was in the first draft of ANH, and served as the basis for the one in TESB. Yes, both versions are different, but the same core concept remained the same; our heroes flee from their sanctuary and are pursued by the Empire into an asteroid field. The same way that the first draft ANH had the Wookiee battle which he had altered to feature Ewoks in ROTJ and that he had a city in the clouds that the Empire called home and later became a place where Lando lived at and the Empire took over. But then, what do I know. Since he's had a habit of doing that before he did the PT.

Or it can be both? That certain things happen for a reason, but other choices can be made or not.

One, we know because Lucas has said that was the case. Two, he loses to Obi-wan because he lacks the discipline to fight him since he lets the dark side control him, not that he controls it. An Anakin Skywalker who has rejected the dark side would be strong enough emotionally to fight Sidious. Obi-wan himself was just as reckless against Maul, but once he rejected the dark side and gained control, then he was capable of fighting without losing control.

Their faith in Anakin was sound since they put their hopes in one man to save them, just as they do with Luke who was in the same boat as his father. Both had attachments that could drive them to the dark side, but one fell and the other didn't. Though their faith in Luke could equally be as misplaced as we saw in TESB and how dangerously close Luke came to falling himself, in ROTJ. That is what faith comes down to. Putting their trust and hope in something or someone, to do what needs to be done.

One because it is still part of the canon lore and two, we know that there was more that the Jedi didn't know. Otherwise, there would be a ****load of Force ghosts in the films. Obi-wan wouldn't be surprised about communicating with Qui-gon. Vader wouldn't be stomping Obi-wan's robes when he vanishes and Palpatine outright said that the unlike the Jedi, the Sith have set out to learn all that there is about the Force. Then adding in the events of "Voices", "Destiny" and "Sacrifice" where Yoda has to admit that he didn't know everything and there you go.

Certain aspects were. Others were not. Something that I've said. I've also said that Lucas added new information as he went along to tie the films together.

The duel isn't over whether Anakin came in there or not.

 

I confess, every time I see this thread title, I think it stands for "Star Wars, Lucas, and Too Much Information."

 

Exactly.

If Anakin doesn't come at all then what happens?

Sidious hits the lighting and pulls out his other Lightsaber.

Bye-bye Mace!

 

Fixed by Metallica.

Thank goodness THAT didn't happen, right?

 

What Lucas said about wanting to create a religion was said many years after the event. Let us take the discussion back to its root. The argument made was that a conscious, willful deistic Force was a conception introduced into the movies by the PT. The counter-argument was made that...no, it was always there...you just didn't see it. The evidence for that latter position is ...a couple of throw-away lines that the characters themselves generally dismiss, quotes from Lucas well after the fact and ideas that are in the drafts.

Lucas' intentions at the time cannot be extrapolated from later interviews. People change, their ideas change and Lucas has a habit of referring to what he thinks now as always having been how he thought...when it can be shown often enough to have been otherwise.

For instance, though he says in later interviews that it was 'always his intention' to address 'religion' in the movies, what he tells us in an interview closer to the time is that Lawrence Kasdan spoke to him and said he wanted to introduce some Zen Buddhism into the story. The intention here was the screen-writer's (Kasdan), not Lucas'. Lucas agreed to it, but it wasn't his intention.

I, along with many others, including those who started up Jediism, see in the movies a non-theistic, non-doctrinal philosophical view expressed by the Jedi...the Force as an interconnecting and interconnected pantheistic matrix of being - and what Lucas tells us at the time ties in with that. To understand the OT, particularly the philosophical/'religious' content it is helpful (and entirely consistent with) to understand Zen Buddhist ideas. For instance, in terms of the cave on Dagobah and the throne room it is helpful to understand what Facing the Dragon in the Cave means...

As for what the drafts can tell us....

I don't miss the point, you are arguing an idea that makes no sense. The story the OT told was based on some ideas distilled out from the drafts (plural). The drafts do not make a single cogent story, characters move about and change form and purpose for example. Your argument rests upon the idea that..if it is in the draft then it is in the movies, which can be shown to be ridiculous. As I have already pointed out this would require that Han be a reptile. It would also require that Obi-Wan be a cyborg, and that Vader is both Luke's father and...at the same time is not his father.

Your argument is based on the idea that if an idea exists in the drafts then it exists in the movies, which is clearly preposterous and easily identified as being so. You base this on the notion that twenty years later Lucas decided to re-visit some of those ideas as the basis of a story he decided then to tell. All that the drafts could be a guide to is what movies could have been made if things had happened differently.

How could it be both? Does it matter , perhaps, as to whether the Force thinks it important enough? What really matters is that it introduces an aspect that isn't in the OT, it alters the story. What occurs in the OT occurs because of the choice that characters make. Full stop. There is no question raised about whether that is the case - and so the story is about the responsibility of choice...what you choose to do, how you choose to act is important in terms of what will come to be.

But this question, anyway, doesn't match up with what you have said on the matter...because you have said that "Everything that has happened has happened for a reason...." and that reason is what the Jedi ought to have faith in....the Force. Everything ...not some things might have been put in place by a greater consciousness..but some other things might not have.

And...if it (the prophecy, the 'Chosen One' storyline) doesn't alter the story then...what was the point of it? It becomes irrelevant to the story...but you argue that it is absolutely relevant, that it is what the story is all about (the Jedi faith in the prophecy, and how that was "sound")

That is why I refer to this as dancing. You try to claim both that it doesn't make a difference to agency (and swap from "everything" to possibly just "some" things being destined) but then argue that the whole story relies upon the Jedi's faith in the destined nature of Anakin (the prophecy). They are two entirely distinct propositions.

These two are replies are intrinsically linked with each other, so I will address them both. How can their faith in Anakin in the PT have been "sound" if what you have argued is true? Let me be clear about what you have argued. That the prophecy is a foreseeing of events as they actually do occur, but only partially...so that the Jedi (and the original prophet) do not know that how events come about (because of the choices that the characters are foreseen to make, though only some of how that comes to be). Their faith in Anakin is based upon the portents of his discovery (that he appears to be a "convergence", that he is gifted with an unusually high midiclorian count) - ie that he will be the only one who can because he will be the only one powerful enough to defeat the Sith. But...that isn't how it occurs, nor is it how it was, actually, foreseen to occur.

So...Lucas' view that he could have become powerful enough to destroy the Sith is unimportant because what was prophecised is what will come to be - ie in what was prophecised (the events that come to be through the choices of the characters) Anakin was going to fall to the darkside and eventually choose to destroy Palpatine when Luke reminds him of what it is to be a Jedi. In other words, the prophecy you think it is sound for the Jedi to have faith in (and that Lucas, oddly, seemingly argues for) that Anakin is the only one who can because he is the only one powerful enough to defeat doesn't come to be. So, by Lucas' own construction (that the prophecy is about Anakin being the only one who can because he is powerful enough to defeat the Sith) the prophecy doesn't come true.

But Anakin does destroy the Sith, and Lucas says the prophecy was true so...he must mean the prophecy as you have explained it. But in that prophecy it isn't that Anakin is the only one who can by means of being the only one powerful enough to take on Palpatine, it comes to pass (as foreseen) that he is the one who does, which has nothing to do with the portents of the 'Chosen One' that the Jedi put their faith in in the PT.

In fact what we have here is the same situation as Anakin is faced with when he has his vision of Padmé dying. He has an incomplete picture and tries to bring about a different outcome. There we have a causal loop paradox, because Anakin only brings about what comes to be because he acts on his incomplete knowledge of how it comes to be...and here with the prophecy we have the same problem. The Jedi seek to act on the prophecy only because of the prophecy and without understanding what will bring that about.

So, just as Anakin, acting upon his vision, brings about his own downfall, so the Jedi, in acting on another incomplete vision, bring about theirs (and the galaxy's)

We are discussing the movies...and actually the idea of the imposition of ideas onto earlier iterations. Given that is the nature of the discussion I don't see that 'canon' has any bearing upon it.

We never see Obi-Wan communicating with Qui-Gon in the OT.....Qui-Gon is not a character in the OT. Why would there be a ****load of ghosts? How many Jedi has Luke met? You'll note that only Luke sees these ghosts and he only sees ghosts of individuals he encounters (they live on in him). There are perfectly reasonable IU explanations without requiring a new power.

All the rest.....projections from later iterations, not required within the context of the OT to explain anything.

No it isn't...and any ending other than what occurred is only conjectural. What we see is Mace defeating Palpatine (which he oughtn't be able to do, as he oughtn't be powerful enough...) and that...Anakin helps to defeat him. That is what occurs.

 

No, they don't. Fans dismiss them, but fans are not characters. No one dismisses Obi-Wan's Tatooine line, for example, as no one is in a position to do so. ( Well, no one actually in the film, at any rate. ) And I wonder: did anyone dismiss that line in 1977? Or at any time during the OT era? I don't recall the wholesale throwing out of dialogue being common practice back in those days. It's almost as if it's a desperate ex post facto strategy cooked up only recently as a misguided attempt to discredit the PT.

We only see Mace winning a lightsaber battle. But is that the same thing as "defeating" someone?

Incorrect. You ignore Vader on the Death Star, of course.

You only show your own attempts at logic to be ridiculous. The argument would apply to things in earlier drafts which are consistent with the films, not to things made impossible by the films.

"You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion."

Was that also said some 20 years after the event?

Where is that established in the films? It appears that you're relying on... what was the phrase again?

"Quotes from Lucas well after the fact".

 

I understand it perfectly. But then you keep forgetting that religion was in those first three drafts of ANH and in the final film, three characters call it religion. The fact is that you're trying to come up with explanations for why they are there, by saying throw away lines or that they weren't meant to be taken seriously and using that to defend your position. Then saying stuff like, "Oh, well Han was an alien and I suppose that makes him one in the films." No, it just makes it look like you cannot come up with a genuine reason for why ANH referred to the Jedi as a religion and that Lucas had started it out as a religion. Because maybe this time, he was telling the truth consistently.

As to Kasdan, that doesn't change anything. Zen Buddism is often viewed as a religion and Lucas liked what he was told and added that to the story. That's why he said that he didn't want to label the Force as one particular religion over another.

Except that Arawn made an excellent point before I could.

In other words, if an idea was continuous in each draft of ANH to the final film, then there is a consistency there. Han being an alien was not continuous, but the Force and the Jedi being a religion was. The same with the Sith. They were mentioned in three drafts, but not in the final film, but all the merchandising referred to Vader as a Dark Lord of the Sith. Sometimes, though, Lucas liked to revisit ideas and use them in the next film. This isn't the only franchise to do this. "Alien 3" originally featured a plot to introduce cloned Alien Xenomorphs. The idea was abandoned, but was revisited in "Alien Resurrection". "Superman II" originally had Superman accidentally straightening the Leaning Tower Of Pisa and then putting it back at the end of the film. It was dropped, but revisited as Evil Superman intentionally straightening the tower and then putting back once he's good again and at the end of the film.

That's not dancing. I have gave my position, but you're the type who wants to see it as absolutes. That there is no middle ground involving two ideas. I've said multiple times that the point of "Everything that happens" was in reference to surviving the Jedi Purge and what they will do that leads to the OT. As to the prophecy altering the story, it only alters that there were bigger stakes than what we known to audiences and tying things together between the PT and the OT. But it doesn't change that characters still have to make choices about their destinies.

But you're still missing it. The only event that was known was that Anakin kills Palpatine. How it happens is unknown. Let me try it again. Anakin could have balanced the Force in ROTS if he had rejected Palpatine's offer and had been willing to give up Padme. But Anakin makes a choice to do the opposite. This was unforeseen and tied into the fact that his future was clouded. Years later, he has an opportunity to save his son and in doing so, he fulfills his destiny. The future, which is that Anakin will bring balance to the Force, was both static and also changing. Meaning that he was destined to do it, but he still had to make a choice and each choice that he makes will shape the course of his destiny. The end result is the same, but the path to that result changed.

Look at Luke. The Jedi believe that he can defeat Vader and Palpatine knows that if motivated properly and with enough training, that he would become evil and kill his father. Luke had to choose which side that he wanted to be on and whether or not he would want to kill his father or not. Luke chooses the Jedi path, but he also chooses to grant mercy since he doesn't want to kill his own father. Before he makes his choice there, Luke's destiny could go either way. It was 50/50 and both sides were right and wrong about Luke.

It was always a power since it required the Jedi being able to disappear and enter the Netherrealm of the Force. The only thing that changed was Lucas went from the idea of dozens of Jedi who were in the Netherrealm of the Force, hiding from the Empire to just two Jedi. And to explain why there was only the two, Lucas went back and introduced an origin. He was, as I said, tying it together.

 

Let's put aside for the moment that only one kenobi has you on ignore , yet you insist on addressing him knowing that he won't respond to you:

Please post the (full) quote where only one kenobi supposedly 'dismisses' Obi-Wan's Tatooine line. And, while you at it, please explain how Obi-Wan's 'Tatooine line' is evidence of a conscious, willful deistic Force.

The 'ex post facto strategy' - if there really is one - would be where folks twist dialogue from the OT in order to make it comport with the PT's presuppositions.

Would anyone even be asking that question had Anakin not helped Palpatine win that battle?

One, Vader's apparent bewilderment on the Death Star in SW '77 is not evidence that the Jedi had never become Force ghosts prior to Obi-Wan and Yoda. And make no mistake: only one kenobi is responding to darth sinister, who is/was talking about Jedi becoming Force ghosts ...he is/was not talking about their ability to physically vanish at death.

Two, Obi-Wan communicating with Qui-Gon is not in the OT. Qui-Gon is not a factor in the OT. So only one kenobi is right to call those things projections from later iterations, and the fact that they are not required within the context of the OT to explain anything.

And what does 'consistent' even mean in this context, when, as only one kenobi has pointed out, "the drafts do not make a single cogent story, characters move about and change form and purpose" ??? In the same draft where the Jedi have their beginnings in a 'holy man', they also pass down their Jedi teaching/instruction to their own children. How is that scenario 'consistent' with any of the films?


And, here is the rest of only one kenobi's quote, which you didn't address (emphasis in bold):

"Your argument is based on the idea that if an idea exists in the drafts then it exists in the movies, which is clearly preposterous and easily identified as being so. You base this on the notion that twenty years later Lucas decided to re-visit some of those ideas as the basis of a story he decided then to tell. All that the drafts could be a guide to is what movies could have been made if things had happened differently."

Tarkin's line is not evidence of a Force deity.

Lucas being consistent with himself?

 

First, lets not play with words again. Nobody here has ever argued that there is no 'spiritual' aspect to Star Wars, what is being discussed is the notion of a wilful, conscious deistic aspect within that 'spirituality' and the claim that it wasn't introduced in the PT but was there all along in the OT, and those who didn't se it were "mistaken". One of the first 'evidences' you brought into the discussion for that was Jediism...which is a non-theistic conception.

Stuff like 'Oh well Han was an alien and I suppose...etc.' (not an actual quote btw) is in response to your claim that if an idea is in the drafts then it becomes a part of the films ...on the basis that it would be an idea that Lucas was almost certain to re-visit. It is there simply to show how preposterous that idea is. You don't understand that point?

And...I have already addressed that characters refer to the Jedi's 'religion' in the movies. I have pointed out that on each occasion it is said in ignorance and also as clearly a pejorative. I also asked, as an aspect of that, at what point the Jedi ever refer to their own beliefs as a religion. I don't remember any response to that.

I would prefer the term 'maybe on this occasion Lucas' memory served him well...but the next part doesn't make much sense with that. Because Lucas claimed later that it was always his intention to have 'religion' in the mobvies while an interview at the time shows that the intention was Kasdan's, not his. So......how does it not change anything? If nothing else it reveals a disjoint between his later claims and what seems actually to have been the case at the time.

And on and on. Here's how it works. When I watch a movie, or read a book, the story told is what is contained within the movie or within the book. That's it. I am not expected to know all the workings out of how that story came to be - that isn't how it works. If there is a sequel or a prequel made of said film or book and something new is introduced then it still didn't exist in the original story - it is introduced later by the succeeding story. An author may claim that the story was always intended from the start to be that way (which might be the case if a story was planned out in advance and is simply released in serialised form)..but more ofthen than not they will accept that they had a number of ideas of which way the story would unfold...the process is ongoing, the story is in the process of being told and is developing. What is not in the original story is still not in the original story.

But your 'position' that "everything that has happened has happened...etc" is only about the Jedi purge doesn't make any sense...because you have also said that Anakin is the only one who can because he will be the only one who is powerful enough...and that seems to tie in with "everything that has happened has happened for a reason..", for how else could what has happened with Anakin's fall be explained in isolation as being an aspect of that - especially when you have also argued that the prophecy may well, in fact, have been simply a foretelling of events as they have 'happened' already in the future...but in that case why would the Jedi have 'faith in the Force' (as in the prophecy) as they have had and...look where that got them. So, perhaps you mean then that the Force intervened here to give Obi-Wan and Yoda (and only them) an 'escape plan' in order to train Anakin's children....So there is a desitic, conscious Force that operates on an intermittent basis. Why would that be? Well, either it is an incompetent and/or non-omniscient protagonist...in which case, why should the Jedi have faith in that? Or..its plan is that Anakin will be the Chosen One - and that may be because everythin that has happened has happened for a reason and that is the Force (in which case the Jedi aren't given the option of faith in the Force, but rather must simply submit to it...hence the question of agency becomes important) or because of the last point in which its plan revolves around Anakin but it is non-omniscient/incompetent but will insist that Anakin will be the one...and in that case, again, why would the Jedi have 'faith' in that? That Force seems both not powerful enough to put faith in and/or uncaring enough that it will allow the Empire years of unfettered terrorism of the galaxy.

Do I demand absolutes? If by 'absolutes' you mean a narrative that makes sense...yes.

And this is why I describe what you are doing as 'dancing', because you shift your position depending upon a given argument at a given time...and cannot be consstent while doing so. You certainly seem somewhat reticent to say what you see the story, what you believe the narrative is...you instead claim that you are telling the 'narrative' that Lucas is telling. So..it is perhaps not altogether your fault that you must jump from position to position because that is exactly the point of the thread. There is no cogent narrative that matches with what Lucas (variously) claims is the story he is telling. With all the ideas that he introduces and attempts to address with the PT he leaves us with a set of obliquely linked scenarios without a cogent narrative driving events*

How am I "still missing it"? How it happens is, indeed, unknown...yet come about it does. Isn't that exactly the same as Anakin's viision of Padmé dying? What Anakin foresees is the outcome of his reaction to the vision - he brings about the outcome that was foreseen by his actions. The Jedi do likewise. How it comes about is unknown to the Jedi but...foreseen all the same. What comes to be is what was foreseen, but in both cases those acting on the visions brought about what would come to be by their actions. Again, if the Force is offering Anakin a 'multiple choice' scenario then a) that brings into question the idea of agency - because the Force would then clearly be creating scenarios, which would require agency on its part over that of the characters and b) it took twenty years for the Force to give him another opportunity? Just how pathetic is this deistic character?

Indeed...Luke's story is all about choice.....and a) his "mercy" has nothing to do with it being his father and b) how were the Jedi wrong, and how was Palpatine right?

So...as I said, there is no requirement in the OT for an explanation, and the idea of it being a 'new power' is an invention of Lucas' from his conception of the PT. The "only change" being that "lucas went from...to just two" is still that. A change, a projection of ideas from the (later) PT onto the (earlier, pre-existing) OT.

* Though I have previously struggled to find a narrative it has come to me that the most narratively consistent conception is that the Jedi following the prophecy (Qui-Gon's dogma) is, in the same way as Anakin acting on his vision in ROTS, what brings about the dark times. That...had they not acted on the prophecy they could have dealt with Palpatine.

 

How is it preposterous that Lucas wanted to expand upon the Jedi and the Force, by using his earlier ideas? Especially when there's evidence that he's done that with all the films made at the first film. No he didn't make Han a green alien, but he did take his idea for a green alien and turned it into Greedo.

The Jedi don't reference themselves as a religion, but that doesn't that it isn't a religion. However, there are many aspects that build upon the notion of religion, such as believing in the Force in order for it to work for them. It won't work if you don't believe in it.

I think you're missing the point. Lucas did have religion in mind, but it was based more on the notion of the Christian faith. Kasdan was the one who pushed for the idea of Buddhism as a means of translating the Force and how the light and dark side work, since at the time Lucas only had the two sides of the Force which was the Ashla and the Bogan, the light and the dark. But the second draft never really detailed how Darklighter discovered the Bogan which lead to the rise of the Sith Knights. Nor how exactly the Jedi Bendu discovered and used the Ashla. Even later on when he got to the film that was made, Obi-wan doesn't really go into detail about how his former apprentice became a Sith. Just that he turned to evil and joined the Empire. Lucas and Brackett had come up with the idea of Luke fighting with anger too much would cause him to become evil, but Kasdan was the one who helped mold it into what we know using Buddism.

Then there's no more point on arguing this part of the subject, since we have different views and feelings on the matter.

I'll try and break it down for you again.

1. The Jedi once believed that Anakin could be the Chosen One. They slowly but surely put faith in that. Then that faith is shattered when he starts to act un-Jedi like. This is demonstrated with Yoda and Mace losing faith and doubting the prophecy's validity. Or at the very least, Anakin's role in it. Obi-wan still has faith until the boy has turned.

2. Yoda is aware that his path was laid out and that he will eventually train someone important. Someone possibly connected to Anakin.

3. When Order 66 goes down and he knows for certain that the boy has turned, his faith wavers and he goes to confront Sidious, but fails to defeat him. He leaves as he has to accept that he cannot win and if he falls, he will not be able to do that important thing.

4. On Polis Massa, the revelation of Padme's pregnancy and the impending birth and that Anakin's role as father, causes Yoda to realize that this is what Serenity and Qui-gon were preparing him for. Here he believes that everything that happened with Order 66 and his survival was something that was in its own way was meant to happen. His survival wasn't controlled, but everything prior to that and everything that lead him hear, was meant to happen. Mainly in the sense that it was foreseen and because he made every right choice, this was his boon. His moment of opportunity that he had to seize upon or else, there would be no future for the Jedi. No legacy to pass on what he knows so that their fire does not go out.

5. Their faith in the Force is that this is the right path to take and that either child, or both, could be enough to defeat the Sith. They still believe after all that happens because they still had a reason to believe. They may not believe in Anakin, but they believe in the children and in turn, they believe and trust the Force that their plan is the best plan and the most sound one. They may or may not believe in the prophecy anymore, since they had trouble believing in it before. If they believe, they think it might have been one of the children of Skywalker and not the man himself. If they don't, then they believe in their potential to be as powerful as their father would be enough.

6. On the subject of whether it is or isn't destic, to allow bad things to happen, the thing is that people have a choice to do good or bad. If it was up to the Force or some deity to fix every problem themselves, then people will never be able to govern their own lives. They'll never accomplish great things on their own, if someone else has to do it for them. That is why, if the Force was truly that way, it gave Anakin the keys to solve everything. Since he is a mortal who has the ability to choose his own destiny, while having a greater destiny. Just as Palpatine has his own ability to decide his fate and the fates of others.

The Force doesn't create the visions. They are the result of one's ability to see events that will come to pass. They are just glimpses of the future, not actions created out of thin air by the Force. It just allows people to see it when their mind is in the right place to see it. Each action taken, results in a variation on the future. Hence we see Obi-wan with his robe on and then he's not when the time comes. Events change based on the actions of those involved. If Anakin had followed the path that was laid out before him, then he wouldn't have attacked Padme and he wouldn't have betrayed the Jedi. The clouded future is based on Anakin's inability to decide where he want to go in life and what he will or will not do to get there. This is why when Serenity and Qui-gon say that Yoda's path is clear, they can see where he goes if he makes the right choices. While Yoda and Qui-gon note that Anakin's future is clouded, because they cannot see what path he will take to get to the end. Or if the end point was truly about him or someone else. They just know that he is key to it all.

You know, it can be both. That his mercy is because it is his father, as well as his knowing what killing him will mean. Why it is hard to accept that notion?

Again, this is semantics.

Except that when Yoda attempts it, he cannot stop Palpatine. And when Mace brought his Jedi to face him, they were eliminated by him.

 

You argued that a deistic Force was in the movies.....when you couldn't actually offer any evidence for that you claimed that the drafts are 'part of the original movies'. They are not. There is nothing preposterous in suggestingn that Lucas might at some point re-visit ideas that were in the drafts (he did)...what is preposterous is to suggest that if something is in the drafts it is in the movies. It is meaningkless, empty guff borne out of a realisation that the movies don't actually have any notion of a desitic consciosu Force within the structure of the story. The concept is not in the movies.

No..the Jedi don't reference their own beliefs as a religion, nor does any of their teaching present a particular conception of 'religion' as it is actually meant in this discussion - ie that the Force is of a conscious, willful deistic nature.

And...your idea that Luke not believing is to be equated with the Jedi's alleged PT inspired 'faith'......should he not then have simply waited for the Force to lift the x-wing from the water? Or maybe wait for a sign that the time is right to do so?

Again we must look to Zen Buddhism. "Do, or do not. There is no try" sounds rather abrupt and harsh doesn't it? It is...of course there is such a thing as "try" but...if you go into a course of action with the pre-conceived notion only that you will try then you have already defeated yourself. The two lines are linked. He failed because he defeated himself, because he excused himself beforehand with 'I will try' not 'I will'...a fear of failure that is. It is belief that he will that Yoda is talking of, not faith in some notion of the will of the Force.....and that is clear in the context of the scene.

Hmmm...you keep telling me that you think I'm missing the point. Might I suggest the next few questions might explain how I'm missing this 'point'

1) Where have you distilled this information from (that it was a particularly Christian notion of faith)? This seems like a new argument you are making...or perhaps not.

2) Does that mean that when you have argued in recent posts that ; "Religions. Plural. He wasn't just basing it all on the Christian faith, anymore than he was on Taoism and Zen Buddhism. It was a mixture of all." or; "And yes, Lucas did combine the ideas. That was his intention. He wasn't interested in the separate philosophical notions, but the basic ideas of human expression regarding the concepts." or "That's why he said that he didn't want to label the Force as one particular religion over another." And that your earlier attempts to dismiss any of the ideas introduced in the 'mythology' and symbolism as being particularly Christian were...misdirections?

3) Why have you tried to re-calibrate the discussion as if any religious notion will do?

It is somewhat difficult to get the point if the point keeps moving......

So....again so I understand what you are arguing here; Lucas always intended to have a Chrsitian like religion in the movies but....he only had Ashla and the Bogan worked out (two beautiful Christian conceptions btw)? And then Kasdan came along and said "Zen Buddhism" and Lucas said...'hey yeah, why not. I don't know how I'm gonna get the Christian iconography in here between the Ashla and the Bogan'?

A couple of things to mention here. One....where are Ashla and Bogan in the movies? They aren't. Lucas didn't re-visit those ideas...why not? They must be in the movies...they're in the drafts, right? What possible relation to Christianity, which you allege Lucas 'always had in mind', do the concepts Ashla and Bogan have?

But...on that point. In the interview that I quoted Lucas doesn't just say Kasdan came up eith the idea and , though my own ideas are Christian I decided to let him do his thing. He says that he also was into Zen Buddhism...had been since he was 26 and he was then 40.

Mine is very straight-forward; If it is in the movies it is in the movies. Your's appears to be 'it doesn't have to be in the movies to be in the movies'...which I simply don't have any understanding of at all.


Anyway...this post has been one twist, one dance step too far for me. You have at least managed to show that it is impossible to argue a notion of a narrative within the 'saga' with any sort of constancy or cogency - so I suppose it has, any way, served its purpose.

 

I think we got our wires crossed here. I was still referring to the idea of the Force being a religion in those early drafts, not the idea of a will of the Force and the notion that in the beginning, it was more spiritual than a mystical power.

A religion doesn't specifically have to have a deistic entity to it, to be a religion.

And Zen Buddism is often considered a religion.

I'm not moving the point. I'm talking about the evolution of the concept of religion and the Force. In the first draft, the Force is clearly a religion. There is no mystical powers that the Jedi and Sith use. No telepathic/emphatic abilities, no visions of the future or past, no visible ghosts, no lightning from finger tips and no telekinesis. The Jedi and Sith were just like everyone else. Lucas said that he wanted to know what kind of religious faith these characters would have and the Force of all others was the result of that. It evolved into a power set, but it still had its roots in religious belief. In that first draft, it is more akin to Christian faith as there is no light and dark side. It was okay for a Jedi to get angry and kill in anger, such as Kane Starkiller did when he killed the Sith Knight that had killed his son Deak and when Annikin rescues Leia from being assaulted. When the Jedi say, "May the Force of all others be with you." it was like saying, "Go with God". With the next draft, there was a light and a dark side to the Force. By the time of TESB, Kasdan introduced Lucas to Zen Buddhism which helped inform who Yoda was and gave Lucas and Kershner the voice necessary to explain the Force to the audience. By the time he got to the PT, he had decided that it would be a mix of the different beliefs and teachings. That is why he said that he didn't want to label it as one religion over another. He wanted to address the overall notion of good and evil, right and wrong and the concept of finding your true self, along with the idea of what it is these characters believe in.

Ashla and Bogan are in the films. He just made it more plain to understand as the light and dark side of the Force, so he used simpler language. The Skywalker, a holy man had discovered the Ashla of the Force which is the light. Darklighter discovered the Bogan or dark side.

LUKE: "In a manner different from the way we talk. As you know, the "FORCE OF OTHERS" has two halves: Ashla, the good, and Bogan, the paraforce or evil part. Fortunately, Skywalker came to know the good half and was able to resist the paraforce; but he realized that if he taught others the way of the Ashla, some, with less strength, might come to know Bogan, the dark side, and bring unthinkable suffering to the Universe. For this reason, the Skywalker entrusted the secret of THE FORCE only to his twelve children, and they in turn passed on the knowledge only to their children, who became known as the Jedi Bendu of the Ashla: "the servants of the force"."

LUKE: "During one of his lessons a young PADAWAN-JEDI, a boy named Darklighter, came to know the evil half of the force, and fell victim to the spell of the dreaded Bogan. He ran away from his instructor and taught the evil ways of the Bogan Force to a clan of Sith pirates, who then spread untold misery throughout the systems."

The idea remained the same, the terminology changed.

 

Lewis' Narnia series came out of three areas of his life, each of which had a massive impact on him. One was that, as a child, he and his brother created a fictional world called Animal Land where talking animals existed. This was a shared fictional space they created. Their creation included a complete history and geography of that land. The second was Lewis' love for what he called 'Northerness'. As young man when he read the classic tales of northern mythology (Valhalla, Thor and all of that) he was completely entranced. He spent a lot of time walking and would occasionally see scenes which seemed to him to spill straight of of those northern myths. They pierced his heart. The third area of his life which made an appearance in the Narinia stories was his Christianity, hence the strong analogy between Christ and Aslan.

I personally don't think he was trying to 'sell' Christianity through his stories at all. From all I've read about him I think he was knitting together three of the things in his life that he most loved - animal land, northerness and his faith. I can see how it might look for some folk who don't know his history - perhaps like a thinly veiled attempt to indoctrinate through story(?) - but I think, like most authors, he was actually just drawing on his inner resources, his knowledge of life from many spheres, and drawing especially from those things he loved, in order to create Narnia.

I think an author’s religious point of view can affect their writing in many ways since it affects the way they see the world around them. As I understand it, although Lucas had a Christian upbringing, I thought he was much more into Eastern Religion by the time he wrote Star Wars. I think this comes out in the way he crafts the made–up religion in his films.

Just as an aside:
(

I don’t agree with this. I practiced Zen Buddhism for many years in the Serene Reflection Meditation Tradition of Buddhism (Soto Zen) and certainly the people I trained with and the brother (a monk) who taught us all regarded it as a religion and a spiritual practice, not just a philosophical idea.)

That said, I think Lucas wanted very much to make the religious aspect of life he put into his films as open to as many people as possible, from those who hate the idea of a deity being in charge to those who are committed to serving such a deity, from Buddhists to Taoists, to Christians, to atheists and more. I think this openness is apparent in the dialogue:

Ben Kenobi: Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.
Luke Skywalker: You mean it controls your actions?
Ben Kenobi: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.

I don’t see this as Kenobi denying that the Force can control ones actions. I think, he clearly says ‘partially’, meaning that the force can partially control you actions, so there is some degree of agency on the part of the Force in the OT but it is partial. I see this as Lucas allowing for many different opinions and frames of reference.

In the PT I think Lucas builds up what was before quite an open way of describing his fictional religion (or religious philosophy if that’s the way you see it) into something a little deeper but still, I think he tries to leave room for interpretation. However, because he’s going more deeply into it, it is inevitable that his definition will narrow to a degree. I think this may be why some folk find the religious aspects of the PT problematic or irritating. If you are someone who really dislikes the idea of a God-like entity controlling things and having agency, then the PT especially with all the questions around the prophecy, becomes less like-able. I think the PT does build though on what was there on the OT but it is slightly narrower – it has to be because it goes into more detail about the Force.

 

^^^This.

Iow, Lucas was a typical SF Bay Area Baby Boomer Cafeteria-I'm-Not-Religious-But-I'm-Spiritual stereotype*... j/k.

*or, Bay Area 'Buddhist-Methodist', as he's rumored to have jokingly called himself long ago.

Disagree on the last point - the 'it has to be' part. Lucas was not constrained by the OT the make the PT have such a 'narrow' (as you put it) focus on the Force. Nothing in the OT necessitated a Force prophecy, Chosen One, midichlorians, etc.

 

Oh, I see where you're coming from and I agree with you. Absolutely nothing in the OT necessitates a Force Prophecy, a chosen one or those annoying midichlorians. I'm with you on that. What I was trying to say was that if you go into more detail on any given subject you necessarily narrow your focus and so some views of subject, based on the original information only, will no longer be consistent with subject now more detailed information is available.

So, for example, if I was explaining atomic structure to a class and I explained it in the way you would to 10 year olds (as solid paricles of matter) they can take that information and hold a very broad range of views about what that particle might actually look like (they could look like bits of dust, bubbles, or tiny lego bricks even). But if I then go into more detail as you would with 14 year olds and explain that there are protons and neutorons in a nucleus at the centre and electrons flying around the outside then not all of the views the kids had at 10 would be consistent with the explaination we give at 14. (The same thing happens again when we explain about probability clouds of electrons at 16.) I was comparing this to the way the Force is defined very very broadly in the OT and then that explaination is given more detail in the PT and how that extra detail necessarily narrows the definition of the Force simply because more information is given. What that information is, is up to the writer and not determined by what went before. In this case Lucas made it the prophecy, chosen one, midichlorians etc. I would have preferred a story without 'the boy born without a father' reference (as for me that's special and specific to my own faith and I didn't really like it being used as it was - it was challenging to me to have that in there.) I also didn't like the prophecy thing or Qui Gon's confusing adherance to it despite the danger the other Jedi sensed. I found that that detracted from the story and felt that the story would have been much more free and fun without it. As for the midichlorians, I just thought that was stupid (just a personal opinion).

So, generally I agree wholeheartedly with only one kenobi that Lucas does seem to have had TMIS. I found the PT absolutely loaded with layer upon layer of ideas and meanings to the point where I think it began to seriously detract from the story rather than add to it. I just think Lucas overdid it and it's a shame. However, to be fair to the chap, I think he did this because he was doing his absolutely best to make a great PT. He just did everything he could to make it great and pushed it as hard as he could in the best way he knew. In this case I think less would have been more but that's with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight and said from the sidelines - I didn't have to write, script and edit the thing. Despite these limitations I still love the PT as well as the OT and that it has issues is just part of it - it gives us lots to talk about and argue about and agree on.

"Here's where the fun begins!"