Saga SW Saga In-Depth In-Depth Discussion Thread

Hitler...well, his military buildup was actually in response to Stalin in many ways. It also had to do with national boundaries not reflecting the populations of peoples within those boundaries. He dreamed of allying with the UK to oppose the Soviets. I don't really want to get into it...but the closest analogue to the Death Star is the atom bomb, and we all know why it was developed, and in what context.

See, even the most heinous of evils...have some method behind their madness. Palpatine seems to want to gain power just for the sake of having it and being awful.

You see, it would have been more interesting if Palpatine wanted to build this death star so that he could stop something bad from happening. Good men becoming corrupted by their quest for order and stability...that's more interesting than evil men being evil because they are evil.

 

Well that all depends on taste, I like Palps just because how evil and manipulative he is. I don't need to see him as this good person at the beginning, him double crossing people and his history revolving the Skywalker family is enough for me. Its the same with Jack Nicholson's Joker, or Terence Stamp's Zod. They don't start off as good people, they're just evil sadistic monsters. Now that doesn't mean I don't like the whole fall from grace thing, it jut depends how its written and executed on film.

 

Anakin is the saga's hero gone bad. I don't think we need to follow every villain down that road. Palpatine is interesting in a different way. The way he discusses the Force with Anakin brings up some philosophical points about good and evil that to me are quite fascinating. He says that good is a point of view. From his point of view, good and evil doesn't seem to exist. He embraces a "larger view" of the Force and doesn't attach himself emotionally to a moral stance.
The fascinating part about this is that I see a lot of myself in that kind of reasoning, even though I'd never do what Palpatine does. The "larger view" is something that you can go any which way with and that's why I can sort of identify myself with him. His reasoning is sound even if his conclusions are not.





- Be careful of the Jedi, Anakin.
- You too!
/LM

 

Evil sadistic monsters don't take on responsibilities like Palpatine does, however. It's a lot of trouble to fight with rebels, oppressing entire star systems -- for what? Well, for a greater cause. Characters like the Joker are anarchists. Palpatine is no anarchist. Well, he shouldn't be an anarchist, but the motivations that Lucas lays out for him...are pretty much anarchistic. Or, just not well thought out.

I don't quite get people who like the PT. the only saving grace for them are--

1. The ambition is of a tale rarely told about a hero turning villain

2. A lot of good talented EU authors put a lot of good effort into polishing the mess that was handed to them with AOTC and ROTS.

Otherwise...the general popular culture considers the PT to be lackluster, and for good reason.

 

Yeah but its in a galaxy far far away so I'm like yeah. From what I've seen the with motive are a mystery except for bringing peace through oppression and fear (hence the death star)

aside from the one point you made about liking the prequels, I like them because:

it expands on the star war galaxy
the origins of the sith (or lack thereof)
we see a different era (the republic)
we see the Jedi in their prime
lightsaber duels

and basically how everything transpires and comes together before ANH. But then again you're talking to somebody who thinks bloodsport and kickboxer are classic films so maybe my opinion on films are invalid then.

As for general population if we take I don't know IMDB for example and round up their ratings

TPM: 7/10
AOTC: 7/10
ROTS: 8/10
Doesn't look like they're that bad.

 

Having seen footage of an actual, functioning remote robot does walk in the same manner as Grievous and with almost the same weight to it, I'd say that at least that aspect isn't that far off.

Correct. Even Han was never given to acts of betrayal in order to save his own neck. Lando did betray Han, but it was to protect the people of Cloud City. If Lucas had been able to do it, ROTJ would have ended with the destruction of Had Abbadon and the deaths of all citizens. A mass genocide caused by the Alliance to end the Empire once and for all.

Well, the Empire didn't want a war. The whole point as we saw in ROTS, was bringing about an end to the chaos that existed before the Clone Wars.

"One of the issues in all of this is the bad guys think they’re good and Lord Sidious thinks he’s bringing peace to the galaxy because there is so much corruption and confusion and chaos going on and now he’s going to be able to straighten everything out which maybe true but the price the galaxy is going to have to pay for it is way too much."

--George Lucas, ROTS DVD Commentary.

It doesn't seem that way in the PT, but this comes back to the different points of view introduced in ROTJ. The only difference is how far one is willing to go to achieve their end goals. It only looks evil because it involved genocide on a small and then a large level. And if you miss part of the reasoning in the PT, which is that there was so much crap that the Separatist leaders had caused with their corporate greed, that you don't see that Palpatine thinks that have a dictatorship is preferable to the clap trap of democracy, then you miss out on where the story is going.

Except Palpatine was turned into Space Satan by the time TESB was written and in ROTJ, it's plain as day. Right up to the satanic chorus, Palpatine looking like Ingmar Berman's version of Death from "The Seventh Seal" and Vader dropping him down into "hell". Palpatine was only Hitler in ANH.

Vader: "There will be no one to stop us, this time."

Vader wasn't just referring to the Alliance, which didn't become a threat until recently. He was referring to the Jedi Order and the conflict from before. It takes on a deeper meaning with the PT, in learning that it is as a Sith that he says this. And just because those other things aren't mentioned, doesn't mean that they somehow altered the scale of the story.

Luke's stake in this is still the same. There's just a larger term goal that the Jedi had and that the Sith were aware of.

Yoda said that the future was difficult to see and in ROTJ, Palpatine doesn't sense that arrival of Luke with the strike team. He even questions Vader about it, thinking he's not being entirely honest. He doesn't even see Vader turning on him. The other part, well, the Force did something to stop Palpatine's rise to power. It just so happened that he switched sides.

He creates that chaos and anarchy, so that he can legitimately take control of the Republic by having it handed over to him, rather than just walking in and taking it, like the Sith did last time.

Not even close. The reason we like the PT is not because of the EU, or the ambition on Lucas's part. It has to do with the simple fact that we enjoyed the story. Take the women who recently watched the Saga 1-6. They enjoyed each and every film and didn't have problems with the PT. Take the father who showed his sons the Saga for the first time, in a different order. They loved it. PT and all. The fact is that people liked something.

As to pop culture, have you never seen the trashing done to the OT?

Sidious: "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy and we shall have peace."

 

Sorry

 

I agree with this on the whole. Complete denial of the influence of nostalgia would be naive. However, in the case of a film, nostalgia isn't quite as pervasive as with some other things which occurred in days gone by because you can sit down and watch it again and again as a critical adult and assess it from that point of view. Admittedly, there will always be a bit of lingering favour there, but I think most people can be at least relatively objective when doing this. It's not like your girlfriend who you haven't seen since you were 16 or your university days, which are forever preserved in the mists of time and the warm glow of reminiscence. Personally, despite my belief that episodes 4 and 5 are by far the best entries in the saga, when I watch them now I have to laugh at some of the dialogue and poorly executed story points. As for episode 6, my 10 year old self's favourite now languishes at number 5 in the order of merit.

 

I was talking about one specific shot/sequence, and others (not of Grievous) that feature more camera movement and 'in your face' effects than the general style established in the first four films to be released.

Palpatine gives lip service to 'holding the Republic (or, I guess, whichever government is administering it at the moment - meaning, the Empire) together' and 'having peace,' but he's constantly deceiving people about everything, and it really doesn't seem that he's genuine about any of that. Vader, I could believe. Palpatine is harder to take seriously as someone who cares about anything other than his own primacy and power.

In ANH he was Space Nixon (cf. the intro to the novelization). And perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough: it's not that Palpatine is Space Satan; it's that having a Space Satan at all would change the dynamics of the story from one focused on mortals to one involving gods and demigods. It would move the goalposts. Space Jesus (Anakin's new origin story) is closer to doing this than anything relating to Palpatine, in either trilogy. Palpatine is like Hitler if he acquired the Spear of Destiny and the Ark of the Covenant. A modern despot with insight into ancient powers.

He was referring to the Senate. Praji and he are talking about the Senate immediately prior to this. Perhaps in the back of his mind, he could be thinking about the Jedi, or (including the prequel storyline) the long-term Sith plan. But in that sense the structure here seems like how Boba Fett tracking the Falcon refers back to Jango being tricked by Obi-Wan; at the time the original ("later") film was made, there was no reference. It only became one thanks to more information inserted into an earlier chronological point in the story.

Right. The added cosmic scale doesn't invalidate the other meanings, but it does change the 'feel' of the story as a whole. That's the part I could do without. I can deal with it, but personally I tend to like fiction that doesn't necessarily need "it'll doom the galaxy forever!" or "the entire universe will fall apart!" -scale stakes. For a while, Star Wars was that kind of thing. Those aspects are still there, but when one (and apparently only one) of the characters is created by the Force for a Purpose, and the threat in one particular time period is Bigger and Badder than ever before or since, so that it threatens the very constants of nature... the possibilities for the thing as a functioning fictional world seem hemmed in.

So are you arguing that the prophecy was a major change from the OT? (To be clear, in contrast to my view that it's not that different?)

Not "did something," prevented the problem to begin with. The Force seems to have some kind of dimension outside of the arrow of time. And, from the prequels, it has a will, and also can intervene in the mortal realm to exact its will. What its abilities are, we don't know. It can at least create humans from scratch. But even if that's all it can do, why didn't it create a person to kill Palpatine before he could unbalance the Force? Or if the Force is nicer than that, why didn't it create a person who could have been a good influence on young Palpatine, steered him away from the dark side?

Or did it create these people, such that in the Star Wars galaxy there are hundreds or thousands of virgin births occurring all the time, due to the Force trying everything 'working in mysterious ways'?

 

I'm aware what the storyline is supposed to be.

It's just--it isn't done very well. You never really feel that the Republic being...inefficient...is so outrageous. Yes, you can state that something needs replacing...but it simply isn't demonstrated here.

The OT have to hold precedence because...they came out first. So the PT's job is to inflect on the OT. They fail, completely, in that regard.

 

Only in your mind, my young apprentice

 

The Empire and the Emperor work very differently in the OT in and of itself, and then as a continuation of a story involving the PT. In the OT 'Empire' is simply an idea - and that's all that 'Empire' is. The reason I brought up Rome is because the idea of 'Imperium Romanus' existed many, many years prior to what we, historically, denote as the inception of the Roman Empire. Augustus wasn't called, at the time, an Emperor. He was called the Princeps - the first among men, and derives from the term Princeps Senatus, who was the elder statesman in the Senate who was given, by convention, first rights to speak on an issue. (and is where the word Prince comes from). The idea of his Imperium follows from the same Imperium that Consuls gained upon election - the right to lead. The idea of Imperium Romanus is, then, the right of Rome to lead - to rule.

I don't mean to bore anyone with history lessons, my point is that 'Empire' as an idea does not require an 'Emperor' - and it follows that the two concepts can be differentiated. In the OT they are. The Empire represents, essentially, authority/power without consent. The 'Republic' (or 'Grand Republic' as Obi-Wan calls it) represents freedom and peace. It is an aspirational concept, fleetingly referenced as the apogee of the ideas behind oppposition to 'Empire'.

The Empire is represented by the Death Star, the Imperial Fleet, Stormtroopers, Vader and - much later - the 'Emperor'. Each of these help to form our understanding of the concept 'Empire'. And these ideas are the backdrop, the space within which the story is told.

The Emperor enters the fray in TESB, and then more in ROTJ. Throughout he is a hooded spectre who commands Vader, and who later goads Luke. In TESB he only appears as a projection for (of?) Vader. He has no story, he is as nothing except to exist as the black hole/heart at the centre of 'Empire' - which exists simply as an end in itself - and as the idea of what imprisons a man within the persona of Vader.

The Force exists as a backdrop of Luke's story, which is ultimately the attainment of wisdom. The Force is an energy field that binds all life. The Jedi are here individuals who have given over their lives to understanding the Force and to service to others. There are many 'cool' powers that are attainable through the Force but, ultimately - Luke discovers - being a Jedi is not about those powers. It is about being self-aware and of accepting the consequences of the choices you make. It is about stepping back from your own desires and fears. It is about accepting your own human frailties and to step beyond them.

In the story Luke's 'naive' desire to help affects even the mercenary and cynical Han Solo. Later his faith, his infectious, 'naive' desire to do right, affects Anakin so that he frees himself of the chains of Vader.

The rebels, with the help of the technologically impoverished but spirited ewoks, overcome the odds and defeat the Empire. Those ordinary mortals free themselves from the military oppression of the Empire.

The story works on many, many levels. It works because of the seeming simplicity of it. That simplicty of ideas is its strength. The rhythm of the story - what Campbell talks of as a powerful story-telling imprint - is there. What Campbell didn't get, and so by association Lucas does not, is the real heart of those rhythms and how those story-telling techniques have been used by the powerful to bolster their positions. The rhythms - the power of the story-telling technique - is not tied up with the stories they told.

The rhythms revolve around natural phenomena which had deep impacts upon our ancestors' lives. Day and night (light and dark), the power of one over the other. Night brought unseen predators, the returning of the sun brought the world back into the realm of humans. Light, therefore, corresponds to good, dark corresponds with bad.

We shuffle through seasons, and as we move toward winter the world seems to die. The ground will not give up new growth, the trees shed their leaves. The winter solstice, then, is the harbinger that things will change; days will get longer and then spring will come and the earth is reborn. Simple rhythms. That is the basis of the powerful rhythmic storytelling that Campbell recognised. What he, and Lucas, did not understand was that the stories of god-men as leading their 'flocks' into and out of darkness was not the power of the stories. They gained their power through the rhythm, but were not themselves powerful.

The OT works because it uses the powerful story-telling rhythms but subverts the usual message. The trilogy, as a whole, is a hopeful and transcending tale. While I have here gone into some depth, the films worked because they used the 'primordial' story-telling rhythms, and the strength of that is that it is unconscious in its workings. The story works on a visceral level - that is what makes the 'formula' so powerful. It gets across some pretty heavy philosophical ideas by means of a very visceral 'bullet'.

Anyway, this post has gone on far longer than I ever considered it should. I will talk of how the PT alters some of these ideas another time, in another post. Doubtless, though, some will see where I am heading. Doubtless, also, some may agree and others will disagree.

 

I agree with much of what you wrote about the OT -- it beautifully elucidated your opinion. What I do have a problem with, however, is what you state above, particularly the bolded portion. I think it is rather presumptuous of you to claim that not only Lucas, but also Campbell, don't "get" something. You point out that it is the rhythms of the story rather than the story itself that is what bolsters the work and makes the OT something special -- despite (or perhaps because of) its simplicity.

Where I take issue with this is that it presumes that there are a limited number of ways to successfully tell a story. And I find that to be a rather narrow and dogmatic position. There might very well be better methods of storytelling that fit the particular tale one is trying to tell but I think there are also many different approaches to telling a story, of relating information to the audience. Now, you may not like something -- and it's certainly your right to hold that opinion. But I don't think it's fair to say that someone doesn't "get" a particular aspect of storytelling simply because they make use of method or rhythm that you, personally, don't like.

 

There were 2,000 effects shots in all three PT films. TPM may have have had more on location shoots with Naboo and Tatooine, but it still had a lot of effects. The other two films, well, you have to remember that they're taking place in worlds that are not like our own. So even then, that would require more work. Then there's the battle sequences which allows for things that couldn't be done before.

Palpatine lies, but in his lies are grains of truth. He did want a galaxy of peace and prosperity. That's why the Death Star was created and control was given to the Regional Governors, with the Senate being dissolved. To maintain the peace so that the Alliance would be taken care of and no further acts of war would break out. It was peace through tyranny. He cares about power because it is power that allows him to rule over others. The only thing he was genuine about with the government was that he loved democracy. Technically, he didn't as it was inefficient, but he was also truthful because he used democracy to get what he wanted.

Right, but there was a transition with each film leading into that and even Anakin's origin was really detailed in Lucas's notes. Not to mention at one point, Luke was going to be a Space Jesus with the whole, "Son Of Suns".

It may have been the Senate to a degree, but given the role of the Jedi even at that time, it was about them.

Well, you say it was there for a while, but it never went away. Having the Empire succeed in its war efforts and having the Death Stars tends to maintain the idea of "it'll doom the galaxy forever!" The stakes were raised with the PT, but it never really went away.

I don't see it as a major change to the story because the story wasn't really clear to begin with. All that was clear was that Luke was important to stopping the Sith and that the Alliance needed him as much as the Jedi did. Adding on a larger stake doesn't change anything, other than your own perception of what the backstory was going to be.

The Force doesn't go out of balance all the way until Anakin betrays the Jedi and pledges himself to Sidious. That's part of why Yoda feels intense pain right after Palpatine christens Anakin as Darth Vader and tells him to rise. He can sense the Force going out of balance because he is more in tune with the Force than the other Jedi. That moment in Palpatine's office where Mace and Palpatine are deadlocked, was the crucial moment in which Anakin needed to fulfill his destiny and he chose not to. He couldn't make the sacrifice necessary to save the galaxy. The survival of his children was, in its own way, a second chance.

The Senate couldn't vote to take action against an invasion of one of its sovereign worlds, because special interest groups refused and used democratic procedure to its advantage. The Senate didn't abolish slavery beyond the worlds in its purview and instead, let criminals call the shots. Just as it allowed those special interest groups to actually serve in the Senate. I don't know about you, but would you really be happy if Bill Gates and when he was alive, Steve Jobs serve in our Senate, representing Microsoft and Apple respectively? Or the CEO of Exxon? The Senate couldn't vote to protect itself against a pending attack from a coup de tat, in the form of the Confederacy. The Senate would willing give up executive powers to someone else, even though it was founded on the notion of power to the people.

 

I don't understand how the first part is relevant, but the bolded part is exactly my point. It allows for things which couldn't be done before. Which are stylistically different. Because of that difference, they can tend to stick out.

This is unclear in the films themselves. We aren't really given any insight into Palpatine's inner thoughts. Everything he says could be taken multiple ways. So while your interpretation is possible, the narrative itself is entirely unclear. Everything Palpatine does could just as easily be the actions of a "Joker" who talks a good game.

Where did you see these notes on Anakin's origin? I'm not aware of any that have been published in any of the Making ofs or anything. The nearest I can recall is one from the TPM webdocs, which showed some of Lucas's brainstorming for that film -- and which had something like 'who was his father?'

And there is a difference between the prophecy and an interventionist Force. I don't have my books with me at the moment so I can't compare the development of Star Wars (77) to what's in the prequels, but even if the events of Luke's success were foreseen, that doesn't mean he was specifically created by the Force as a deus ex machina.

Given the conversation, I think it was mostly the Senate. But even regardless of the possible pie chart of adversaries Vader could have been thinking of, the line by itself is too vague to specifically give the audience the story of the deposed, despotic Sith, now about to triumph once again, which was the context in which you originally brought it up.

I don't think the Death Stars do anything on the scale of damaging the Force itself. The Death Stars are technological constructs (and the Empire is a political construct), existing in specific places and times. Even if they are huge, and can destroy planets, they are nevertheless tiny compared to the scale of the galaxy and the universe. They are entirely within the realm of the human/mortal. They are "insignificant, next to the power of the Force."

Damaging the Force is a galaxy-, or even universe-wide change in a fundamental constant of nature, like if you could change the speed of light. Not only that, the way the Force's response is depicted makes it seem that the Force/universe takes an active interest in the activities of the mortals. And more than that, the way that intervention is depicted makes it seem that the Force is interested in the success of one side over the other, even though the Force includes both the light and the dark. (It's not clear - and I realize the EU has done some explaining but I'm talking in the films here - what causes the imbalance, the mere presence of dark siders, or the Sith in particular, or something specific they did. We don't know why whatever-it-is caused an imbalance, either. The Force shouldn't be out-of-balance if it's just the presence of the dark siders, but even though the EU has the problem as something specific the Sith did, the films themselves can give the impression that it was simply the existence of the Sith that was the problem.)

Isn't that enough, though? It changes the stakes, which changes my perception. Yes.

I'm not sure how that relates to my questions.

If Anakin were going to fail (I mean fail forever, as in, dying before he succeeded at balancing the Force), the Force wouldn't have created him, right? So the Force must have known the future where he succeeds. It knew he would work out eventually. So it can see the future with some accuracy. Why did it use Anakin, with all of his story's twists and turns, over any other method or person? I'm imagining something like this: the Force sees that Anakin succeeds in the future, of his own volition... (I put it that way because of the focus in some of these conversations on the importance of Anakin's own choices.) But then, the Force also sees that Anakin was not a normal-born human, but just happened to be the product of its own direct meddling. So then it creates him in the past, because he must exist in the future it just saw. Anakin Skywalker's magic birth is the compass Richard Alpert gives to John Locke, who then gives it back to past-Alpert to give back to himself. His creation was the only way to get the job done, because the job was done as a result of his creation. This circularity doesn't really do anything helpful to this particular story, I think. This type of thing is also in the Star Trek movies (Kirk's glasses), but neither the glasses nor the compass are people, and for some reason that I'll have to think more about, that seems different.



A few random ideas spawned from the previous thoughts: Can the Force see multiple possible futures (multiple future universes, in a quantum sense?) What kind of a character is the Force? If Star Wars doesn't stick with one deterministic universe but has a quantum multiverse, the Force seems like it picks among the universes which give it favorable results (as where Anakin succeeds, vs. failure). But what of the Force as it exists in those other universes? Do those Forces pick their 'preferred' universes too? Do some of them 'want' to be out of balance then? Is this entire line of questions just problematic, and does said line of questions become unnecessary if the Force is just a force of nature?

 

The thing is that each film pushed the envelope on what could be done visually. It would be counter productive to stop right there with TPM and not go further, because someone has an issue with special effects.

How is he an anarchist who only wants chaos and destruction? If that were the case, there wouldn't be a Death Star and the Jedi wouldn't be destroyed, much less an effort to destroy the Alliance. Just because he doesn't have a soliloquy about wanting peace, doesn't mean that it isn't his goal. Nothing in the films remotely suggests he wants anything other than to rule over the galaxy, just like the Sith before him had once done until the Jedi fought them.

I meant wasn't. The details Lucas had wasn't that in-depth. What he had was a few ideas here and there, but nothing about his beginning other than a brief period where Anakin's father was once a Jedi, but that was abandoned.

No, it doesn't. It just meant that he was far more important than any Jedi before or after him. Lucas just went the route that he did because he was tying it into what he wanted to do, which was have Palpatine be Anakin's creator and then he decided to leave that vague because he didn't want to go down that route.

It's vague only for a little bit and then when Obi-wan is introduced and the Jedi are talked about, by both him and Tarkin, does it become clear who Vader was referring to.

The Sith are the problem because the pervert the Force with their usage of it. The same way demons are an abomination before God. The only real change is that we see the Force as Lucas was leaning towards in the earliest writings, which is that it was a religious like element.

It is your perception that it is changed, that's what I am arguing. Adding an additional reason for the Jedi wanting Luke to become a Jedi doesn't take away from what Luke accomplished, nor the personal stakes for him if he failed.

In the case of Locke and Alpert, that's more of a predestination paradox. Meaning that Locke was already alive and would still be alive up to his murder by Ben. So Alpert, who was aware of the time travel capabilities of the Island, simply had to wait for a moment in time in which they would cross paths again. In the case of Anakin, it is a bit different. I mean, it could be a predestination paradox, but not in the strictest sense.

The future is always in motion as Yoda says. The Force created Anakin because of a specific point in time was consistent across the way, which is the Force goes out of balance and a point comes wherein it will be balanced again, because of one person. The choices of that person are unknown, because as we discussed before, not every choice is known beyond what is known. Meaning it saw an end goal, but not the path to how it got there.

 

Watch AOTC or ROTS, look at some of the shots that were accomplished, some of the movements of the characters and camera. Then go back and watch A New Hope. Don't ask yourself if those things could have been accomplished during filming in 1976 (some of them obviously couldn't), but rather if they would look the same if the same events were depicted in the style used in A New Hope. Or even that of The Phantom Menace.

I don't think they would. That difference is not automatically a bad thing; obviously it doesn't bother you. But personally my visual sensibilities don't want to accept it as easily.

Perhaps my snap-usage of the Joker was a poor example, but the bolded part above is accurate. Nothing in the films suggests he wants anything other than to rule over the galaxy. We don't really know why, or if anything he says regarding politics or anything else really matters to him. None of the actions he takes definitively suggests that it does matter. He wants to accumulate personal power. Period. We don't have enough other information to tell anything about his motives. The way he's depicted, though, makes him seem like cookie-cutter evil. Unlike Vader, who really does have a dollop of idealism inside him. The difference probably is because we never see Palpatine's development; he could have started idealistic too, and had a similar political arc to Vader's. I'm not suggesting that that should have been in the movie, but that by its absence I think Palpatine and Vader come across very differently in terms of their motivations.

It meant he had a very important role to play for the Jedi as a movement, and that he'd have a big spot in the history of the galaxy. But it does not mean that he was 'more significant' in terms of cosmic significance. The Force of the CT may or may not have cared, or even had the capability to care, whether he defeated Vader and his Emperor. The Force-concept as depicted in the PT does have a vested interest, and that alters the feel of the narrative, I think.

Imagine you're watching A New Hope in 1979. Do all those references really link up? They can't, because the referents don't exist yet. But the line is still in the film. What did it refer to at that point? And perhaps more relevantly to this discussion, would the audience have known even if it did refer to some background concept of the Sith?

I don't think so.

But the dark side is the quick and easy path. One would expect there to be more dark siders than light siders, because it's just easier, and people can be weak. Why doesn't that throw the Force out of balance? And the Sith actually ruled the galaxy a thousand years ago. Why didn't that throw the Force out of balance?

And... Do demons really pose a threat to an omnipotent God? He may not like them, but if He's really omnipotent (and/or omnipresent) then he still allows them to exist. Indeed He creates evil as he creates good (Isaiah 45:7). The Force is also omnipotent and omnipresent (or close enough to be comparable). So does it make sense that the Sith really pose a threat to it?

Not to mention that the Force often has a more Eastern interpretation which is more like yinyang than good/evil.

I didn't say it did. From his perspective, things probably are exactly the same. However, the audience knows more about the history of the galaxy, and the story, than does Luke.

That paragraph is more like... why is the future in motion? If cause-and-effect works the way we understand it to, then a clairvoyant ought not to see any variance in the future. Is it (a) the perception of the mortals that is really in motion, (b) just the inherent 'signal to noise ratio' when trying to look through the Force, (c) a limitation of the Force itself, or (d)the multiverse theory, but Jedi and the Force can see multiple possible future universes (many worlds interpretation) and then can, through their actions, steer for one in particular? (The problem in (d) then being that all of the universes would come to pass, even though they would have caused one in particular too. So all the other things, possibilities, would happen too.)

Also, what makes any particular moment in time more likely to be 'seeable' than any other? Everything is happening all the time; every tiniest action drives the future. In a cosmic sense, none should be privileged. Is it just chance that the Force saw the moment that it would become unbalanced?

 

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am referring to Lucas' own professed admiration for Campbell's ideas - and his affirmation that those ideas greatly influenced his story-telling in Star Wars, and most particularly with the PT. The thing about Campbell is that he conflates the rhythmic story-telling and the epic scale of the stories; as if they are one and the same. There is plenty of criticism of Campbell's work precisely because of that conflation. This is not a matter of what I like or don't, it is pointing out that - unless you read criticism of Campbell instead of just accepting his ideas - you will make the same error. Much of the 'epic' story-telling inserted into the PT is Campbellian in origin.

It is not a matter of whether I like the story-telling 'formula' (or that there is only one - I certainly don't believe that) - but rather pointing out that it is an error to think that the 'formula' works because of epic scale or deistic uber-heroes; those are elements that have been tacked onto a powerful underlying rhythm to bolster ideas of the 'righteousness' and the 'natural order' of power structures.

 

This is nothing more than an opinion. Do you really expect us to embrace this view, because of the "general popular culture" opinion . . . or yours? I find that arrogant. There are still plenty of SW fans who either love the saga as a whole or even the PT.

There is no one real opinion of the PT, the OT or the Saga. There is simply a collection of different views. And I find it sad that many fans are incapable of accepting this, due to their personal preferences.

 

This is nothing more than an opinion. Do you really expect us to embrace this view, because of the "general popular culture" opinion . . . or yours? I find that arrogant. There are still plenty of SW fans who either love the saga as a whole or even the PT.

There is no one real opinion of the PT, the OT or the Saga. There is simply a collection of different views. And I find it sad that many fans are incapable of accepting this, due to their personal preferences.

 

Why? Why is it something that's difficult to accept? I ask these questions because they just don't make sense.

That was intentional on Lucas's part and McDiramid noted that it was interesting to play a villain who was pretty much evil, with no redeeming qualities other than he liked the Arts. He focused more on Anakin's reasons for turning over Palpatine's motivations, since the story was about the flaws of a good man who doesn't see what he has become until it is too late. Whereas for Palpatine, he's already accepted who he is.

It still cares in the OT, even if it wasn't depicted that way before.

They can't link up? Funny, because they do. It doesn't matter that the word Sith wasn't used in 77, the fact is that the film established Vader as an enemy of the Jedi and that the Jedi had served the Republic as the guardians of the peace, before Vader's betrayal and Palpatine became the Emperor. Obi-wan's history lesson to Luke about the Jedi and the Clone Wars makes it clear that the Jedi were the top dogs in the Republic at one time.

Let's leave out the full details of the EU for just a moment and go by what is in the film and what Lucas said. There were many Sith at one point until the various acts of betrayal resulted in a new endeavor, in which there would only be two at a time. These acts of betrayal probably eliminated as many Sith as the Jedi would during their war. Once it had gotten to a point which Yoda said, "Always two there are", then the situation was different and why the Sith had gotten as far as they did. The chaos before then kept the Force balanced.

Because they took it by force, rather than having it handed to them willingly. The Sith were barbarians and conquerors like Genghis Khan, who just fought and fought and fought until they achieved their goals. The Jedi at the time were hit hard by the Sith, but they were still capable of fighting them and they had even adapted from what they had been to what they needed to be to fight and win this war. The problem is that once that war ended, the surviving Sith Lord adapted and the Jedi did not. Couple that with all the corruption that set in over a thousand years and the whole thing began to fall apart by the time Palpatine stepped up to the plate to take over.

Lucas also refers to cancer cells which corrupt and destroy as it consumes everything. He uses that comparison to describe the Force, the Jedi and the Republic which are symbiotic in nature until the Sith comes along as a cancer and infects the galaxy with their taint. But it is not just a mere taint, but that it infects the Jedi and the Republic, which in turn weakens the Force's balance. Too many cancer cells and we start to die.

If it goes against the will of the Force by corrupting that which is natural, by doing things that are unnatural. Evil existed before and will exist after the Force had been balanced, but it is the actions of the Sith, especially during this time period, that messes with everything.

Right. Which I pointed out.

I never argued otherwise. That's because the struggle is meant to be different. Even before going in this direction, Lucas had wanted the conflict between Luke and Vader to be a small and personal struggle. One filled with intense emotion over what happened and what was going on now. Having the audience know the bigger stakes doesn't affect their perception. They know going in now that Luke needs to succeed in saving his father in order to save himself and everyone else. It is that tension going forward that gives the story a different meaning and context.

It's like what Hitchcock said about knowing of the bomb in the briefcase, but the characters don't. The audience will be on the edge of their seat waiting for a resolution to occur.

It is somewhere between C and D. There is a limitation into how clearly one can see, but the Jedi and Sith looks towards the future and work around it. Given what is said in ROTS and TESB, emotions play a factor in how one reacts to what they see. Both Skywalker men react emotionally to the visions that they see and both take drastic action, without really considering the consequences of their actions. Nor the sacrifices that they may have to make. Indeed in ROTJ, Obi-wan points out that Luke's rescue plan went belly up and he was the one who had to be rescued. The only upside wound up being that Vader told him the truth and unexpectedly, Luke felt a flicker of good within him. And we know in ROTS that Anakin's actions resulted in his future coming to pass, though along the way, there was at least one notable change within that moment.

The Sith, on the other hand, rely on planning and foresight to achieve their goals. Note that they have to work at it to get to where they are. When something doesn't go their way, they can adapt to it and still come out on top. Most of the time. The Jedi, on the other hand, will often "wing it". Qui-gon didn't have a specific plan for getting off Tatooine, but he kept an open mind and eventually as he said, another solution would present itself. Obi-wan would later on have a similar attitude when looking for a ship to go to Alderaan and that leads them to Han and Chewie. Luke would put together a plan that required taking Jabba out of his palace and out into the open, which was Luke's comfort zone and was able to successfully rescue everyone. But along the way, he didn't count on the Rancor nearly botching everything. Though Luke's plan still went off without much of a hitch.

So in that regard, I believe that is how the future is perceived.

 

Edit: Double Post.

 

That's a bit dismissive, isn't it?

I don't have my movies with me at the moment so I can't give you very specific instances, but take a shot I actually really like: Kenobi riding Boga out of the kennel, out into the canyon-crater thing. Things like that require camera movements (or character movement like Grievous' aforementioned spideriness) do not look like things that would have been done in the original films. Nothing like that could have been done in the original films. In addition, the style of the originals, especially ANH - even though they all make use of 'spectacle' - is very much like a documentary in how it is shot. A deliberately exaggerated for effect example of the general sort of thing I mean would be comparing the visual style of Transformers to the way the spacecraft scenes in the Battlestar remake were done.

None of which I disagree with. Anakin/Darth and Palpatine come across differently on screen because we see more of the inner deliberations and feelings of the one, compared to the other.

Now it does. In 2014. But when the OT came out, up 'til 1999, there was not only no indication in the films that this was the case, but I can't remember anything in the scripts or even notes that suggests this was a used idea. There are a few concepts like 'the Force of others' or 'chosen ones being great heroes for their particular species', etc, but we don't know to what degree, if any, these were meant to be part of the 'finished product' in, say, 1985. The Force (a) being able to be damaged on a large scale (b) having a will (being anthropomorphized in that way) (c) exacting its will directly - these are all things that were not present in the films (or the ancillary materials) until 1999.

It does matter. Because the difference, in this part of the conversation as originally delineated, related to how in the CT, the Empire, Palpatine's rise, etc, was not necessarily tied to the continuous historical struggle of one religious organization against another (Sith vs. Jedi). And/or that if there were connections of that sort, they were far less than they eventually became.

This complaint of mine isn't so much a 'stakes' one as an 'it makes the universe feel smaller' one. Like Anakin having built C-3PO.

I'm not talking Sith, I'm talking dark siders generally. The Force is everywhere, it's in everyone to some degree. Apparently people who are 'strong with it' can come from a variety of backgrounds (as we see in the diversity of Jedi). We also know that the Jedi (who liked to try to find potential users early, so they could be trained as Jedi) didn't have a presence throughout the entire galaxy. So there are more than likely Force-users out there who have never been trained in anything. And we're told the dark side is the quicker and easier path. But their existence doesn't throw the Force out of balance, apparently. What is it about the Sith that is unique? (Maybe they were doing something specifically damaging, but it felt more like the films were focused on their very existence as the problem. Apologies if I'm misremembering.)

This actually isn't a bad explanation. Kudos. None of that is in the films, though. That probably could have helped.

A couple things occur to me, though:

-If the difference is that the forces of the dark side essentially suffuse the galactic population at large now (as opposed to in the past, when they were simply stifling the population), why would getting rid of the Sith make much of a difference? They're only two out of a larger proportion, now. If getting rid of their Empire is also important... the pilots and captains and etc, not to mention the guys with purple funny hats in Jedi are still out there, even after Vader and the Emperor go away. Will this not keep the Force out of balance? The Sith may have started it, but it seems like your point is that it has grown beyond just them...

-If the balance of the Force is affected so heavily by the attitudes of sentients, that seems kind of anthropocentric, right? "Life creates it, makes it grow." Life is a much huger category than just creatures that walk and talk and wear funny hats. Most of that life is probably completely unconcerned with the political and religious situation among sentients.

I don't know if there are answers to these points. There probably could be, but part of me is just coming up with thought experiments and part is thinking that none of this would have even come up if the general outlines of the worldbuilding in Star Wars had stayed pretty much the same as they had been as explained in the CT. We can keep talking about this if you want, though.

What, specifically, are they doing? Getting a lot of people on their side, or at least to do their bidding? Ok... Is there something that prevents future dark siders from doing the same? If so, will that require a Chosen One? And if that's so, shouldn't Anakin be A Chosen One rather than The?

Right... that's what I was saying. It's different. The added stakes are the part I am not necessarily as big a fan of.

It affects mine?

I think that tension may have been there the whole time. But... that the end result will save not just Vader, not just "everyone else," but indeed the structure of the cosmos itself -- that's the difference.

I can appreciate the differences in philosophy you delineate, but I was more talking about the metaphysical implications of each possible explanation. For example, if the Force relies on the multiverse (and this is assuming Star Wars operates with a multiverse as part of the worldbuilding) then all possibilities will come to pass. It may not be possible to "choose" which future you end up in, because there's a you in all of them (or the remains of you, etc). I realize that this is probably taking the theorizing a bit farther than may be warranted, but... yeah.

 

Not really. It's a legitimate question on my part. Not just with you, but with people who have this thing with special effects. It just flies over my head and probably will no matter how many examples someone gives.

As I mentioned, the closest was in the second draft of ANH, where Luke explains to his younger brothers that the Bogan of the Force, which was the good side, was growing weaker with the death of each Jedi, while the Ashla or dark side maintained its strength. It didn't make its way into the film since Lucas was interested in a quick pace and was making the film more stand alone, should it fail.

Not really because it still stands either way due to the fact that the Jedi had been around a long time, per Obi-wan's own words and that with their extermination, there was no one left to stop them. The Death Star was ready and the Alliance was nowhere near as powerful as it was about to become. It was foreshadowing Obi-wan and Luke. The meaning is deeper with the PT, but it still stands as that regardless.

For that we have to look at both ROTS and "Darth Plagueis". In the film, Palpatine states that the dark side of the Force leads to many things that are considered by the Jedi to be unnatural. Including creating life and cheating death. If we are to assume that it is true, then the Sith are far more guilty of wrong doing because they push the boundaries of the Force beyond its limits. Yoda said that death is a natural part of life and yet, trying to cheat death is unnatural. So in using the Force to stop death, one is violating the very laws of nature and that would be considered a grievous crime. Look no further than the debates about abortion, birth control, stem cell research and even cloning. Now, I'm not going into a debate about the merits of that, but my point is that there's a particular perception of what is right and wrong and it is in the films, that we see it in a particular sense.

The novel states that the experiments that the Sith conducted had resulted in the Force creating Anakin, as a result of these violations. Giving it a particular point in time. Whether you accept the book or not, it does elaborate on what was introduced in the film.

It isn't explained in so many words, but when you look at what happens in the PT and how the Jedi are constantly behind the eight ball, you're able to draw that conclusion. First, the Jedi say that they would know if the Sith were back, but they didn't until Maul almost ran Anakin and Qui-gon down. Next, the Jedi act as if the war with Dooku and his lies are how the Sith took control were the usual MO of the Sith. They think that Dooku lied, but he didn't this time. He actually told Obi-wan the truth. We know this is true and yet, the Jedi have a hard time accepting that scenario and when Anakin tells Mace that Dooku wasn't lying and that it's Palpatine that they're after, Mace is not only surprised, but a bit skeptical.

So you have to look at those bits of information and apply it to why didn't it happen then and why now. What Lucas said just puts it in focus, but it can still be there without it.

The answer here is simple; life and death. Life is peaceful and serene. Tranquil. War brings nothing but chaos, destruction and death. Having a huge war on top of everything else I mentioned, makes things worse. While life and death are a balance as much as good and evil, if you destroy something, then you are making a mess. You are undoing a natural order of things, if you will. This is why the title crawl says, "War! Evil is everywhere. There are heroes on both sides." These things are important to remember because the lines between good and evil, right and wrong have now become blurred. The Force is coming out of balance because of this.

Well, recall the end of "The Matrix Revolutions". After five attempts, Neo finally does what his predecessors failed to do. When asked if he would ever return, the Oracle says that he might. So who knows what could happen in the future. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. That isn't important right now and I'm betting it won't in the ST.

Your perception is affected simply because you don't like it. You have a bias against that type of story to begin with. That doesn't mean the story is really altered by it.

That's only if you're looking into the parallel universe theory like a multiverse. This is a bit more like, "The choices we make determine the course of our lives". We make a choice and choose a path, but along the way, we do something that is unexpected. That doesn't mean that in another universe, that didn't happen or didn't have a different result. That is only important if you're telling that kind of tale to begin with. Again, I refer to "The Matrix". Neo was told that he was the key to ending the war, but he finds out it was a system of control. But the system was flawed and Neo was flawed. So, he went against the system and ended the war his way. A more logical method that got the job done and was done without compromise. The compromise being the deaths of everyone in Zion and the Matrix. This choice was not seen, except for a particular moment that was seen, which was how it would end. The moment when Neo is beaten by Smith and he stands over him and says, "Everything that has a beginning has an end." Everything from the moment Neo went out the door to save Trinity to that moment was unknown. It was not foreseen. All because of choice.

In relation, Anakin's choice to fulfill his destiny was seen, but not the circumstances surrounding that choice.

 

I meant the "it doesn't make sense" part. However, fair enough.

Good catch. Again though, this doesn't seem to have been part of the plan once that film was nailed down, and certainly was never mentioned in any of those films.

It matters because of who the "they" is. If it's Palpatine (simply a politician/sorceror), his henchman and The Dark Lord of the Sith Darth Vader, and the Empire, then the struggle takes on a certain kind of feel; if the struggle involves The Sith Lord Darth Sidious, the Sith Lord Darth Vader, and essentially the attempted resurrection of a Sith Empire from the far past, it takes on a different kind of feel.

I actually like the EU, but I feel like it helps if the whys and wherefores are clear from the films themselves. (Unless exploring the ambiguity and everything is part of the basic idea of the film, which would make it pretty experimental. Which doesn't exactly seem like what Star Wars is doing.)

Your 'mess' statement is close to the way I always thought of the dark side.

It is important because it affects whether the events are viewed as possibly the end of history (or as including the possibility for such an end) or as simply an inflection point within history. Think of it as the difference between a Christ-story and a Buddha-story. There is only one Christ (in the way Christians conceive it today), and His birth story only happens one time, in one way. His teaching, the same. His death, the same. And when He comes for the end of the world, that too will only happen once. To contrast, there once supposedly was a man called the Buddha, but (I'm sure/seem to recall) others had attained wisdom before him, and many others followed his example afterward, awakening to their own Buddha-nature. See the difference?

Which is Anakin?

If there was no difference, there would be nothing for my perception to perceive. You're arguing that it doesn't alter the story enough to affect your enjoyment/understanding of it.

The multiverse is the many-worlds hypothesis. If not that, then either the future is unpredictable (too much quantum 'noise' affecting things) or it is entirely predictable (determinism). Or some combination. But what I don't understand is the model where a Jedi can look, from time t, into the future t+4, see a vision of the future, then change something at t+2, look again at time t+3, and see something different at t+4. True clairvoyance would only be able to see things that actually will happen - the 'block time' model (as with Slaughterhouse-5). A character's vision may be limited, or they may be mistaken, or maybe there is an element of prediction involved which means that their visions are dependent on their current knowledge (which would make the visions not any different from 'imagination,' essentially) but it doesn't make sense for them to really be looking into the future itself and see things that don't happen.

I realize I'm arguing with Yoda's "always in motion is the future" here. But I can take that as a colloquial/wry version of "always in motion is our perception of the future."