PT What do people mean when they say the Prequels lack 'heart and soul'?

As this not psychology forum, I will mention only that the contemporary academic scientists who belong to the Freudianism almost always talk about sado-masochistic tendencies. So, yes they are connected. Anyway, this is something that SW universe lacks of and I'm glad. The things are simple: the suffering is suffering and the pleasure is apart of this. Speaking of that, the pleasure doesn’t matter at all. Happiness is completely different thing.
Imitating is always unimaginative as the imitator wants to look as the original. In that sense Lucas is not imitating. He takes some concept and converts it in something that looks different, a Lucas-one. For example Tattoine. Yes, Tattoine is obviously inspired by Arrakis/Dune in the same time is completely different and it is not only because of the lack of the spice. Coruscant is obviously homage to Azimov's Trantor, but in the same time is different (obviously the huge difference is that Trantor is closed weakened imperial city and Coruscant is open, intriguing, mysterious and independent city, but these are only the superfluous differences). Many great directors use that, so I wouldn't call that imitation. The problem of GoT for me that it looks like The Accursed Kings of Druon, spiced with a little LOTR condiments ad that's it, at least for me (maybe my problems is that I read the books, I don’t know). Well, I see there a lot of people who like it, but that matter of opinion after all.

Speaking about 'real' acting, the mentioned adaptations of Zeffirelli and Branah are not real at all. They are literally theatrical and still they are masterpieces. I don't search this 'real' acting in a space opera. Anyway, my argument was simpler. I just think that in some scenes and I would say in some crucial emotional and not action scene, the actors screw it badly, even in TESB. Is not that PT is brilliant in that aspect, it has its bad moments, but that was actually the point of my argument.

 

Sadism and masochism are the same thing, but pleasure and happiness are not? Okay then.

GOT is based off of the historical War of the Five Kings. I'm not sure about Accursed Kings of Druon because I've never heard of it, but perhaps that author drew from the same historical inspiration. As high fantasy series go, GoT is one of the least like LOTR in terms of "condiments." No elves, dwarves, etc that are staples of the genre, and the feel of the magic is very different.

Also, Lucas was original in his imitation? LOL, the final product, sure thing, but the laser swords of Buck Rogers and all the other references are still there. I find your argument unconvincing, not to mention the fact that it fails to include all the other creative minds that helped make Star Wars stand out and come to life, without whom Lucas would not have the same project that was created.

The acting in the PT is really, really not the actors' fault, but that case has been made hundreds of times, a few already on this thread itself. Also, Shakespeare was brilliant long before Branagh came around and did a few adaptations!

 

You "don't agree" with the Joffrey comparison - thing is, those two posters couldn't go on for 2 sentences without including an absurd falsehood or suspiciously vague descriptions.
It's hard to imagine better evidence for the Joffrey comparison being utter nonsense, than someone so ardent about arguing for it relying on inaccuracies and omissions at every step in order to do it; I mean, had there been any validity to it they could've just done easily without distorting anything.

Anyone watching, say, even Clones, can easily tell that Anakin is depicted as sometimes a douche, and sometimes a good guy, and that their dynamic/relationship with Obiwan is depicted as sometimes amicable and sometimes strained - probably 50/50 of either.
This isn't rocket surgery - it takes a complete zealot to overlook that and go out of their way to claim HE HAD NOT A SINGLE REDEEMABLE QUALITY; ANYWHERE AT ANY POINT.



So the whole "prequels don't have stakes" is a claim that's every bit as absurd as the one above - perhaps even more so, given the scope.
Sometimes arguments aren't required - sometimes a wink, a nudge and a general appeal to sanity is sufficient to dispell such obvious nonsense.

But yea, sure, I can "argue" just as well
So in that case, keep in mind that you did... imply, that the plot here actually had NO stakes; not as in "we didn't see the robots shoot up a family", but actually no stakes.
This is a claim that can be argued about.

 

Well this is the thing.

For those who insist that what they consider to be "heart and soul" is found in the OT but not the PT. Then what they seem to be saying is that having multiple characters where things happening to them actually stays with them (and across multiple movies) is heartless and soul-less. Far better that they quickly file it away after a relatively brief reaction like the OT.

So Luke is full of heart and soul for forgetting about Owen and Beru after one scene but Anakin is heartless and soul-less for still thinking about the loss of his mother a whole movie after it happened?

Now of course this is a silly argument about the OT because that really was not the kind of movie that Lucas was making with ANH in the first place. Trying to link it with the same emotional resonances that make up the OT or Luke in particular in both TESB and ROTJ doesn't really work.

As I have said many times there is no comparison to the "heart and soul" components of Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan to Luke, Leia and Han. Leia and Han are of little importance to Luke's story and his journey as a Jedi. They can't help him. That story is from Obi-Wan, Yoda, Vader and Sidious. The old guard from the PT is where Luke's main story exists. Leia and Han can help Luke in a plot based way but on the personal emotional journey they can only be bit players. This is nothing compared to the importance of Padme, Obi-Wan, Sidious as well as Qui-Gon, Shmi, Dooku, Yoda and Mace.

Anakin is in essence a "new person" after 10 years with the Jedi. The first 9 years of his life were utterly different than the next 10. It's not like Luke is the same person in TESB as ANH and then the massive change in ROTJ from TESB. This is exacerbated when looking at his ANH self to his ROTJ self. Directly in terms of Anakin himself we see how much he changes in the OT from ANH to TESB then like Luke it's almost as if he becomes an almost totally different person in ROTJ.

This I think is one of the reasons (far more than Ewoks) that ROTJ is the least favorite of the OT for many people (and many I know). The progression you might imagine after TESB takes a total turn as now instead of wanting to destroy Vader Luke wants to save him and for Vader the terrifying overlord of TESB is gone and replaced by a contemplative Vader who is reflecting on the wrong choices he made. Anakin doesn't really just come back at the end of ROTJ. He slowly emerges all the way through the movie.

So Anakin/Vader having massive shifts between movies is actually the normal situation in all 6 movies.

 

What some people might be talking about is the admittedly melancholy tone throughout the trilogy - especially TPM. Now, I for one actually prefer this because I think it is what creates a lot of the darkness in the PT that people refuse to see. PT is a darker trilogy than the OT.

 

Yeah. The PT really is darker than the OT, each haven't at best bittersweet endings and at worst really dark endings.

 

I wish people would stop using words like "Refuse to see" and the like. We see it. We just didn't like it.

 

Although -- just to make another brief interjection, for now...

The melancholic undercarriage of the PT is, arguably, something people find a bit off-putting about these movies; and is, perhaps, a little less tangible than the "darkness" people normally argue for (per rpeugh's second sentence), or refute (in your case) as perfectly having grasped but been unmoved by.

Melancholy, in my view, is more poetic, more ephemeral, and harder to define than "darkness", per se. And these movies, when they were just the original trilogy, were considered, for the most part, fun little firecrackers: relief from the darkness and morbidity that had defined American cinema for much of the previous decade. And who needs melancholy, what place does it have, amidst spaceships, dogfights, laser swords, hovering cars, sarcastic princesses, and Wookiees?

Star Wars got cemented a certain way; and it was then difficult for it to become un-cemented, in the eyes of some, perhaps. And, then, again, what is melancholy? This emotion, this essence, this thing, is tough to define; but whatever it is, I don't think it is found in much mainstream cinematic art. In fact, in American and Western cinema generally, it may even be unconsciously considered un-American and anti-positive: a weak, effeminate quality, at odds with the self-reliant, can-do, pioneer spirit at the heart of the West's -- and certainly, I think, America's -- image of itself. It's also notable, I feel, that Star Wars has always done better at the box office in the United States.

 

So now people are seriously discussing the concept that melancholy = lack of emotion?

This thread is getting off the rails - and not in a "flamewar" kind of sense, but more in a nonsense kind of sense.

 

Imperiously lashing out and calling things "nonsense" really encourages people to share their feelings and raises the bar of discussion.

 

Melancholy is an emotion, a rather intense one - if you saw someone claim "I think this movie is unemotional / perceived to be unemotional because it's so sad", and then people seriously started discussing the merits of this and how it can be viewed from different angles... how else would you react to that, other than by telling people to sleep off their powder rush and come back to their senses?

I mean I don't even

 

I know I went down some specific tangents thus far, but I should state that I don't find the PT lacking in heart and soul. I recognize the disconnect with OT fandom and much of the general audience as I've I'm one of those who's been there. So just to be clear, it does have heart, and soul, and I think a lot of GL's heart went into the making of these films from the richness of detail and consideration that went into them. Regardless of how I think about botched execution or GL's direction of actors, etc, it's easy to see a lot of what he wanted if you 1) look at how he shaped the visuals (not even the Ring Theory stuff... just how these visuals told the story he was aiming for). 2) The musical choices he made with Williams' score.

I agree with you on this, as melancholy is a painfully beautiful emotion and I love some films with their fair share of it, even in action films and thought pieces like Equilibrium or Blade Runner. Now maybe for some that stuff was the issue, but not for me. I don't think the whole PT was melancholy, however. ROTS was, it has the final act of a tragic arc and had an operatic Greek tragedy flavor to the film. AOTC borrowed from noir genre elements which are often melancholy, though I didn't get that feel from it save in a handful of scenes where appropriate. TPM had a little as well, seeing a Republic and Jedi Order that had been in decline.

Taken as a whole... hunh, no actually I think you're right... as a whole, since the story is about the decline and fall of the Republic, the entire arc gets to share that melancholy mostly felt in the third film.

The PT is darker, especially because it's a tragic arc and the shaping of a villain. The OT is lighter, for sure. Being darker or lighter, just in case, does not make a story better or worse. It doesn't get much darker than Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, but those films sucked for a myriad of reasons, and one of those reasons was because the tone was mismatched to the source material, but that alone was not enough to make them suck. Now, I would argue those ones have a lot less soul than the PT.... but if one wants a truly heartless, soulless abomination to point to for a film... I would go with Pixels .

 

Your continued rudeness and belligerence aside...

You'll notice, if you could actually do anyone the courtesy of properly reading their posts, that I left the word "melancholy" undefined. Indeed, I actually said that melancholy is hard to define. Still, if we're now boldly attempting to define it, I'll bring up some of the most popular meanings via TheFreeDictionary and Google:


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/melancholy >>


mel·an·chol·y (mĕl′ən-kŏl′ē)
n.
1. Sadness or depression of the spirits; gloom.
2. Pensive reflection or contemplation.
3. Archaic
a. Black bile.
b. An emotional state characterized by sullenness and outbreaks of violent anger, believed to arise from an excess of black bile.
adj.
1. Feeling, showing, or expressing depression of the spirits; sad or dejected. See Synonyms at sad.
2. Causing or tending to cause sadness or gloom: a letter with some melancholy news.
3. Pensive; thoughtful.



https://www.google.co.uk/#q=melancholy >>


melancholy
ˈmɛlənkəli/Submit
noun
noun: melancholy
1.
a feeling of pensive sadness, typically with no obvious cause.
"an air of melancholy surrounded him"
synonyms:desolation, sadness, pensiveness, woe, sorrow, melancholia; More
antonyms:cheerfulness, happiness
another term for melancholia (as a mental condition).
historical
another term for black bile.
adjective
adjective: melancholy
1.
having a feeling of melancholy; sad and pensive.
"she felt a little melancholy"
synonyms:sad, sorrowful, desolate, melancholic, mournful, lugubrious, gloomy, pensive; More
antonyms:cheerful, happy
causing or expressing sadness; depressing.
"the melancholy tone of her writing"


The Wikipedia entry also furnishes us with more definitions:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia >>


Black bile (Greek: µέλαινα χολή, melaina chole), also lugubriousness, from the Latin lugere, to mourn; moroseness, from the Latin morosus, self-willed, fastidious habit; wistfulness, from old English wist: intent, or saturnine, was a concept in ancient and pre-modern medicine. Melancholy was one of the four temperaments matching the four humours. In the 19th century, "melancholia" could be physical as well as mental, and melancholic conditions were classified as such by their common cause rather than by their properties.


And then further down, among various definitions and commentary:


During the later 16th and early 17th centuries, a curious cultural and literary cult of melancholia arose in England. In an influential 1964 essay in Apollo, art historian Roy Strong traced the origins of this fashionable melancholy to the thought of the popular Neoplatonist and humanist Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), who replaced the medieval notion of melancholia with something new:

Ficino transformed what had hitherto been regarded as the most calamitous of all the humours into the mark of genius. Small wonder that eventually the attitudes of melancholy soon became an indispensable adjunct to all those with artistic or intellectual pretentions.


The Wikipedia entry also offers some connected terms and concepts:

Anomie
Ennui
Depression (mood)
Dysthymia
Major depressive disorder
Melancholic depression
Mono no aware
Nostalgia
Pessimism
Saudade
Vapours (disease)
Weltschmerz

Pulling from just one of those:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_no_aware >>


Mono no aware (もののあわれ?), literally "the pathos of things", and also translated as "an empathy toward things", or "a sensitivity to ephemera", is a Japanese term for the awareness of impermanence (無常 mujō?), or transience of things, and both a transient gentle sadness (or wistfulness) at their passing as well as a longer, deeper gentle sadness about this state being the reality of life.


So, it seems, melancholy isn't just "an emotion", let alone "a rather intense one"; but means different things to different people. However, the term seems to continually evoke the notions of depression, sadness, and despondency; and, less commonly, pensiveness, and the artistic spirit itself (or, as that extract propounds, melancholy has been viewed as an "indispensable adjunct" to creative and intellectual matters). Padme's Ruminations??? The Dreaming Lotus???

Let me go into a bit more detail...

I see this as relevant to the prequel trilogy due to the more tragic nature of the storyline and the sad countenance adopted by various characters at different points -- especially Padme/Amidala (who is even described, "in advance", if you will, by Leia, her daughter, as "kind but sad" at the close of the OT; and her name is such a wonderful clue as to her ephemeral nature). It seems, to me, that some people have had difficulty taking the prequel trilogy to their bosoms, at least, in part, because they felt the characters were presented in a stiff, flat, closed-off, and unemotional manner (such sentiments have also been aired in this thread, with some emphasis, already). But some of these qualities that people think the PT characters show (or, if you will, lack) could be interpreted as these characters being consumed, or at least partially consumed, by melancholy. In the RedLetterMedia "reviews", for instance, there's a confected section in the TPM review where several actors talk in a glowing and lively manner of Han and Threepio, but struggle to articulate anything -- or even recall which character they're asked to describe -- when giving descriptions of Amidala and Qui-Gon. Obviously, that whole skit is fabricated for comedic effect (the people involved are clearly RLM actors), but many have responded to those videos as if they convey authentic insights. So, again, given the constantly-reiterated animosity surrounding "wimpy" Anakin, the "lame" death of Padme, and the allegedly stilted, boring nature of many scenes, where characters are maligned for sitting down on couches or slowly pacing down long corridors or skulking at large windows, perhaps there is something to this concept. Maybe, in addition to the formality of the "more civilized age" which characters like Amidala and Qui-Gon are bound up in, Lucas was trying to evoke a sort of existential sadness and ennui in certain places, infusing his prequel drama with pensive, spacy overtones, in marked opposition to the (generally) looser and more action-oriented depiction of characters and their environments in the OT. Again, to bring this back round to Padme and Leia, take note of how confident and snippy Leia is in ANH around Vader and Tarkin, heading them off in face-to-face encounters, while Amidala stares coldly at her "phantom menace", the hapless Nute Gunray, from a rippling viewscreen, protected by her "queen" armour and her retainers, and only speaks to him as "herself" in his final scene in TPM, as the Jedi touch down at Theed after Amidala's Pyrrhic victory against the Trade Federation and Gunray is sent packing. Also, of course, the various scenes of her shown sadly looking out of windows -- there's no direct equivalent in the depiction of her bull-headed daughter battling an "evil Empire" and scoffing at her male oppressors.

My feeling is that there exists a sort of low-level hostility to this elusive sense of melancholy rippling through various works of cinema that, for one reason or another, find their way into the popular realm, and at the mercy of baying jackals: the glorious public. One piece of anecdotal evidence in this regard concerns the general reaction to the films of Sofia Coppola. "Lost In Translation" is one of my favourite films outside of the Star Wars saga; yet, for all the derision the prequels have received, when I looked at the Amazon customer ratings a few years ago, "Lost In Translation" actually had a higher quantity and a starker ratio of negative-to-positive reviews than any of the prequels (indeed, of any other movie; and I looked at a few of the less-liked ones around that time). I was a little surprised at that finding; but there it was. While I was already aware of the hatred her films receive, I didn't realize it occurred on such a big scale. The Internet had taught me to believe that the prequels were the most hated work of cinematic art ever; but I was wrong. But what's really fascinating is that almost all of Sofia Coppola's detractors, especially those laying into LIT (it remains, I think, her most-watched movie), have frequently accused her and her films of being pretentious, self-absorbed, boring, completely bereft of plot, and (additionally in the case of LIT) racist. All accusations that have been hurled at Lucas and the prequels -- again, and again, and again. Call it a hideous bias on my part (it is, after all, subjective), but I've long interpreted the disdain to be a reaction to the kind of ephemerality and ennui her films, in my opinion, stand as living documents to. For me, she captures something about the human spirit no other filmmaker ever quite has; but, unlike other "artsy" films and filmmakers that know their place (or struggle to reach a large audience), she has the audacity to be the daughter of Francis Ford Coppola, and to have actually got some of her films (like LIT) into wider circulation, straddling a line between mainstream and the obscure fringe (both in terms of how her films are received and her aesthetic sensibilities). I can't help but see echoes of Sofia Coppola's films in the prequels; and vice versa (and she plays one of Padme's handmaidens in TPM -- she was placed on the set so she could learn more about the craft of filmmaking firsthand; and she and George and her father all go way back).

Melancholy. As difficult as it is to define in any precise way, I sense that when some people get more than a little sniff of it, they find it alienating, even disdainful. This is both a small point I'm making and not. The thread itself is based around equally watery concepts -- "heart" and "soul" -- is it not? So this is only a sort of fuzzy conjecture on my part; but, of course, I hold to my view. No need to lazily slam somebody; it's not a flippant view I'm offering (and no, I don't do hard drugs, thank you). On the other hand, it's just a view. The OT, by design, is a propellant and fun trilogy; the PT is markedly more dour. I hope there can be a sort of general agreement on that. But what is dourness about? Can not melancholy play a part? Hence me picking up on that earlier observation of rpeugh's, and now running with it a bit. I feel that some of the "coldness" people perceive in the PT is down to plot choices, some is down to direction, some is down to visual construction, and some is bound up in the artist pursuing, in places, a more ethereal, sad, and melancholic view of the world and expressing that through his characters -- especially, again, without wishing to repeat myself too much, the sad queen that meets a sad end. For some people, I feel this is probably tantamount to receiving a soggy sandwich instead of a crispy pizza. The prequels have an ebullience to them, but it isn't the fast-paced, rusted-up, banter-laden world of the OT. The OT is really a "feel good" yarn about America and Western conquest; it reflects an innate (or learned) pride that people feel about themselves and their culture: that "can-do" spirit I mentioned earlier. As I also said, Star Wars has always fared better in America at the box office. TFA changed nothing in this regard and generally went on to receive approval. But the PT, by comparison, tells a much more Machiavellian, methodical, staggered, weird, and plodding story: a story of dreams becoming nightmares, institutionalised corruption, moral blindness, encroaching tyranny, awkward excursions into love and war, the debasing effects of slavery, brittle/misinterpreted communication, and the loss of self. None of those things is especially OT-esque or especially Pro-Western. Negativity of that sort interferes with people's ability to regard themselves as especially good; and attacks common notions of heroism and decency and brings the whole strata of civilization and accepted wisdom -- our relations with ourselves, our relations with "others" -- into question. The OT was actually made to counter such bleakness; so the prequels are very contrapuntal. And I suggest that melancholy is one tool in Lucas' arsenal for evoking mood and themes: a tool which I think he employs to realize a much wider vision. The prequels, I think, are in the best tradition of classic poetry and painting; but they're also non-comformist, so "traditional" becomes a strange word, too. They are a reflection of our modern world, divided into paradigms as it is, harbouring fractured souls, caught between cosmogonies. The future both has and hasn't been written. A long time ago = Be Here Now! The prequels are entertainment, yes, but in my view, they also offer space to reflect, to grow, to change; they are a dense language, beckoning for speakers and readers, yearning to be mastered, and waiting for people to do so, so that they may -- perhaps -- discover a new way of living.

Now, as strange as all that sounds, I think melancholy is here, almost like an elemental force of the universe (the living/non-living Force: that's melancholy in a nutshell! >> but watch out for "shells" >> i.e., Darth Vader), as part and parcel of a complex spiritual equation. If nothing else, Lucas' knitting of melancholy into his mythic opus (something, let's not forget, originally inspired by "Flash Gordon") helps set it apart, and places it (deliberately) at war with itself. The first word of the last of the "Lucas" installments is "war", followed by an exclamation mark (an upturned body/head). Luke/Lucas upside-down. The series firing colourful lasers at itself. Everything becoming dense, crazy: a kinked construction, a gorgeous anarchy. How can melancholy exist in so lively a mechanism? Oh, but it can; provided the seer sees it. What's in there? Only what you take with you. Perception/possession is nine-tenths of the law.

 

I agree that the movies were alienating, but I think it was accidental. I don't think Lucas set out on purpose to make prequels that only a small segment of the population would cherish in the long term. I think all of these grand themes are things he and his fans came up with after the fact to make the prequels seem bigger and more important than what they ultimately became.

 

Here's my take on this. Convincing acting across from imaginary performers is entirely possible. Like you said it's been happening forever. In movies we've seen alot of that successfully during this digital age. From reading many stories & accounts from actors, both in SW & outside of it, the key thing that's needed in those situations is strong direction. There are countless stories during filming of the PT where actors were acting towards a ball on a stick, or a piece of tape on the ground, or nothing at all. I always recall the amusing story from Terrance Stamp. He said a big reason for accepting his role in TPM was getting to work with Natalie Portman. He thought she was going to be the next great actress. When the day came to film with her, he arrived on set, asked where she was & Lucas told him he gave her the day off. He said "see that bit of tape on the ground, just pretend that's her. We'll cut in her part of the scene later".

Anyway...this kind of acting can come off well & has, but what's required is very clear, very detailed & very decisive direction. To make up for all of the performance feedback & response the actor's are not getting from their fellow performers. In these cases there's the script but the director must step in & provide all of the emotional context & nuance of the scene & of those absent characters. As we know, unfortunately Lucas is not well suited to that. His direction is minimal, at times non-existent. So many of his actors have said that he gives them the script & says "here, just do...this!". We know he's a quiet introvert who hates on-set directing. This didn't seem to detract from the performances in the OT. However those actors have often said that they worked very closely together & constantly work-shopped their scenes. In essence they directed each other in terms of performance. When there's no actor there, as there often wasn't during the PT this was not an option. This is where the director's role becomes critical. To get just the right performance out of them, to have an eye for acting & performance & demand take after take until it's just right. That's not GL. The PT actors had the same anecdotes about the minimal direction they received. So IMO acting with imaginary characters isn't the problem in & of itself. It's the combination of that & a lack of direction for the actors.

So the irony here is that Lucas really embraced digital film-making. From a technical standpoint he was great with it. However it may've exposed his own self-admitted weakness: working with actors. In so many scenes his direction was all they had to rely on, & it just wasn't there.

With respect QRB you're not getting it. When people criticise the PT for lacking "heart & soul" they're talking about a feeling. One they perceive based on a variety of factors. The writing, the acting & all of the other elements that make up a movie. There's no point listing a bunch of story facts or situations the characters find themselves in, pointing to them & saying "there's your heart & soul". That in no way refutes that feeling that so many people have. It's about an emotional connection to the characters from the audience. It's a key goal of any SW movie, since as Lucas has pointed out these films are about characters & families & at its core SW is a soap opera. This is an area where the PT fell short for alot of people. Conversely it's an area that the OT is rarely criticised for. In fact caring for, even loving those original characters is a great if not the greatest strength of those movies. It came down to boundless on-screen chemistry between a group of actors, & how relatable & compelling their caring & suffering was for each other on screen.

 

.........

I'll let Shakespeare do my talking for me this time.

"My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;

Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . ."

(Hamlet Act-2, Scene-2, 86–92)

 

Well, you're entitled to that view, of course. As I said at the close, possession/perception -- "Only what you take with you"; "Your focus determines your reality" -- is nine-tenths of the law.

Here are some other quotes to think about:

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
A Robin Red breast in a Cage
Puts all Heaven in a Rage
A Dove house filld with Doves & Pigeons
Shudders Hell thr' all its regions
A dog starvd at his Masters Gate
Predicts the ruin of the State"-- William Blake



"I’ve been trying to rethink the art of movies."
-- George Lucas



"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
-- Oscar Wilde



"My entire soul is a cry, and all my work the commentary on that cry."-- Nikos Kazantzakis



"Fiction is empathy technology."
-- Steven Pinker



"Poetry is not only dream and vision; it is the skeleton architecture of our lives. It lays the foundations for a future of change, a bridge across our fears of what has never been before."
-- Audre Lorde



"A cultural point of view is like a crystal: you have an amorphous cultural medium which at certain temperatures will form a crystal of cultural convention, if you will, and within the geometry of that crystal certain things make sense and certain things are excluded from making sense."
-- Terrence McKenna



"The human beings knows himself only insofar as he knows the world; he perceives the world only in himself, and himself only in the world. Every new object, clearly seen, opens up a new organ of perception in us."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe



"Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others."
-- Jonathan Swift



"Seeing is believing."
-- Anonymous

 

This thread sorely needs Marcia Lucas' expertise! If you catch my meaning. Also, I refer back to my last comment, which is even more apropos now.

 

Someone says something moderately interesting -- and it gets spat at.

Not to mention, just now, a below-the-radar insinuation that someone is too "George Lucas" for their own good.

Kind of a violation of the "films, not fans" rule when you think about it. Especially when the other person adds nothing else to the thread, except more innuendo and slander.

 

Who did that? I can't spot it.

Btw, slander is spoken. When it's written it's libel

 

The cricket chirps loud
The orchestra goes silent
Footsteps in the field

I was literally just inspired to write that haiku just now.

I hear what you're saying, or rather, I did read your concise, direct comments, and skim walls of text. Paragraph breaks may be the insight to the answers we all seek and the understanding of the differentiating subtexts between disagreeing Star Wars fans. Overly embellished and fanciful word-plays might be fun to the mind and to the ear, but they become their own topic and points get lost like sand through the fingers of time. We are our own fathers and our own sons. The cycle continues, and the Dark Side claims its wounds along the way, but really what I'm trying to say is I need coffee.

 

Removed by user

 

Your last sentence lacks a period.

I just had some coffee and left some in the cup. A fruit fly died in it.

Now, I must write a poem about it.

Paragraph breaks aren't the answer. Closed minds need a lot more than a few extra spaces to make them receptive to anything outside their narrow field of vision.

I guess I could add one more Jonathan Swift quote:

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

I don't want to be understood by simpletons.

 

removed by user

 

On the plus side, these responses are in the format in which comments are best read. The eyes don't have to glaze over or struggle to maintain the flow, and the ability to know when to use a paragraph break is both a sign of intelligence, and a better understanding of the art of communication and reading on computer screens. Also, brief and to the point.

I commend you! A+++ Would comment back again. (Pardon the eBaylish accent.)

Ah! My curiosity quickens! What words hadst thou for us, tho unkind they may be?

Or, in the parlance of us simpletons:

"This is the clue we need to unravel the mystery of the Sith."

(That's me shouting.)