The REAL objective of these movies.

fettmaster, do you think that one leg is red, like in the latest fan banner, or green, like reported in teaser a?

(seriousness forthcoming)

 

awesome thread

A) I don't think that there is any doubt that the main objective is to make money from merchandising. TPM was basically an add for LucasArts' pod racer game. (I didn't really like TPM).

B) I think Bismark is 100% correct in his assesment that to balance the force, both sides had to be cleared out. Any Babylon5 fans here will attest to this in lieu of the vorlons vs shadows debate. There is such a concept as too much devotion to a cause. The name of the game is change, and I think Lucas may have been making a commentary on unyielding ideals. Anakin/Darth Vader is never truly good or evil (he could have killed Luke many times, but had a soft spot for him. Also, there was enough good in him to be brought out at the end of ROTJ). Luke also played in the dark side as well in the Dark Empire comics by Dark Horse. Besides, look at what happens in the RC church when priests are not allowed to marry (abusing choir boys).

In the following novels, Leia and to a certain extent Han also devote themselves to their causes instead of their children, and the Solo kids are dealing with the psychlogical ramifications of these decisions as the NJO series continues.

C) I disagree with a statement in which you said that nothing the Jedi did was really important in the battles of the empire vs the rebellion. I would say that it is the *only* thing that matters. You could watch the OT again and fast forward thru all the scenes of the navy battles, people working on ships, etc and the ideals of the movie still shine through. The same can't be done in the reverse.

 

The link to the Catholic church and priesthood is something that occured to me also, but I never brought it up because I didn't want to possibly offend any Catholics that read this. But I think the idea is the same. How can you know if a thing is good or bad if you never try it or experience it? That's my problem with the Jedi. These people can't possibly have any understanding of marraige if they are so vehemently against it, and I think that is a childish way to live. Unyielding ideas are what children have.

 

Let's give this thing a good thrust and put it back on top just to see who comes to check it out!

 

Who ya wanna--who ya wanna--who ya wanna pump the butt?

C'mon now! I'm out of town for 3 days and NOTHING! Nothing new! Jebus!

 

here:

i looked through this thread again and took notice on the times that people simplified gl's intention to "merchandising." usually acknowledgement of lucasfilm's greed ends deeper discussion, however true. but i dont think it should stop people from looking for the different kind of drive behind this story.
yes, its a shame that the mythos behind star wars trickles down and becomes possessed by our consumerism, but that is our culture's nature as much as gl's interests.
and i am convinced at 25 years of age that mythic stories have always merchandised, just not such a quantifiable product: belief.
do we acknowledge that these stories carry our cultural belief system? if we do, then can we say that, for example, oedipus merchandised the belief of what is base in the relationship between child and mother/father. can we say that the odyssey merchandised the belief of the importance of home?
look at star wars merchandise, and you may find more than just the bottom line. i walk into the comic book store and see the everyday mass production of mythic icons. stranger things can be said of such an information-free culture as ours. how often in history have mythmakers had the chance to mass produce their material? i cant say that i blame him for having this intention, and i dont believe it discounts what the audience reads into the symbols, as surface as they are. in the very least, Darth Sapient and those willing to call out lucasfilm greed, is it worth looking at why we all spend so much money on one story?
please tell me if im completely off the mark. i tend to confuse what is due ceaser and what is due god (and what is due lucas for that matter).

 

I just think the merchandising is one step of a whole process in which stories seep into the culture. The end result is that a story is inseparable from a culture or language. If you say the word "odyssey," people usually don't think of Odysseus. They think of "a long trip." And that's it. Toys and books are simply an earlier step that would lead to such infusion.

 

Guten Tag meine damen und herren! Wir sprechen auf dem Krieg der Sterne! Haben sie eine schone abend! Aufweidersehn!

 

This is good reading.

 

BISCMARK! You old Sith you, Acthung, Baby!

This thread is just like the Phantom Menance...it waits till the right time to show up....AND THEN STRIKE AT THE JEDI!

 

HA HA DarthNomis! I've gotten a few laughs out of seeing you and Bismark go at it over and over again.

 

Archilles-he is my arch nemisis

I fart in his general direction.

Actually the reason why I look forward to this post to always pop up now and then is because of the points BISMARCKS makes.

They're valid.

Incorrect..but valid.

But it more than this or that "sucks". He gives an ineresting argument for his reasons.

He's wrong of course, but interesting.

It's easy to love folly in a child.

 

Ha ha, that's pretty good! But I don't know, I think he has me convinced. Especially if the dialogue in the "New Dialogue!" thread is true, what with Anakin's line about adhering to the "code" and whatnot. But really a lot of people on here have made good points. Bismark's just seem really well thought-out.

 

NNNNOOOOOOOOOoooooo Archilles, that leads to the dark side. mind your feelings.

 

Eeeeeee, I just don't know. I think he might be right. I mean, take the recent terrorist attacks. The very first thing that came to me was concern for my family and friends, not concern about protecting democracy or freedom or some other idea like that. That really showed me what was ultimately important to me, and I bet quite a few other people feel the same way.

 

"The very first thing that came to me was concern for my family and friends, not concern about protecting democracy or freedom or some other idea like that."

I concur WHOLEHEARTLY.

What I'm trying to convey to you (and Biscmark) is that Luke's concern for his family (Vader and Liea)is what saved the galaxy from the Sith rule and the destruction of possibly other planets going the way of Alderaan.

At the same time for a greater good a sacrifice is sometimes made (Anakin made the ultimate, he gave his life), as well as those who CHOOSES to embrace the ways of the Jedi teachings/code as opposed to living a "normal" life.

While it may seem outlandish and crazy to ones not that in tune with the force, to the ones who have that bond with the force it is the life that is satisfing to them.

This is a rehash of all I've post on this thread but I hope you can see my prespective in the matter.

 

I don't think Luke or Anakin had ideas about helping the galaxy in what they were doing. Luke's concern for Vader was for himself, he wanted a real father. It just happened that his efforts to turn Vader back helped out the galaxy. And when Vader killed the Emporer, I think he did that to save his son's life, not to rid the galaxy of the Emporer. That was just a happy by-product of what he did for his son. I think good people make a good world, not the other way around.

 

Going back to the very first pos ton this thread: Good observation. I was thinking the EXACT same thing a week ago. Luke was trained barely as a Jedi, only his heritage and strong character allowed him to get so far. he is not a Jedi in the traditional sense.

 

On a vaguely related point the following exchange has always concerned me:

LUKE But tell me why I can't...
YODA No, no, there is no _why_.

What better way to boost someone's curiosity in the dark side.
It seems that Yoda is reluctant to address the philosophical issues surrounding the light and dark sides of the force.

I've always taken the force to be a polar thing. It strikes me that the Jedi's exclusion of the dark side is not the best way of handling things. Fear and anger are aspects of the dark side. Why should these things be demonised? They seem quite sound emotions if handled properly.

If the Jedi had more practice with the dark side they might be less inclined to occasionally misuse these elements and "fall" to the dark side.

I'm not saying that the Sith aren't baddies, but I _am_ suggesting that the dark side (which isn't the same thing) is not necesarily bad. The dark side is only bad if you abuse these powers for your own ends. But you could just as easily abuse mind tricks et al.

We must also bare in mind the divisions in the Jedi camp. Qui-Gon is not popular with the council because he questions some of the Jedi philosophy. Maybe he just fancies Shmi.
Similarly, Luke doesn't fit the classic Jedi mould.

(an aside - are the twins, Luke and Leia, an attempt to symbolise yin and yang (sp?) when we get to the balance at the end of ROTJ? If so, who is who? Which is dark? Is it a problem? Why would they be? etc)

It strikes me that Yoda's only interest in the OT is that Luke kills Vader. This interest over-rides all else, including the safety of Luke's friends.

Vader's interest seems to be to overthrow Palpatine and rule the GFFA with his son.
It is unclear what the nature of this rule would be. Who knows what would've happened had Luke joined Vader in ESB...

How evil Palpatine is seems to be not really clear. For all we know things are fine on your average planet. Tatooine seems to be no longer run by the Hutts. We don't see any slavery there. Seems a change for the better, no?

But now this post is turning into a "How is the Empire Evil?" post. So I'll stop.

I just think that the Jedi have some interesting and questionable ways, especially their disregard for, and refusal to discuss, what is probably 50% of the force.

Good thread.

 

That makes you think, is Yoda really one of the bad guys. I'm not saying that he is but think about it, it is probably his and the Jedi's very restrictive policies that led to the turning of Anakin Skywalker and the destruction of the Jedi order. His goal it seems it to train Luke and have him destroy the Sith, not really caring about Han Solo, Chewy or even Luke's back-up, Leia.
However, you could look at it the other way. His policies were in place to keep discipline and self-restraint in the order, especially during a time of political crisis(the rotting of the Old Republic). He could be looking at the long term consequences regarding Luke and he was prepared to sacrifice a few lives for the greater good. This seems a very Jedi-like principle, that there is the force and the Jedi and one life is inconsequencial.

 

Interesting concept, but I don't think it holds water.

"But Luke beats Vader JUST ENOUGH to beat some sense into him, not kill him. This makes Vader kill the Emperor, and then Vader croaks."

First of all, let us not forget that Luke beat the living crap out of Vader at the end of ROTJ. While it's true that Luke in his prime couldn't have competed with Anakin in his, it is also true that he SOUNDLY defeated him in the end. Much of that combat was under the influence of the dark side, but he had just enough strength in the end to show mercy. Therefore, he had considerable power that I'm sure he developed further throughout his life.

Second, let us not forget that the final movie is called RETURN OF THE JEDI. Yes, that was partially referring to the return of Anakin's conscience and freedom. But it was also referring to Luke.

Third, "Vader. You must confront Vader. Only then a Jedi will you be." According to Yoda's criteria, Luke became a full-fledged Jedi at the end.

These things tell me that GL isn't making a statement against the Jedi. Except, perhaps, in one sense.

It does have to do with the word balance. Could it be that in their waning days, the Jedi were becoming a cumbersome bureaucracy that was ill prepared to face the quick and efficient wielding of the Dark Side? We already know that the Republic itself was becoming corrupt.

Those were two large factors weighing in favor of the Dark Side. Palpatine used both of them to turn the Republic into his personal empire, which completely tipped the scales of power to Darkness.

In other words, this was the imbalance that required "the one who would bring balance", who was prophesied of.

In my opinion, Luke was the chosen one. He restored balance to the force by showing mercy to the merciless, his father. Only the two of them together could finally defeat Palpatine.

Conclusion: At the end of ROTJ, the Jedi were back in the form of Luke and his sister. The Sith were once again extinct. But even without the Sith to counteract the Jedi, there WAS balance to the force. Why? Because evil continued exist in the galaxy. It was just no longer in the seat of power.

 

Wow. I very much agree with BISMARCK on this. I independently arrived to this conlusion, and they can be found here.

Very neato, Bismarck, very neato indeed.

 

just what gonzo said, I agree with you Bismarck and thought the same thing.

Balance to the force is being able to be good and just AND have your feelings and desires.

The Jedi are good, BUT they are flawed in the sense that they suppress their feelings and emotions. That's their monk-like nature.
Suppressing your feelings makes it easier for you not to give in to temptation, like you see in religious monks, but you do miss out on part of life.

The Sith are aware of their emotions, but only use them for evil and personal gain. Our emotions naturally lead us to anger, pain, love, etc., and all these things can be tempting.

Anakin's emotions lead him astray but in the end those emotions redeem him. His love for Luke redeems him. GL is showing that having emotions makes life harder, or more tempting, but in the end worth living. Anakin was the first complete Jedi at the end of ROTJ. That's the balance. And Luke was part of a new breed of Jedi, those that have the noble nature but are also able to profess their emotions like love.

 

thanks BISMARK.

that was good, and it only made so much sense because I'm baked. When I'm not baked, I'm thinking about SW movies on a totally sci-fi fanboy level, I don't think about the guy who made the movies at all. I mean he IS a genius for making them, but I never saw anything in a Star Wars movie that made me think about George Lucas.

Now I'm seeing that Obi-Wan(ep2 pics) kinda looks like a younger & thinner George Lucas. In some of Ralph McQuarrie's concept sketches of the OT, the lead character Anakin Starkiller looked alot like George Lucas. Since he's making 6 movies that are all one story, something no other director has or will ever do good, he finds ways to personalize his movies. He'll stick his kid in a scene with Jake Lloyd & some other kids, dress his daughter up as a Twi-lek, and even make the overall moral of Star Wars being what you said, about family. It all makes good sense.

 

Bloody hell, I just realized i posted the wrong link to my thoughts. this is the proper link.