PT The unpopularity and the negativity towards the PT: are people seriously missing out?

You are not really forced to war. In order to go to war one is compromising their own stances. That is a choice.

 

The novels help. That quote was good. I also like "Even stars burn out."

 

Most people have a stance that "defensive violence is OK" - so, any country actually being invaded, without provocation, that mobilizes its forces to repel the invader, is making no notable moral compromise.

 

I cant speak for fans in general, but in my personal life I know a couple SW fans that I would consider to actually be "missing out". People Ive known for a while and have shared common SW interests before the PT came out. I often sense their reluctant curiosity (not unlike the trope of the stereotypical tough guy who after briefly opening up and expressing his feelings quickly clams up turns the convo to sports). That said, I also know some OT fans I wouldnt consider to be "missing out" because what they like about the OT (and deducing from their interests in general)

 

I agree that the some of this discusion has moved past this thread, and in order to keep the thread from being derailed, I will keep my comments brief.

You are not talking to someone that is naive about war, what it does, and it's impacts. Especially WW2. You are not talking to someone that believes that because a soldier (during WW2) that wore the Stars and Stripes, Union Jack, or the Maple Leaf on their uniform, it automatically made them morally justified in their actions during the war. However, the discussion of how one acts and the decisions made during a war, is a different discussion entirely then whether war is or isn't necessary.

I have read enough books to know that there is a lot of questionable decisions made by the Allies, the firebombing of Dresden, the continued carpet bombing of cities when strategic bombing was far more productive etc etc.

I am not naive enough to believe that our good ole boys, fighting for the allies didn't rape, murder, loot, pillage, etc etc when they were over there. I have heard some horror stories first hand as I have talked, one on one, with quite a few WW2 vets.

However, those are again side discussions, that unfortunately don't, won't, or can't dissuade someone from the use of force (war).

I wish, that we as a species were past this. I agree that we should be! However, the reality is, we are not, as a species! As individuals, yes there are many of us that don't want to see war anymore, however, as I said earlier, the thought that we should never ever resort to war as a standard to set for the rest of the world is one that relies on wishful thinking that the rest of the world shares our outlook. It is clear that the rest of the world doesn't.

As the population of Earth gets bigger, resources get smaller, it is only inevitable that more war is coming, and we need to be prepared. That isn't war mongering, that isn't because Star Wars glamorized it for me, that is just a basic fact. I wish that we didn't have to resort to war...However, one of my all time favorite lines (not sure where it ever came from), and one that I have used with my teenage daughter... You can wish in one hand, and **** in the other, tell me which one fills up first... The "moral" is obvious.

The Clone War was going to happen, it is a brute fact. Simply put, Sidious's plan had nothing to do with whether or not Padme picked up a blaster. I doubt he cared very much if she did or didn't. You use the term if you "can't beat them, join them", well I don't see it that way. In my eyes she was defending herself. The battle droids that were out there would not have cared or even recognized her as a Senator as compared to a Jedi. Again, when push came to shove, she had to defend herself, or there was a good possibility she was going to die. Just like her daughter will have to do 20+ years later. Choose to fight, or suffer (and possibly die) under the Empire.

As for TPM, again, as I stated in my earlier post, it was not Sidious's intention that it turn into an armed conflict. Furthermore cryo, you forget just exactly how the sequence of events worked out in TPM. The actual Battle of Naboo had nothing, absolutely nothing at all to do with putting Palpatine into the Chancellorship. Sidious's plan was to create the crisis, force a vote of no-confidence, get himself nominated, and then use the sympathies of Senate that develop from the crisis to win the Chancellorship. All of that happened before the battle of Naboo even took place! That war had nothing to do with putting Palpatine into the seat of power. In fact Palpatine already is nominated for the vote and is confident he will win (based on the sympathy generated from the crisis), before she leaves for Naboo, and she doesn't tell anyone what her plan is (open war) until after she is on her way to Naboo.

When Palpatine arrives on Naboo he is already Chancellor, and the battle is over. With the battle only lasting a few hours, more than likely no one on Coruscant even knew what was going on with Naboo until after the battle was over, and clearly Palpatine had to be Chancellor before he left Coruscant. So again, the Battle of Naboo, Padme's resorting to open war had nothing to do with pushing Palpatine into the Chancellorship. The two events are completely separate and independent of one another. Which, to me again points to Lucas showing us his mindset that sometimes war is necessary... That if Padme were to do what Palpatine wanted her to, to stay (on Coruscant) and not get involved, her people would continue to suffer at the hands of the Trade Federation until Palpatine could root out the corruption in the Senate and get their planet back. It was war that won her planet back, not peace negotiations within the Senate. Palpatine didn't need that war to get him what he wanted, he pretty much had the Chancellorship wrapped up before she even left.

Nope don't disagree with you one bit on this specific statement, however, my point is that just because the artist uses metaphor in his own story, doesn't automatically mean your metaphor is right. I do think that people tend to over think Star Wars sometimes.

Just to avoid a huge long drawn out response, my line of thinking can best be summed up that while everyone is entitled to their interpretation, interpretations can be wrong (including mine).

And yet, Lucas chooses to use their military, and the need to band together in a war for them to realize their symbiotic relationship with one another.

As for Jar Jar in AOTC and being the one is the catalyst for Palpatine's emergency powers, Lucas (in the DVD commentary i believe) jokes that he did it because he thought it would be funny to make Jar Jar the one that starts the Empire. He said that because of all the Jar Jar hate from TPM, and it was basically a FU to all those people.

You wrote a beautiful paragraph there, I don't want to sully it with my blathering. All I will say is I just can't agree some of the symbolism you have obviously gone into deep thought about. I have my reasons, but, my blathering won't change anything, so I will let your paragraph stand as is.

However, there is context to those quotes. They aren't just one liners painted on a piece of cardboard being held up at a anti-war rally!

Obi Wan's line has context to it when it's added to the scene. The fact that Solo was going to start shooting at a huge space station and that they were greatly outnumbered is what initiated Obi Wans line, not because he was anti-war or even anti-fighting, his line can be best summed up as 'live to fight another day". This is the same Obi Wan that hours earlier kills two bar patrons (in obvious self-defense) and then shortly after delivering the line knows he is going to have to fight Darth Vader, when he could have simply just allowed Vader to cut him down right from the start. Using that line (imo out of context) as an anti-war line, is not in-line with what we see the character of Obi Wan as (even removing the PT influence).

Yoda's line again is not an Anti-War line, but, can be better construed as Yoda telling Luke not to glamorize war (which oddly enough is what sparked this whole conversation). It was Yoda chastising Luke for making an assumption, because no where is Luke ever told to find a great warrior. Luke makes that assumption based only on that Obi Wan told him to find the Jedi Master that trained him. No where does Yoda ever say that Luke shouldn't engage in violence (even a one on one fight is a personal war). Yoda teaches him that if he is going to use violence, then he must make sure to use it in the proper way.
We know from deleted scenes that Yoda still goes on to train Luke how to fight with his lightsaber, but, they couldn't get the effects to work out right, so the scene was scrapped. Obviously Lucas intends to show that Yoda still believes that fighting (violence/war) is part of the Jedi repertoire.

Yet Lucas still shows that the overall victory is not complete until the Death Star and by extension the Empire is destroyed through war, and Luke's personal victory is only obtained through the violence of Anakin killing the Emperor. It's not like the Emperor just dies of a heart attack because Luke refuses him. There still needs to be that final confrontation between Anakin and the Emperor to end the internal war within Anakin.

However, just because mistakes are made in one war, or even if that war shouldn't have happened, doesn't automatically mean that war is not the answer elsewhere. I look at ISIS... You just can't sit back and point at the Iraq war as the cause of ISIS (mainly because ISIS would have started anyway as they started in Syria, but obviously they used the problems in Iraq as the stepping stone into that country), anyway, you can't point at the Iraq War and state that because of that war it means war shouldn't be a means to take out ISIS. While we obviously don't have a crystal ball to tell us what repercussions may come out of a war with ISIS, to simply sit on our hands and do nothing at the expense of so many other human beings to me is illogical. Or do you really think that ideology that drives ISIS can be reasoned with? I am not sure how much you watch or where you get your news from, but, the watered down news reports that the mainstream media tells the public about what is going on over there with ISIS is nothing, nothing compared to the reality. A reality that can be seen because of the internet if you know where to look.

And here again is my problem with what CA said earlier.

It is one thing to have an opinion on the message an artist is sending. It is quite another to sit back and want the artist to change their message to fit your opinion! Which is what CA is getting at when they say:

They are not just being critical of the message, but, wanting to tell the artist that the message should be changed and altered to fit their personal ideology.

If for some reason Lucas comes out today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now and says Star Wars was completely a allegory for anti-war, for ALL wars, past present and future (as most know A New Hope actually started as an allegory for the Vietnam War), then I would say I don't agree with his message. However, I would never say that Lucas needed to make Star Wars show the reality of life as opposed to some concept that seems out of reach to our species as of right now.

I simply meant that Lucas is showing us what he thinks, not what we should think. I really didn't do a good job of getting my point across in that section you are referring too.

Star Wars started as an Allegory for the Vietnam War. It is no secret that Lucas sympathized with the VietCong, and saw the U.S. as the aggressor. Most of us in the civilized world are to some degree anti-war (I would hope so anyway). However, there is a difference between being anti-war and realizing that at some point war might be needed, compared to anti-war and thinking that is the only way and never getting involved in a war is the only way to go. Again, the principal of never ever fighting in a war is one that we should strive to achieve, that we might one day be able to achieve, however, when there are men, ideologies, religions, etc out there that create situations that the quote I post below are from, then war is needed as a means to an end., as unfortunate as it is.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.




Edit: So much for brief....

 

well my brother told me today he saw part of a film called The People vs .. George Lucas. Said it was a bunch of nerds talking how the prequels ruined their lives.

i told him, 'yeah i told you about that '

 

Yep, I watched on Netflix last year. Also guess what? They're working on a sequel!

 

Are you serious?! They still can't let it go?!

Let me guess, it's "The People VS. J.J. Abrams"? They're making another glorified YouTube video rant, this time whining about Disney I just looked at it, good grief whiners, they'll pay to see "The Force Awakens" then whine some more!

I may be sad they scrapped the Legends EU, but I'm still excited for the Darth Vader Marvel comics, and the new movie!

 

Good for you. People being discontent isn't a crime.

 

I'm afraid so, though with the Disney purchase, as I said when I first heard about it, "should have seen that coming".

 

It's not, but some fans go to extremes saying they hate George personally, like he walked up to them and punched them in the face or something.

I think I'm more open minded to new things when it comes to Star Wars, because I'm not super diehard and this is not my most favorite fandom ever.


Please look on this in good humor: Star Wars Ruined FOREVER, LOL!

 

"Nothing wrong with the story of the PT. It was the acting, lack of chemistry, over use of cgi, poorly written dialogue, and weak characters that make it horrible to watch. Visuals, editing and score were strong points."

Acting, chemistry, CGI, dialoque, characters, visuals, editing and score FORM the story. THEY ARE the story.

 

For you perhaps. For some like me they are merely components within the framework. I believe the person you are griping at is simply saying as have I many times, the ideas and concepts for the most part are fine but execution, presentation, and our reading of said elements really doesn't work. Which is fine.

 

You make a good point about the OT and greyness. I know jokes are made about it, but the Rebel Alliance is technically a terrorist organization, isn't it?

 

Yes, it is but many, many *justify* it. I won't. Wrong is wrong no matter the banner or circumstances.

 

Likewise, the Empire is wrong too - just look at Sidious, its leader. But it also has some genuine upstanding people, like Captain Needa. Plus, Tarkin doesn't seem as evil either after you read Luceno's novel about him.

 

I have never said some in the Empire didn't do wrong acts, Darkslayer. Nor do I deny Alderaan like MANY say/imply. So I am noticing James does both Sir and Wilhuff a credit by doing exactly what Sir himself did but many don't see or staunchly DENY: infuse Wilhuff with HUMANITY.

 

I've seen some definitions of terrorism that separate it from "civil war" - in a civil war, both sides are targeting each other's military - whereas in a terrorist campaign there is much more active targeting of civilians.

 

Terrorism doesn't always target civilians. For example in the Second World War, there was some resistance groups in France when it was occupied by the Germans. The main targets of those resistance groups were installations and military facilities belonging to the Germans, and yet those groups were called "terrorists" by the Germans, but not by the French people. I think the definition depends sometimes on someone's point of view.

 

I'd say yes, they are missing out. Let's say someone really, really like the original trilogy. They see The Phantom Menace. To them, it's soul-crushingly awful. Something they like and care about (and let's be honest, no one would feel angry at or genuinely offended by the prequels unless Star Wars meant something to them) has been turned into something they feel is contrary to everything they liked and cared about in the first place. Attack of the Clones does nothing to dispel that feeling. Maybe Revenge of the Sith does, a bit, but it doesn't matter; but it's too little too late. They are now left with three films out of a six film series that deeply disappointed them, and that they don't like. That sucks. You don't think they'd rather be in a position where they're satisfied and happy with all six films? No one wants to hate the things they love.

(Disclaimer, I may have issues with the prequels, but I'm not one of the above people. I'm just articulating my thoughts on the subject.)

 

I would suggest that technically they are not a terrorist organisation. They take on military targets. The use of terror is something else entirely.

This suggestion does, though, say something about the rather insidious use of the term in a very modern context I think.

 

I really don't think defending one's, or other's, freedoms and inalienable rights requires *justification*. I suppose we could have just let, for example, Nazi Germany overrun Europe and wait for it to run out of steam....

I just don't see that any reasonable argument can be made for inviolable pacifity.

 

You make a valid point as well. Who's to say that one of you has to be wrong? I think they are both good observations.

 

Well, I think they are but that's probably because I really, really enjoy the prequels. But sometimes I feel like I'm missing out on things I don't like.

For example, (and this is just a random example) I played Lego Batman 3 and didn't enjoy it compared to past Lego games. Yet whenever I stumble upon a video of it, those specific videos show that it's really good...and then I'm reminded of how much I didn't like the game so I don't play it. BUT I still feel like I'm missing out on the enjoyment OTHER people get from the game.

Confusing, I know.

 

A sequel really? What it that one gona be called the people vs Abrams?