Saga The prophecy of the Chosen One...

I do think there is a difference. Maybe not exactly as only one kenobi does, but yes.

As to 'authority', you do the most research on SW history than anyone else on these boards. With Arawn_Fenn, though, it's about distraction tactics.

 

I don't know how much of an authority you are, but your earlier post, which a couple of us quoted, made a fair bit of sense to me.

 

Well, thank you kindly, good sir(s?). (I always figured Nub and ATMachine at least knew more than me, and I think Nordom can explain/break things into small details better than I can.)

And... let's try to nail down what that difference is then, eh? I mean, I feel a difference too, but I'm not sure if that that's what it is. Because the visions always seem vague, with overconfident people interpreting them too in too specific of a fashion. I think there are plenty of other weird things to pick at:

Once you have an interventionist Force that 'wants' something to happen (as opposed to either a Force that is more of a simple force of nature), then the cosmology changes. I don't think it changes the fact that the character choices are important, but it does add a secondary layer of agency, which is of a different type than viewers thought they were following; they thought it was a human story.

There are other

(a) The Force detects an imbalance in itself and knows what will happen in the future. It creates Anakin in the past because he already exists in the future (Anakin as the compass in LOST), and this future comes to pass. There is only the one future.

or

(b) The Force detects an imbalance in itself and knows what will happen in the future. It creates Anakin because he already exists in the future, but that future is not the only possible one (multiverse theory), and so in that one future Anakin defeats the Sith but in infinite others, infinite other things happen.

or

(c) The Force detects an imbalance in itself but doesn't know what will happen in the future (why not,if people can use it to view the future?). It creates Anakin, and he just happens to be the exact right solution to the problem.

or

(d) The Force detects an imbalance in itself but doesn't know what will happen in the future (why not, if people can use it to view the future?). It creates Anakin, but since it doesn't know the future, it can't know if he will succeed in bringing balance, so it also creates lots of other potential candidates/possibilities.

Each case has potential storytelling problems, some of which could be interesting - if they were dealt with in the narrative itself. For example, the Anakin-as-compass one could have a commentary on the nature of the Force as literally beyond comprehension, 'miracles,' etc. Others are just puzzling, such as, if the Force can see the future and knows its 'chosen' solutions will work, why couldn't it just use similar (creating a human) or different (Ark of the Covenant-style) solutions at other points - why is the one solution shown in the films THE solution?

Maybe that's the difference (or one of them)? That when dealing with humans, we can understand their motivations and capabilities; when dealing with a very vaguely defined supernatural force, we don't know very much at all about its motivations or capabilities, and that's not generally as easy to identify with as a human story?

I do think that simply the difference in stakes is a pretty big part of it. I could take a 'chosen/created demigod saves the world'-type story by itself, but the OT does not suggest that that's what this story is, and personally sometimes think there can be an overload of that kind of story so I appreciate it when a really good narrative is put out that doesn't follow that mold.

 

But it's still a "saves the world" story all by itself ( and by "world" we really mean "galaxy" ). I tend to think the average citizen would care more about their planet not getting blown up than about the Force getting balanced.

Don't project your strategy on me. I'm not the one selling "inherited piloting skills".

 

Yeah, but in the end the saving of the galaxy depends upon the destruction of the Sith, which is the fulfilment of the prophecy and the carrying out of the force's will, so they're inextricably linked.

 

Also, the OT doesn't seem so much like a 'saves the world' story as a 'saves civilization' story. Sometimes we tend to use those kinds of terms interchangeably, and the latter is still a large-scale concept (making civilization 'safe' for all people), but it's not quite the same as saving the actual existence/proper functioning of the world and its natural processes (which, presumably, rebalancing the Force is equivalent to).

 

Yeah, I think ANH could pass for a 'saves the world' story, but the end of the saga (Edit: for now...) basically sees the supernatural and the physical 'worlds' put to rights, which is a different thing.

 

Just to clarify: are you using those terms in the same way I was? (I'm pretty sure we agree...)

 

Yeah I am ... I think. When I think of 'saves the world' I think of someone overcoming a purely physical threat to the physical world. Saving civilisation may involve that as well, but can have more supernatural connotations, as in SW. Is that how you were using them?

 

Ah, I think we're using them reversed. For 'the world' I meant like restoring the balance of nature or the universe, while for 'civilization' I meant like fixing or overthrowing a broken or harmful societal structure. I think the OT alone is more of the latter, while the PT makes the story into more of the former.

(Some of GL's notes make me think that maybe he intended one of those 'balance of the universe'-type stories to begin with, but the OT doesn't really depict that, if you ask me.)

 

Yes, I think we are. Terminology aside though, I think the SW saga is more of a 'nature of the universe' job rather than a get rid of the evil genius or disarm the bomb at the last second type of tale. The material about the Chosen One / will of the force etc makes it even more so than it was in the OT.

 

Really (I'm talking OT here)? True, it has higher stakes than, like, Speed or The Fugitive... It feels to me kind of like Space World War II, except with Hitler using the Spear of Destiny and the Ark of the Covenant. In other words it has some supernatural elements, but all the stakes are on the human/societal level - the universe is not going to end or be 'doomed forever' if Luke and the Rebels lose any particular battle.

I agree that the PT puts a stronger focus on the more cosmic effects.

 

The whole saga I'm talking about. The OT on its own, no.

 

Ah. Agreed there.

 

RE: differences between the OT and PT when it comes to seeing the future and how the prophecy fits into that.

I do think there is a difference. In the OT, all Force users could use the Force to see into the future but that future was unreliable, uncertain and subject to change. Also, from what is said, those that see into the future only see into the imideate future. Luke sees Han and Leia in pain and that is at best weeks into the future. The Emperor has foreseen that Luke will seek Vader out and again that was not that far into the future.
No one sees years or centuries into the future.

In the PT we now have a "Prophecy" about someone bringing balance to the Force.
First question, what made this different from the normal Jedi ability to see the future?
The Jedi are all aware that the future is always in motion so for them to talk about a prophecy suggest that this was something special and outside their normal ability. So that is one difference between OT and PT.
Secondly, the Jedi give this prophecy some weight, that this is something that will happen.
Second question, why do they think this? Again, they know that the future is always subject to change but here this does not seem to apply.
Again a difference between OT and PT.
Thirdly, altough it is never said, the impication I got was that this prophecy was not very recent. At least nothing suggest this.
Third question, who made this prophecy and when was it made? If it was a long time ago then it another difference between OT and PT, now someone has seen into the distant future.

As a follow up to Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn.

If the Force did indeed "create" Anakin and with the intent of destroying the Sith.
First this is an example of the Force taking direct action in the Universe. This changes the Force from a more passive to a more active player.
Here it it takes a more direct hand and creates a living person with single goal.

Second, why did it do this? As was said, it could have foreseen the coming imbalance and acted. Or it noticed the imbalance and acted.
Or it noticed the coming imbalance and then looked further ahead and saw Anakin end it. But then it also saw that Anakin was created by the Force so now the Force had to create Anakin so that the future it saw comes to pass. A bit of a paradox. The Force created Anakin because it foresaw Anakin destroying the Sith and saw that he was Force created.

Third, why is the Force using such a indirect and uncertain method? If it wants Palpatine dead, simply tell the midis in his body to stop reproducing.
After a while, his Force power will diminish and he will eventually die. Simple. If it foresaw Palpatine what he would do, then prevent Palpatine from being born. Find Palpatine's mother and make sure she is barren or simply stop her pregnancy that results in Palpatine.
If the Force is willing and able to act directly in one way then it could do so in many other ways.
Unless we have the paradox situation where the Force creates Anakin just because it sees him destroying Palpatine.
However that means that the future is NOT in motion at all. Or at least when the Force sees the future it is never wrong.

Lastly, the question is how long has this imbalance existed. If it comes from just the Sith being alive then this imbalance has existed for a very long time and it becomes a bit odd that the Force has waited this long before doing anything. And over 1000 years is rather long.
If it is something that Palpatine himself did and not any of the Sith before him then it makes a bit more sense. But the films doesn't indicate that Palaptine has done anything much different from previous Sith. The Sith ruled the galaxy at one time and now they do so again.
In know that some EU go into detail about Plageious and him doing something but that is mostly absent from the films.

In closing, the OT can be more of a "Free the world" scenario as opposed to "Save the world."
"V for Vendetta" is mostly a "Free the world" while "The Fifth Element" is very much "Save the world."
The PT does move SW a bit more to the "Save the world."

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

I see it more as a "natural" reaction to something bad/harmful to the Force. As an analogy, an ecosystem has a balance, if you affect/harm that balance in any way (say, eliminate the element at the top of the food chain), it will sooner or later cease to exist. The Sith did that, and in order to restore the balance, Anakin was created. Why didn't it act before? An action needs to happen before a reaction exists.

 

But again, if the mere existence of the Sith causes the imbalance then the Force is very slow in acting.
Second, if Palpatine, as opposed to previous Sith, is doing something that causes the Force to be unbalanced and the Force wants him dead. Why doesn't it kill him itself? The Force can just tell the midis in Palpatine's body to stop reproducing and then the number will go down, which will weaken Palpatine. Once it drops to zero, Palpatine will die.

If it can kill Palpatine directly, why bother with the more roundabout way of creating someone to kill Palpatine? If you have an ecosystem that is unbalanced because the presence of one lion. Which method is better, just shooting that lion or putting a tiger into that ecosystem that MIGHT kill the lion?

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Also, on actions needing to happen "first": not necessarily for the Force, since it appears to stand outside of time in some ways. Others can use it to see the future, so presumably it could see/know the future too (?). If so, then it could know about the imbalance in advance.

 

Just a small, but important, point. There is no driving narrative in the OT that Luke will save the galaxy from The Empire. In fact Luke doesn't save the galaxy from the Empire. Luke becomes a Jedi Knight, is saved and 'saves' his father. the rebels destroy the Death Star and the greater part of the Imperial Fleet.

The PT, on the other hand, is predicated upon the prophecy, the chosen one etc. and the author explicitly tells us that the culmination of the 'saga' is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

 

No it didn't. You have assumed that the OT is predicated upon an explicitly foreseen outcome. Such is not the case.

 

I said both. I see Anakin as the instrument of the Force. It basically decided it needed a fresh start so it permitted Anakin to destroy both factions.

 

Well, from an evolutionary point of view...what would be the advantage of 'will' if it altered nothing? I think there is a little too much emphasis on the idea of environment being entirely causal (this is particularly the case in a lot of modern historical views, usually based on long-term 'history' which is...actually not history at all but supposition. There are plenty of examples where the agency of particular individuals have been necessary for events to proceed in the way that they did.

And...you mentioned quantum perturbations as if they are some sort of after thought to reality where...I see them as being fundamental, and combine that with the informational basis of our 'reality'....if we are not certain of what is now (and there is not even any certainty as to what that now is), how could we possibly comprehend what would come to be?

EDIT - btw, this isn't meant as an attack, this is just one of those areas I love a discussion about...

 

This is why Obi-wan said, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes". Yes, it is meant to be ironic, but it is a statement of what the Sith philosophy is. "It is your destiny", "I have foreseen it", "It is inevitable". The constant in these statements is that nothing can alter the future, because the future is rigid. The Jedi view is, "Always in motion is the future" and "To be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment". The Jedi consider other possibilities and outcomes based on the belief that things can and will change, based on the actions taken in the present. Anakin was certain that Padme was going to die in childbirth, and that certainty lead to his fall and Padme's death, caused by him. Luke was certain that Han and Leia would die on Cloud City, but the reality was that they didn't. Had he not come, Vader could very well have left Leia and Chewie there as he originally agreed upon. Han still lives and went to Tatooine, where he was still frozen and alive when he is finally rescued. It was Leia and Chewie who had to rescue him.

 

I particularly like "MIGHT".

 

The prophecy concept should've just been retconned the **** out of the story.