Saga SW Saga In-Depth In-Depth Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by only one kenobi, Dec 23, 2013.

Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
  1. MOC Yak Face Moderator, Classic Trilogy

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2004
    star 4
    There are no contradictions. There are no plot holes. There are no inconsistencies.

    Repeat after me:

    The Force did it. The Force did it. The Force...
  2. Darth Raiden Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2013
    star 3
    Yep works for me :)
  3. Komodo9Joe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2013
    star 1
    After a busy few weeks, it's good to be back on the forums. And what better way to jump into posting than to dismantle another post attempting to rake the PT over the coals. :D

    We'll see. Moreover, concision is great and all but it is not precedent over sound reasoning.

    The first part to your first sentence is pointless to have written: of course telling a different story is "reasonable" (not the right word, but okay). The second part to your sentence though is where you cross the boundaries from vague diction to incorrect premises. The PT is not meant to "inform one about the OT." The PT is meant to be the PT-- a story set in a different time in the same galaxy far, far away. The PT embellishes and elaborates upon some of the basics laid out in the OT.

    Now your second part is a non sequitur. "Informing" does not equate or have a causal relationship with "alter[ing]." Something may add onto another thing without changing it objectively.

    Introduced, yes; "elaborated," not at all.

    The Jedi aren't a pathway to anything in the OT: they're a group of people who once had an Order, now gone, that have certain beliefs and have the ability to touch the Force. Not even symbolically do the Jedi offer the "path" to goodness; plenty of good people I'm sure exist on Tatooine, Bespin, Hoth, etc. They didn't require a pathway offered by the Jedi. Han Solo, who changed from a selfish rogue to a selfless freedom fighter, didn't need to walk down any path laid down by the Jedi.

    So no, the Jedi in the OT are not a pathway: they are what they are (namely, exactly what I've stated above).

    Yup, but you're not pointing out anything here that does a disservice to the PT. The fact that a Chancellor must resort to clandestine, illegal affairs reeks of a major problem: why does the head of state have his hand tied? Later we find out why: the Chancellor has fallen victim to the corruption in the Senate, which has brought "baseless accusations" against him. This part here is also very rich in political intrigue, historical reference, and even symbolism. You mentioned the "body politic" before. Well, when the head of state and the "core" of the Republic decay, the audience doesn't have to be English or Political science majors to note the blatant metaphorical language.

    Furthermore, the name Finis Valorum directly translates into Latin as the end of valor (Finis is a nominative noun meaning end and Valorum is the genitive/possessive form of the noun, valor.) Again, we have heavy meaning being funneled into the TPM here. If Valorum represents the end of decency within Republic, then we know that his subsequent ousting will bring his name to meaning as the end of valor truly approaches.

    So far, that entire paragraph you have written, only one kenobi, serves to bolster the credentials of the PT as holding deep, meaningful layers of appreciation.

    Nothing has become anything in the beginning of the PT: the Jedi have always held an Order during the Old Republic.

    I hope you're not referring back to your earlier, rudimentary comments on Jedi and "pathways" and other unsupported, subjective notions about the Jedi. None of the aforementioned things can have anything based off of.

    Your whole paragraph here does not make sense anyways. I know you're looking to put the PT in a bad light (by adding unnecessary negativity with "costly bit of work" and "dismissed") but to do so, effectively that is, you must have something of substance. Not these pitiful attempts to state not-established metaphors ("pillar") and try to condense it into a weapon aimed at the PT.

    But even with your attempt, nothing has been correctly linked to really anything: the PT, your own subjective metaphors, etc. If you interpret the Jedi as a pillar of storytelling, then the metaphor is not at all dismissed but in fact enshrined and adhered to as we see the Jedi Temple as very high pillars on Coruscant. Moreover, one might, unlike you, use some cohesive analysis to interpret the "pillars" as pillars of society or even symbols of the distance between the Jedi Order and the real down-to-Coruscant life. Pillars after all can be taken as towers and thus evoke the message of a dogmatic, set-in-its-way group on its ivory towers that will soon be toppled and/or removed from its enjoyed complacency. And all these notions have been constantly reached and studied by the many who have authentically delved into the PT, not just me.

    Bull crap and you know it. Democracy is not a hard thing to understand to anyone least of all a person of the prodigal intellect and vision of the creator of Star Wars, George Lucas.

    This is all wrong nonsense based on your laughable concern of George Lucas' ignorance on simple democracy. And I, unlike some others, do not bother to respond to afterthoughts of invalid arguments. You cannot get pass off making conclusions on non-existent premises with me, only one kenobi.

    Do not think for one second that anybody, who does not blindly support your side, will believe for an instant that you felt "uncomfortable" over a 24-year old fictional girl talking about her political view. It's in fact unhealthy to become uncomfortable over such innocuous statements. But of course, you're not really "uncomfortable": you're just trying to chalk up lines from the film to support your unsupportable, deceitful notion that George Lucas cannot understand a simple concept such as democracy. So cut out the theatrical verbage.

    Oh, this is rich. False, overt shock at a few preliminary comments uttered by Padme. "WHAT?!" indeed...

    [face_tired]
    Again with the clearly fake shock at a few, harmless lines spoken by Padme on politics? No, Padme is not "really" saying people are incapable of "self-governance" (give me a break), she's saying exactly what she said which by the way are not the lines you just made up above, having never appear in the film and/or script.

    And in that sentence is the real nugget of truth: You don't like the story the PT tells. In fact, if you were honest with yourself, I would suspect that deep down you know there is a big part of you that doesn't want to "buy" the PT.

    Actually, neither of the "concepts" you wrote down are clearly visible. But what I can roughly make out from what you wrote above is what I have been always saying: you harbor nostalgia, fashion rose-tinted glasses, and lovingly inflate your appreciation for a certain set of characters, a certain story, etc. Nothing wrong with that per se, but you try to manifest it into a false set of statements intended to blemish the PT. It's the other way, only one kenobi. The PT is far better than the OT and not you nor all the current public opinion can actually prevent one from seeing it. All that can be done, and has been done, is taint viewers against the PT.

    No, only one kenobi, just no. Any group of people can be lazily, bitterly lumped into "organizations" as you have done so now. But the fact is that you're wrong. We see: "real people" in the PT. Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Palpatine, Jar Jar, Dooku and the rest are all very much real people whom it would be disingenuous to lump into vague, structural entities as you have done.

    The PT and the OT and not "incompatible" only one kenobi, but from post I can easily gather what is clearly incompatible: you and the PT. This whole post you have written here in your thread that has spawned many pages is all a big marketing lie directed to the PT where you either draw up inconceivable notions, invalid conclusions, and, for that matter, pull the wool over your own eyes so you can not see the PT in anything but a disdainful light. And the same can, unfortunately, be said for many present Star Wars fans.
    Last edited by Komodo9Joe, Jan 27, 2014
  4. MOC Yak Face Moderator, Classic Trilogy

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2004
    star 4
    Look man, if he's pulled wool down over his eyes he's not going to be able to see the PT at all. Mixed metaphors can be dangerous!
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  5. Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn The Other Saga Moderator

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 23, 1999
    star 6
    I'm just curious: if things like what @OnlyOneKenobi has in their post are not their actual feelings ("marketing lie"), what then are the motivations to construct such lengthy criticisms? Just arbitrarily deciding 'I don't like this movie, for no reason at all' and then writing a lot about it, in much more depth than that?
    Last edited by Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn, Jan 28, 2014
  6. MOC Yak Face Moderator, Classic Trilogy

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2004
    star 4
    It's a conspiracy!

    Or, alternately, the force made him do it!
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  7. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4

    I think those are his real feelings.

    But I think a lot of people make a mistake in thinking that because they don't like something that it is objectively bad. Or that the reason they don't like the thing in question is because the object somehow failed in some manner.

    Really, it may just be that the thing in question didn't appeal to you.

    The reason I say this is that I've noticed a lot of fans feel the need to rationalize their disappoint with the PT by saying things like "George Lucas doesn't understand democracy" or "George Lucas doesn't understand what Star Wars is really about" or "the PT doesn't fit with the OT."

    To me, that's clearly not the problem. The issue is that the person in question doesn't like what they think George Lucas is saying about democracy or doesn't agree with George Lucas on what Star Wars is really about. Or the PT doesn't fit with what they thought the OT was about.

    But it's not an objective matter -- it's deeply subjective. It's based on the baggage you carry with you.

    For example, @only one kenobi perceives the Jedi of the OT to have been some sort of bastion of good and that their depiction in the PT is inconsistent with this. I don't interpret them this way. I think the OT Jedi are good people who are nonetheless deeply flawed. And this is best demonstrated by their willingness to lie to and mislead Luke while at the same time refusing to believe that Anakin can come back. There's nothing in the PT that contradicts my interpretation of them. In fact, I can clearly draw their continuous character arcs from the PT through the OT with no issue.
  8. Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn The Other Saga Moderator

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 23, 1999
    star 6
    I agree. However, you weren't asserting that the reasonings people come up with are fake. That's what I was arguing with. Maybe things could be phrased more delicately and precisely, but that doesn't mean the points (when so revised) are incoherent and are just the sputterings of a person who has no reason to argue with the films in question but does so anyway (which is not the point I understand you to be making).
  9. MOC Yak Face Moderator, Classic Trilogy

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2004
    star 4
    And, likewise, just because someone loves something doesn't make it objectively good. Just because someone doesn't detect an inconsistency doesn't mean others won't.
  10. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4

    Yep.

    But that's why I said it's a deeply subjective experience that's colored by our personal baggage. It's just that I don't think you can make objective statements about something's quality or another person based solely on your opinion and interpretation of a piece of art.

    When it comes to talking about art, for instance, I have far more respect for someone that can clearly elucidate why they love, say, The Legend of Zelda games so much and think they're on of the best works of art in the past fifty years than someone who says War and Peace is a great novel but, when pressed, can't offer any sort of meaningful analysis of it and instead blindly parrots back the fact that it is critically acclaimed and a classic.

    Note that I'm not saying anyone here is doing that.

    But, from my perspective, I can respect only one kenobi's opinion because he can clearly state why he doesn't like the films and how they don't match up to his interpretation of the OT (even though I interpret the OT very differently). Where I don't agree is when he says "George Lucas doesn't understand democracy." That I don't respect.

    It's one of the reasons I dislike the RLM reviews for instance -- because RLM arbitrarily creates "rules" based on his subjective opinion and he tries to assassinate Lucas' character in order to grant legitimacy to his opinion.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  11. MOC Yak Face Moderator, Classic Trilogy

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2004
    star 4
    Yeah. Although I guess when you put a piece of art out there you can come to expect your audience to interpret the content of the art as to some extent a reflection of your own views or perspectives.

    I'm not advocating character assassination by the way.
    Last edited by MOC Yak Face, Jan 28, 2014
  12. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4

    Yeah, that's certainly true.

    But I think it's a mistake to ascribe views to a person based on your interpretation of their work.

    I think it's fine, for instance, to say that you don't like the PT because you think it says some very anti-democracy things. And then provide evidence of that.

    But I think it's quite a different story to say that you believe George Lucas has anti-democratic views based on your interpretation of his piece of art.

    Sometimes authors unknowingly create works with implications they didn't fully think through or it never occurred to them could be interpreted a certain way. And I think it is really impossible to try and anticipate everyone's reaction to your work.

    One big example of this is the idea that the PT contains racist caricatures. I think it's one thing to say that you don't like the PT because you think it employs racist stereotypes or uses caricatures that are discriminatory. But I do think labeling George Lucas as a racist is unfair. If Lucas discriminates against certain races or makes statements against certain races, then yes I think it would be fair then to label him as such.
  13. only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 3
    I understand what you are saying but...I'm not accusing Lucas of any wrong-doing. I'm saying that I don't believe that he is a particularly eloquent political theorist. There's nothing wrong with that, but I won't expect (and do not, imo, get) a particularly eloquent political story-line (and I have expressed my issues in general with the notion of 'democracy' being represented as the Senate - including, I might add, representation of a corporate body (the Trade Federation) within that 'democratic' institution?!).

    If anything I'm pointing out that Lucas' strength is working broad strokes, and the further he moves away from that the less successful his stories become (imo).

    I will respond to this by saying a) I haven't suggested that Lucas is anti-democratic, more that I'm not entirely sure he is the best person to tell a political story about the demise of democracy when his feelings on the matter of democracy are so...ambivalent; and b) - why I have highlighted what I have (nothing to do with perceived racism - in case anybody wants to jump all over me for that) I have not reached this conclusion through a reading of his art but via his statements about democracy and real world politics (as per the interview that I quoted earlier).

    Making a criticism is not hate, and it is not an accusation.
    Last edited by only one kenobi, Jan 28, 2014
    TOSCHESTATION and MOC Yak Face like this.
  14. MOC Yak Face Moderator, Classic Trilogy

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2004
    star 4
    Also, querying someone's views on democracy isn't in the same camp as labeling someone a racist or a rapist. Although democracy is held up by many as an ideal with almost religious reverence, there's plenty to discuss about its merits and it's not nearly as simple as some would assert.
    only one kenobi likes this.
  15. Lulu_Mars Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2005
    star 1
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the presence of the Trade Federation meant as a sign of the corruption in the Senate? Palpatine even says in TPM that the Senate is full of greedy, squabbling Senators and later tells Amidala that the bureaucrats, who are the true rulers of the Republic, are on the payroll of the Trade Federation (which is also said to be greedy in the opening scroll). The Trade Federation is used as a symbol for corruption.
    My point is that Lucas paints a picture of a democracy that's going down the drain. He's showing the danger of greed with, as you say, broad strokes. It may not be to everyone's liking, but I personally think it's masterfully done.
    PiettsHat likes this.
  16. Komodo9Joe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2013
    star 1
    No, you're not missing anything. That's exactly the point George Lucas is trying to get across. The fact that the Trade Federation has legal representation is a massive red flag that corruption, embezzlement, and graft is widespread within the system.
    Last edited by Komodo9Joe, Jan 28, 2014
  17. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Still, though, I think there's a difference between saying that you felt that the message the PT imparts is poorly expressed or that you don't like what you interpret it to be. It's quite another thing to say that Lucas doesn't understand democracy. In one case, you're talking about the transmission of information and stating that, for whatever reason, the message did not resonate with you. In the other case, you are making assumptions about Lucas' knowledge base, which I think is ill-advised.

    But, again, you have to be really careful here. You're talking about Lucas statements which you interpreted a certain way (that I don't wholly agree with if you recall my response) and that were stated in a specific context. I think it's also a mistake to assume that Lucas is ambivalent in regards to democracy. The man is politically active and engaged and sponsors programs to promote education after all. Oh, and the racism example was just meant as an example (since I have seen it thrown around before).

    There's a difference, in essence, between criticizing a work and criticizing a person is all I'm saying.

    And it works both ways. You've probably heard of Ender's Game. Well, a lot of people I know love that book and its sequels along with the messages they thought it contained. So, imagine their shock and dismay when they've heard some of the things Orson Scott Card has said and done in regards to homosexuality. In this case, were they wrong to enjoy the book or perceive it to have a message of tolerance? I wouldn't say so.

    Another example, for me in particular, is watching Star Trek: The Original Series. There's a specific episode called Turnabout Intruder that's just brimming with sexism. Unsurprising given the time it was made. I can still enjoy it, though, because I re-interpret the episode to not be about Janice being prevented from being a Captain because she's a woman (since I don't feel that this makes sense in the context of the Star Trek universe as more utopia than ours) but rather that this is a person who failed and, instead of growing up and facing the flaws that prevented her from reaching her goal, she developed a persecution complex. I recognize that this wasn't the intention (in all likelihood) when the episode was first written, but it's how I interpret it in order to better reflect what I understand of the Star Trek universe and how I live my life.

    In general, though, I just think it's very difficult to judge someone you do not know. And I don't much like it when people try to discern the creator or actors' motives. I know on another thread, someone implied that George Lucas was "creepy" because he designed Padmé's leather dinner gown and this person had also seen in the movie commentary that Lucas had planned on casting her since he saw her in Leon. I think that's a very, very unfair attack on his character. And, to be honest, it bothers me that Lucas is so criticized by the fan base while people give Harrison Ford a free pass.

    You say that, based on interviews by Lucas and his films, that Lucas doesn't understand democracy. But, would you say that Harrison Ford supports letting child rapists go free because he signed a petition to free Roman Polanski and delivered the man's Oscar (and shook his hand)? I just think it's treading on very thin ice to try to judge someone when you can't even have a conversation with them.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  18. only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 3
    Oh dear...this isn't a good start, is it. First of all we have antagonism (dismantling?, really? Not responding, but dismantling? Are you really addressing this in the spirit of a dicussion forum?). Secondly a strange concept that the post was 'raking the PT over the coals'. What sense of the phrase did you mean? Am I admonishing the PT? Telling it how naughty it has been? Or perhaps you mean in the sense of bringing something unpleasant up that is done and happened some time ago? I could be mischevious, I suppose, but I suggest that you are implying that I am doing the PT down in some way. Actually you have - then - misunderstood the post if you believe that.

    What the post was intended to do was point out the distinct conceptual basis of the story-telling, and how such alteration impacts upon the older work (when(if) the six movies are seen as a saga). Now, it is true that I make clear that I favour the story-telling of the earlier work, and dislike the PT but that should not blind you to the notion that I am offering reasons as to why I believe it is not simply some action of nostalgia that stands behind that simple fact (and my dislike of the PT, especially as compared to the OT is a fact)

    Hence my use of the word "as", and the phrase "as I can put together" around the notion of concision. And...am I to take it from "we'll see" that you are the arbiter of concision? But...if you are you failed to give a grade. How did I do, oh great shining "sir" of knowledge?

    Vague diction? You at no point raised any question about the diction of my sentence (first part or not) - or were you talking about my pronunciation? But...no, you couldn't know how I pronounce the words so...what was it about the phraseology that you disliked so?

    But... you then go on to talk of incorrect premises whilst dissecting a sentence into separate arguments...? You do know how a sentence works, right? And this is an introduction, an outline of what I am trying to express. So, that when I say that it is a very different story (which is reasonable in itself) but which is meant to inform about the OT...then I am stating that making a distinct story is entirely the right of the storyteller but (there is a clause) if that story is intended to inform us of the older work then those changes (if the saga is to be seen as a whole) will alter elements of that older work. This, being an introductory statement, requires some explanation which is what the following sentences are intended to do.

    Now, you then argue that " The PT is not meant to inform one about the OT.", and then go on to claim that "The PT is meant to be the PT-- a story set in a different time in the same galaxy far, far away." Now this is, firstly, an incorrect assertion. The PT is, demonstrably, intended to inform about the OT. Lucas is clear that his intention with the PT is to tell the story of how Anakin became Darth Vader; of how the Republic fell and how the Empire came to be; of how the Jedi Order was destroyed. So, it is clear that the PT is intended to inform the audience as to how many of the characters we see in the OT ended up where they were, in their particular circumstances, in the context of the OT. Your second sentence is misleading in as much as it suggests non-convergence (ie a lack of shared characters and settings), seeming to argue that it is a distinct story merely existing vaguely in the same 'universe'.

    You see a non-sequiter because (as I have pointed out) you are breaking a sentence down into separate arguments (a false premise). "Informing", as you rightly point out, does not necessarily equate with "altering", however (and in the context of the sentence/argument) if the story is very different and it is intended to inform then it can end up, within the context of informing, altering. Of course this in itself does not explain in what way I believe that happens. That is what the other sentences, and their arguments, expand upon. So, I think that my judgement that this level of argument was too brief was pretty much on the money. I believe my concision meter is in working order at this point.

    I don't understand what you are arguing here. If it were merely introduced, and not elaborated upon then we would have merely the idea that Obi-Wan was (is?) a Jedi Knight and that Luke's father was also one. But what would that mean? Well then, you see, through the movies we learn a little more about who the Jedi are(were), and what it takes, what it is to be (a) Jedi. That is elaboration, you see. Introduction would be "this is a Jedi" - leaves a lot of questions; doesn't mean anything. (Just out of interest, is there any reason that "elaborated" is in quotation marks and introduced not? Is there a subtle message in your stylistic choice?)


    So..straight away you have missed the argument. Well done. As I said, Jedi is simply a conception in the OT. It is a conceptual space. There is no order which they are a part of, that is - again - simply a concept. Broad strokes. The concept 'Jedi' represents a spiritual awakening (stepping into a "larger world"), a path to good (not the path). You'll find from interviews at the time that this is exactly what Lucas was aiming at with the conception of the Force and (by extension) the Jedi.

    I was talking of the Jedi Order (as a distinct construct from the broad stroke concept in the OT) being tied to, not just the Republic but doing the bidding of the Chancellor without the consent of the Senate. So...an illegal action, in the name of 'democracy'? That is why Valorum can't bring forward the Jedi as witnesses in the Senate discussion. So I was alluding to two things here. One, that the 'Jedi Order' is given firm foundation , a conception distinct from the broad-stroke OT 'Jedi'. Secondly, that here we have Lucas' version of a 'good democracy'...which actually is envisioned as...a benign dictator (a subject I returned to later)

    Okay..I tried but, in the spirit of your post; Valorum is not a nominative, it is a gentive plural. Valor (the root) doesn't mean 'valour' but translates as 'value'. So, valorum would translate as (approximately) 'of values'. Finis is 'end' or 'boundary' so an approximate translation of his name would be 'end of values'. Not a million miles away but...you've put me in the mood to be ..nit-picking. But, this merely confirms what I was concerned with - ie that the 'end of values' in a 'democratic' setting is the ousting of a benign despot.

    Or (depending upon your taste) a complete misapprehension of the concept of democracy. More to the point, it was intended to show how the broad-stroke concept 'Jedi' is a distinct story-telling 'prop' from the 'Jedi Order'. The problem being that, if one sees the six movies as one saga, that subtle difference in style is lost; 'the Jedi' are transformed into an aspect of the 'Jedi order'. The one conception is submerged under the weight of the other.

    As you have not addressed the basic notion underlying that suggestion then I am left to contemplate that you simply have not comprehended the point I was making. Which would, of course, explain...




    Ooohh. Big talk.

    I base my concerns about Lucas' views on democracy, and understanding of it on his words in an interview regarding real-life politics. In that interview (a section of which I posted on this thread) he talked of the best form of government being a benign despot, he also spoke of some quasi-historical (mythological) notion of peasants being made proud of their King by the riches he adorned himself with...as if the peasantry had any say in the matter (a signal of a lack of historical context of democratic ideas). Anyway, this is not the place for such a discussion (as has been pointed out). Suffice it to say that I hold to the argument that I wouldn't expect a particularly insightful depiction of the fall of democracy from someone who is not a particularly interested political theorist, or who isn't entirely sure they are convinced by democracy. I can only, after all, go by the man's own words.

    There is a distinction here, though, that is interesting. The concept that the rebellion were fighting for in the OT (and what the Jedi were the Guardians of) was not 'democracy' but freedom.

    Padmé isn't real. It is not Padmé that I am concerned about. The words are put there by the author, Lucas. There is a trope being referenced here. The mob (and I don't mean the Mafia). The feckless, gormless 'mass' of 'others' who cannot be trusted to know what is good for them; they will only ever seek that which they want. This is an argumentagainst democracy, deeply historical in conception. I'm not going to give a lesson in history but, take a look at early Greek arguments against the spread of Athenian democracy; or at Roman Senatorial judgements upon those 'plebs' who were active against them.

    I'll point out again that Padmé is not real. My reaction is to the idea that..the Senate represents 'democracy' and yet...the representatives aren't even elected officials. Let me put this as simply as I can. if you are going to represent democracy through the use of the 'prop' the Senate...at least let it be a democratic institution.

    As to the bold bit (are you shouting?) I did reference that these are from deleted scenes. Fully accessible by means of the second disc.

    Eeerrmm...I'm pretty sure that is exactly what I've just said. I don't like the story the PT tells. I can't buy it because I don't like the inferences it makes. I'm not sure what you are trying to say when you claim I can't 'buy' it because I don't want to. I can't 'buy' it because I don't like the story it tells. Are you suggesting that I do like it really but force myself not to? What are you saying?

    Well, you won't "clearly" make out those concepts because you view the OT through the lens of the PT. That's rather my point. The PT alters the perspective of many of the concepts that made the OT the story it was (and is if one sees it as its own entity).

    As for your last bit...I am pointing out what I 'bought into' in the OT and why the PT does not match with my conception of Star wars. if you prefer the PT then..good for you. To say they are better movies is jumping from the subjective (you prefer them) to the objective (they are better, as a matter of fact) There is simply no such 'truth' to be argued.


    A big marketing lie? What are you on about? Are there voices in your head? Which marketeer am I lying for?

    As for 'pulling the wool over my eyes'...nah. I've seen the PT. I've watched it a few times. I've tried watching it more but...it's just not for me. Different story. Different conceptions. Different ideas. Not my cup of tea at all.

    If TPM had been the first movie then...I would never have watched another.
    TOSCHESTATION and MOC Yak Face like this.
  19. MOC Yak Face Moderator, Classic Trilogy

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2004
    star 4

    Mmmm, I think you might be getting into apples and oranges territory here. Making an allegation that someone supports child abuse based on a petition or whatever and commenting on his or her understanding of democracy based on a film and an interview seem to be significantly different to me. Is the latter really a comment on the person's character? What if the film was set in a communist society? Would someone coming out and saying that from watching the film they doubt that the film maker has a great understanding of how communism works be considered a character attack? Is it the fact that democracy is widely considered to be an untouchable philosophy the reason that it's seen so personal and offensive?
    only one kenobi likes this.
  20. only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 3
    Well, yes and no. I find the representation of 'democracy' in the PT is a little too much 'surface'. I don't really sense that there is democracy to be fighting for. I think part of that is that the Senate is 'democracy' - which in itself is, imo, a false pretext. But there are other issues which don't really convince me.

    If I then find that Lucas has given an interview and...what he says in that interview strikes me as ..politically naive? I don't mean that in an insulting way, I simply mean he doesn't seem to have well considered political notions. In fact he seems to have some pretty broad-stroke, pragmatic conceptions..let's put it that way. I doubt he has spent much time reading very much political theory. That doesn't make him bad or stupid or any other insulting notion. All that it means is, in terms of story-telling, he may not be the best placed individual to tell a political tale of how democracy is lost.


    That is out of order. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I am referencing a disjoint I see in the depiction of democracy within the PT and noting some interesting answers he has given in an interview which can be seen to be expressed within the framework of the PT. If I were to have an issue with Lucas I might suggest he is ramming anti-democratic ideas down the throats of our children. I don't believe that at all. Democracy is not as simple a concept as some people might like to believe. I simply don't believe that Lucas has done a particularly good job of defining a democracy that is in any way democratic enough to be saved - given that I don't see how the story has been told of the loss of democracy. The broader stroke of 'freedom' as opposed to 'oppression' was, simply, a better fit for Lucas' 'broad stroke' principles, I believe, than the convoluted story of political institutions and machinations.

    If Harrison Ford had made a film about 'loss of innocence' and I got the creepy feeling that a young character (a child) could be seen as playing a part in (being responsible for) their seduction, and then saw that...then yes I might make a judgement that his views might have influenced the story he told.(which, I will point out so i don't have to put a tin hat on, is not on anywhere near the same level of my suggestion with regards to Lucas)
    Last edited by only one kenobi, Jan 28, 2014
  21. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I don't really see how it's an apples and oranges comparison, personally. @only one kenobi was perfectly fine with stating that George Lucas doesn't understand democracy based on some statements Lucas made in an interview. RedLetterMedia stated that George Lucas doesn't understand women because of how the Anakin and Padmé romance played out. Another person felt George Lucas was "creepy" for designing Padmé's corset dress (and implied he'd had it in mind since seeing her in Leon). Very few people, however, mention the fact that Harrison Ford has supported freeing Roman Polanski -- who is an admitted child rapist. In this context, I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. Harrison Ford has stated that he thinks someone who raped a 13 year old girl should go free. I just think that people are very quick to ascribe thoughts and feelings to George Lucas and that they don't give him the benefit of the doubt that they do others, such as Ford.

    I think it's fine to say that the film doesn't accurately portray something or that you feel it's an element that's mishandled in the film. But it gets rather more controversial, for me, to make allegations against people. Saying someone doesn't understand something or that they support a particular idea isn't really fair, in my opinion, because so much of what we get out of movies is based on interpretation and this is true even for things like interviews. Reading an interview isn't the same thing as sitting down with George Lucas and while I do think that some aspects of his personality and thoughts can be gleaned from them, I also think that people should perhaps be a bit more reserved in their judgments in the interests of fairness. Because none of us knows the man personally, after all.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  22. MOC Yak Face Moderator, Classic Trilogy

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2004
    star 4
    Well, RLM, Polanski, Harrison Ford don't really concern me at this juncture. I just don't see questioning someone's understanding of democracy to be a character attack. Would it be the same of communism, monarchism or any other governmental system? What do you reckon PH?
    only one kenobi likes this.
  23. Darth_Nub Saga, Classic Trilogy and Film Music Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2009
    star 4
    Let's leave RLM out of here - as I've stated on several occasions, it brings out the worst in everyone on both sides.

    Roman Polanski and Harrison Ford's support of him are also taking things a bit too far, as well. Back on topic, please people, this forum is about Star Wars.
    MOC Yak Face likes this.
  24. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    See, I think you are basing your conclusions on incomplete evidence. An interview is very limited (not just in terms of time but subject matter as well) and, again, we aren't present to be able to interpret nonverbal cues and other important signals. I think, also, that your perception of his words is very much colored by your interpretation of the PT (and this is true for me as well). But, truthfully, reading the interview, I never came to the same conclusion that you did. I think it's fair to say that individual statements can sound politically naive when taken in isolation. But I don't see how you can make determinations of an individual's political worldview based on such limited information.

    Now, I think that's a fair criticism -- that Lucas has not done a good job of defining a democracy that is democratic enough to be saved. I disagree, but it's a fair criticism based on your interpretation of the film. I, personally, think he did a good job making use of moral cowardice, corporate greed, and bureaucratic inefficiency but, obviously, your mileage will vary.
    Last edited by PiettsHat, Jan 28, 2014
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  25. Komodo9Joe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2013
    star 1
    You call this mess, this assortment of sarcastic questions and false sentences whilst not truly saying anything, a post? I thought there was an unspoken rule on the forums that posts must be constructive, i.e. worthwhile posting, not just to have something written back when one is called on out on all their bull crap (of which George Lucas does not understand democracy a single example of many).

    You see, responding would be appropriate if I was dealing with a valid and/or insightful argument. Dismantling though, is the appropriate response when facts are made up (that George Lucas doesn't understand democracy), subjective loosely-arrived-at conclusions are made(Jedi offer paths to goodness in the OT), and then used as a basis for even more erroneous conclusions(Everything else in your first post and this one). Don't complain about it; I've just rolled with what you've given.

    I'm sorry to hear that you find raking the PT over the coals a strange "concept" (it's not what a concept) when you have frequently indulge in it.

    At least now your post has a semblance to coherence after I've trimmed down all those petulant, irrelevant, and rhetorical questions. Don't clog up your post, only one kenobi; you write obscurely enough as it is.

    I haven't misunderstood anything; I read each parts of your post and subsequently, as I've stated before, dismantle them. You "suggest" that I am I implying? You cannot suggest another person to imply, only one kenobi. The sentence doesn't make sense. Your last line, regardless of your intentions, is not apparent within your post. Formulating your own incorrect, inaccurate condemnation of the PT and the OT and then noting the "alterations" in perception between the two does not arrive at a correct conclusion.

    So you're saying that the present, paltry amount of concision is "as [much as you] can put together? Informative, yet ultimately unsurprising and irrelevant. I stated that concision is a backdrop to sound reasoning yet you quip on the lesser of the two.

    Well, as the "great shining sir of knowledge," my first advice to you would be to remove all this sardonic, obstructive, clutter from your posts. It's the very opposite of concision.

    Can you read my post? I raised the question of your diction, i.e "reasonable," very clearly. Yet you continue to miss the clear-cut and instead rattle off more petulant and rhetorical questions.

    Yet you have been incapable of expressing anything correctly or reasonably.

    Hard time understanding, huh? Let me explain once again. The PT is the story of the fall of the Republic and of how Anakin became Darth Vader. That's it. It is not mean to "inform one about the OT." "Meant" indicates purpose and the purpose of the PT is not to inform one about the OT.

    Repeat after me. The PT is meant to be the PT. It's purpose is to tell its own story. It's purpose is not to be an information booklet on the OT despite the greater understanding that it might bring to the entire SW universe. Now continue repeating that, only one kenobi, until you can grasp that simple fact.

    There is no hyphen between non and sequitur: the phrase is pure Latin. And everything else in you paragraph is similarly wrong. Breaking down a sentence is not a "false premise." What you believe happens is not an argument. It is an opinion. Know the difference. If your view of the OT changes due to things outside of explicit contradictions, i.e personal perception, then it is an opinion.

    And yet you still have not showed any examples of elaboration.


    You've seemingly missed my entire post. Read it again to learn that you cannot simple state a Jedi to have a "path," which you have done so, when it is incorrect.



    But you haven't shown it ... at all.

    So now you resort to lying. Don't insert things which I haven't said.

    But you haven't explained either of those things in your initial post. Regardless, they are both wrong for reasons I stated in my last post.

    Read what I said.

    No, it doesn't. The removal of Valorum does not equate into "the ousting of a benign despot." You cannot just state someone to be a "benign despot" without any proof pointing towards it. Once again, you're making unfounded conclusions and then spouting off a a bunch of more unsupported statements on top of it.

    No, because one has to agree that there is a subtle difference before one can miss it. Hence, why you cannot base things off of your subjectivity. If one does not see a subtle difference then nothing is lost.

    You don't have anything to offer, basic or otherwise, seen in my breakdown of your initial post and now here in your post filled with unnecessary question, verbage, and other clutter.

    More fake shock and bravado at being called out for the fake exclamations. It still stings, doesn't it?

    Keep spouting lies: it doesn't change the fact that George Lucas knows what democracy is and the politics of his own story. You do not.

    More tangents.

    Well then, "let me put this as simply as I can": you are not in a position to lecture on George Lucas' understanding of democracy and your reasoning for all your statements is non-existent.

    Why would you watch the second bonus disc if you dislike the PT so much? So rather than move on, content with your dislike, you further incite it by willingly watching bonus material of content that you fundamentally dislike. So lack of reasoning doesn't just apply to your rhetoric, huh? And no you did not reference them in your post.

    The emboldened part remains my line to your entire post. Your whole post here, which I had to filter of all the fake, sarcastic questions you posited still lacks anything of substance.

    Now you're playing mind-reader that I view the OT through the lens of the PT? Wrong and irrelevant.

    You cannot say there is no such truth to be argued when you are incapable of making a valid argument with even traces of correctness in them as I pointed out in my last, and gave examples of, in my last post.

    And yet you have watched the bonus disc even though it's not for you...

    Furthermore, you can't profess to different conceptions or ideas when you're woefully confused regarding either of them.

    All in all, only one kenobi, you have shown that you are incapable of forming an actual response to my post. Your last reply was nothing but a combination of sarcastic questions, things not previously stated in your initial post, even more far-fetched, incorrect conclusions, and so forth. Basically, all that is antithetical to the word "argument." Feel free to keep 'em coming though: I'll keep on calling you out on everyone of the aforementioned things.

    @Darth_Nub: I thought being overly sarcastic, i.e. endlessly asking rhetorical questions one clearly knows the answer to or is simply irrelevant, was disallowed.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn