FF:VIC Star Wars: Questions and Debates about the Modern Myth. ~/**New Debate!!**\~

Care to expand on that one Mixo?

 

I'd say there is a degree of evil within all, but not necessarily good within all.

 

Well it is quite well known that Lucas based the basic plot line upon an old Hollywood paper aon how to make a winning movie. Exampls of this are that there is a princess in distress (Leia), an evil wizard like figure (Vader), a heroic farmboy (Luke), a monsterous/dragon like figure (Deathstar) and a likeable vagabond figure (HAN). All formula driven!

 

Ah, but he extended that by having his princess quite a capable woman!

 

and by adding mystical little creatures (ewoks), a 2-part comedy duo (R2D2 & C3PO) etc etc

 

Interesting. Do you believe this to be an intentional adherence to formula, or simply an expression of a fundamental formula that can be interpreted and expressed in all mythic stories?

 

I honestly think Lucas has taken the Formula that you describe there Mixo, and taken it one step further.

What we must first see is that much prior 1977, Sci-fi in general was a very rocky and some what rare genre. The only other major sci-fi show that existed was, well Star Trek. Now, Star Trek was very much a 'geeks' show... it was very technical and very un-human. What Lucas did, and this is the genius bit, was that he mixed the genre of sci-fi with mythology and even our world's history. The result that came about was one that managed to touch the hearts of even the most sci-fi hating people. Why? Because it was human and something we all can relate to in one way or another... there was the typical story, set in a galaxy far far away. Star Wars - essentially - created a new genre (which has many times been tried to be repeated, but unsuccessfully)... one that can be related to in so many different levels.

*reads PoT's topic question again* OK, that might have gone off the topic, but it was just expanding on Mixo's fundamentals...

 

I am fairly sure Lucas has fessed up to it at one stage. Hey can't blame the man or his wallet. Then again what movies are truely original these days. I have seen a lot of silent movies and the twists and plotlines out do most movies we see today.

 

Is there ever really an epic story told that DOESN'T on some level incorporate the same intrinsic formula? It is indeed, the very formula that MAKES it an epic no?

 

I agree. Now to go off on another tangent. I am tired of all these failed remakes!! Leave the originals alone!

 

A good one. Consider it the new topic.

Care to be the first one Mixo? Your reasons why we should:

Leave the Original's alone!

 

Honestly who has seen a good remake? The originals reflected the culture of the time and were very relevant. Then we grew up with them

Planet of The Apes was a brilliant satirical movie, then Burton made this shallow action flick. The same has been done to so many movies. It shames me. Look at King Kong. The original is so entertaining and no remake (of many) has gone anywhere near it!

Think originality, not rehash!

 

I've seen a good remake. Of the Sound of Music. It has an alternate ending though. Instead of these people dancing in the fields during a world war, the Nazi's come down and blow them away, cause the dancing annoys them.

How's that?

 

Yeah not too bad. God Hollywood is so unoriginal these days. The amount of remakes of late is astonishing.

 

:: Wipes for head relising that the topic is not threatening his intrigued of others phylosical views. Just an interest of mine hope you don't mind sorry if I do sometimes Annoy you in it but with all the footy and politics, I think the meaning of life should have its say ::

Anyway, The Orignal Star wars movies being remade, Phuh! If someone touches those things they'll be killed, Thrown in Jail. Bushy boy might be driven power mad but He'll never let any stinking recreators touch those things. they have the only living record of his master, Old Emporor Palpy.

The world as we know it is subsiding into darkness but WE MUST! I REPEAT MUST draw the line somewhere. If they want the final words of Anikin from Haydens mouth they can go stick something in Haydens head to make the giant hole, and I'm not talking Iron bar.

Final Word, NO!

 

Surely not an OT remake, that is blasphemy!!! If so i will never again look t Star Wars!!!!!

 

remake, remaster, it's all the same. Leave'm alone!!

 

Exactly. We at Sick Individual Productions are all about originality!

 

"I love Democracy". - HIM Supreme Chancellor Cos Palpatine.

 

"NO, we are coming out!" Agent G. The I-Team: Project FUBAR

 

Phun new topic to rox0r your sox0rz.

Ladies and Gentleman, perservering with intellectual discussion and sembalance of Star Wars relatedness to this forum, I've brought to you a new line to discuss for all you literate (and in some cases, illiterate) anorak, with your erudite lexicon and learned, listless ruminations.

Ahem.

"The Rebel Alliance that opposed the Empire, were for all intents and purposes, Terrorists."

Discuss.

 

Ans as going along with Kevin Smith's way of thinking, when the Deathstars blew up a lot of innocent tradesmen and contractors died.

 

Ah, terrorism...such a subjective word. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. First, let us look at the context of this issue. This is clearly in relation to the modern definition of terrorism, which is defined by such groups as Al-Qaeda, JI and the like. However, in this modern age where every move we make is often defined by whether or not an "Islamic extremist" will blow up our milk bar, we forget other forms of terrorism. What happened to Timothy McVeigh? His was an act of terrorism if ever I saw one. He was rebelling against a political system, but when the term "terrorist" comes up his name is almost never mentioned. In short, a terrorist is popularly defined as someone who performs acts of violence to achieve political goals. Does this in fact mean that the Rebel Alliance were terrorists? Ladies and gentlemen, all you need to do is look at the facts to see that it most certainly does not.

Terrorism is, as I said earlier, a very vague definition. America calls Osama bin Laden a terrorist, Saddam calls Bush a terrorist, etc. However, one is likely to label someone a terrorist when they (the supposed "terrorists") are willing to fight for their beliefs against a system or group that tries to remove them. It's happened throughout history, where one group has struggled not only for their own survival but for the freedom of those around them, and have consequently been labelled as heretics, terrorists and other such terms that define them to be against the system and therefore evil. How, then, does one define the Rebel Alliance? The Empire labelled them terrorists, and on the surface one could argue that they fit the description perfectly. They perform violent acts, they're using violence to achieve their means, they're trying to remove one set of beliefs in favour of their own.

This falls down at a number of points: they're trying to remove a system that denies freedom of beliefs and replaces it with one that allows all beings to have the basic rights they are entitled to; violence is their only means of doing this, as diplomacy has long since failed; and most importantly, they do not perform violent acts against civilians. Despite Imperial propaganda, the Rebel Alliance (to the best of our knowledge from both the movies and the Expanded Universe) only struck at military targets, and even then was mainly on the defensive. The Death Star attacks were some of the few first-strike offensives that the Alliance made to ensure the safety of millions of beings, to prevent another Alderaan (which could be considered more of a terrorist attack than anything that the Alliance did).

Right and wrong is not absolutely defined, by any stretch of the imagination. One's view of right and wrong is dependent on their upbringing and culture. However, the need to fight for the existence of not only one's beliefs but also one's self can hardly be considered terrorism, and this is what the Rebel Alliance was doing. The line between terrorist and freedom fighter may be small, but it is distinct and should not be blurred.

 

Terrorism is really decided on which side of the fence you sit and how large and organised your armed forces are.

 

they do not perform violent acts against civilians. Despite Imperial propaganda, the Rebel Alliance (to the best of our knowledge from both the movies and the Expanded Universe) only struck at military targets, and even then was mainly on the defensive.

"He was part of one of the many Rebel Cells that sprung up on Coruscant, and managed to survive...he was involved in the explosion in Coruscant Square that toppled the statues and caused the riot." - Wedge Antillies, Wraith Squadron.

I would beg to differ my friend. The EU stipulates, and the movies infer, a degree of political pressure put on the Empire by way of putting the fear into the civilians.

The Whole X-wing series is good at illustrating this point, but it can also be seen in the Han Solo trilogy. Our pious trio of Luke, Leia and Han were not by any means your archetypal rebels."