huh, that's quite a few dead Jedi there.  To paraphrase Marshal Law, "Some people think I hate Jedi.  That's no true.  Okay, it's true, I hate Jedi."

Quote from: jhkim on June 26, 2024, 01:33:42 AMAgreed, Omega. Even after decades with Palpatine, Anakin was drawn back from the Dark Side. The prequel Jedi stuck to a hard-line "no attachments" philosophy, telling him to just not care about his mother and never fall in love -- but in contrast, Luke's strategy was caring for your family and friends, and believing in them was successful.

Which is what makes their portrayal of Luke in the sequel trilogy so absolutely galling. Luke was the guy who believed that Vader could be turned back to the light, AND DID SO. He is not the one to flake out and try to murder his nephew out of fear that he might fall to the dark side. He is completely the opposite of that.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 24, 2024, 10:07:44 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 24, 2024, 09:55:31 PMhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/06/23/disney-forced-to-reveal-unequal-pay-on-star-wars-show-the-acolyte/

Because of course they pay their women employees less than the men.

I'm going to retire to my fainting couch.

Maybe they are paying based on ability/expertise.  You don't expect a diversity checkbox hire to pull the same weight as an actual expert, do you?

I could point at a few hospitals that think you should expect the diversity hire to pull the same weight as an actual expert.

Quote from: Lurkndog on June 27, 2024, 08:09:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 26, 2024, 01:33:42 AMAgreed, Omega. Even after decades with Palpatine, Anakin was drawn back from the Dark Side. The prequel Jedi stuck to a hard-line "no attachments" philosophy, telling him to just not care about his mother and never fall in love -- but in contrast, Luke's strategy was caring for your family and friends, and believing in them was successful.

Which is what makes their portrayal of Luke in the sequel trilogy so absolutely galling. Luke was the guy who believed that Vader could be turned back to the light, AND DID SO. He is not the one to flake out and try to murder his nephew out of fear that he might fall to the dark side. He is completely the opposite of that.

That is because Kennedy and co hated Luke and since they could not just kill him off like Han, they dragged him through the gutters.

Quote from: Lurkndog on June 27, 2024, 08:09:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 26, 2024, 01:33:42 AMAgreed, Omega. Even after decades with Palpatine, Anakin was drawn back from the Dark Side. The prequel Jedi stuck to a hard-line "no attachments" philosophy, telling him to just not care about his mother and never fall in love -- but in contrast, Luke's strategy was caring for your family and friends, and believing in them was successful.

Which is what makes their portrayal of Luke in the sequel trilogy so absolutely galling. Luke was the guy who believed that Vader could be turned back to the light, AND DID SO. He is not the one to flake out and try to murder his nephew out of fear that he might fall to the dark side. He is completely the opposite of that.

Yeah, the sequel trilogy annoyed me as much as the prequels. I haven't read much behind the scenes, but I'd suspect that the human side of Luke and the Force in the original trilogy was because of influences like Lawrence Kasdan and Richard Marquand.

None of the stuff after the original trilogy kept any idea of the Force as a spiritual pursuit - except Rogue One. Instead, it's just midichlorians from family genetics. Even if they didn't use the term, the sequels and series still treat the Force as something primarily from birth, like with Grogu.

Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2024, 01:15:50 AMNone of the stuff after the original trilogy kept any idea of the Force as a spiritual pursuit - except Rogue One. Instead, it's just midichlorians from family genetics. Even if they didn't use the term, the sequels and series still treat the Force as something primarily from birth, like with Grogu.

Aptitude with the force has always clearly been heritable. That's made explicit twice in the OT, in Empire when Vader and Palpy talk about Luke's potential specifically in the context of him being "the son of Skywalker", and then in Jedi when Luke talks about the Force being "strong in my family". All midichlorians did was make it scientifically measurable.

The problem with making the force sensitivity so strongly heritable is that this would then be prioritized by natural selection. Eventually everyone would be jedi. There would be dynasties of force users, upper classes lording over peasants (who are themselves steadily evolving to close the gap). And all this would've happened in the 10 millennia of Republic rule prior to Palpatine's birth. It clashes with the actual intent of the story. Star Wars is about jedi knights fighting sith lords, not x-men outbreeding muggles.

Just because it was used in the original trilogy doesn't mean it's a good idea. Once you make something hereditary rather than a non-heritable skill, then your setting will become about eugenics if you're consistent or the writers will pretend nothing changes even tho that makes no sense.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 29, 2024, 11:37:35 AMThe problem with making the force sensitivity so strongly heritable is that this would then be prioritized by natural selection. Eventually everyone would be jedi. There would be dynasties of force users, upper classes lording over peasants (who are themselves steadily evolving to close the gap). And all this would've happened in the 10 millennia of Republic rule prior to Palpatine's birth. It clashes with the actual intent of the story. Star Wars is about jedi knights fighting sith lords, not x-men outbreeding muggles.

Just because it was used in the original trilogy doesn't mean it's a good idea. Once you make something hereditary rather than a non-heritable skill, then your setting will become about eugenics if you're consistent or the writers will pretend nothing changes even tho that makes no sense.

Tell me you don't understand anything about evolution without telling me you don't understand anything about evolution.

First, "10 millennia", a.k.a. 10,000 years, is nothing on an evolutionary timescale.  We are fundamentally the same creatures as our ancestors 10,000 years ago, with all of the same equipment.  What changes so quickly, allowing human beings to adapt so much better than other species, is culture.  So natural selection wouldn't happen on those timescales in the first place.

Second, evolution only works when the mutations have some direct effect on breeding and survivability of children.  As long as the children are fertile and numerous, the mutation (good or bad) doesn't matter.  It's why there are so many genetic-related diseases that strike people in middle age and older... they aren't bred out of the population.  So, unless the force has a direct impact on breeding and child production, it's not going to matter.

And this is why the "social standing" argument fails as well.  First, you'd need the transmission of the force genetically to be predictable and understood (which it isn't... see Darth Plagueis), in order to purposely breed force sensitives.  And Star Wars doesn't have its own Bene Gesserit order.  Second, you'd need the force users to be out-breeding normal folks.  That's hard to do when a) you don't know who they are, and b) the ones you do identify are being taken by an order that discourages personal attachments... like, oh, breeding.  Half this thread has been attacking the idea of the jedi as ascetics, now we are worried about them out-breeding normies?

The most compelling reason is... Star Wars isn't supposed to make sense.  The more Lucas tried to define things in the prequels, the more he screwed them up.  It's a space opera.  I recognize that this triggers the latent autism in some of you, who must put stories in neat little categories with perfectly constructed plots... but Star Wars ain't that.  It is a science fantasy retelling of the Hero's Journey, and the more you try to make it science fiction, the more you will fail...

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 29, 2024, 11:08:29 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2024, 01:15:50 AMNone of the stuff after the original trilogy kept any idea of the Force as a spiritual pursuit - except Rogue One. Instead, it's just midichlorians from family genetics. Even if they didn't use the term, the sequels and series still treat the Force as something primarily from birth, like with Grogu.

Aptitude with the force has always clearly been heritable. That's made explicit twice in the OT, in Empire when Vader and Palpy talk about Luke's potential specifically in the context of him being "the son of Skywalker", and then in Jedi when Luke talks about the Force being "strong in my family". All midichlorians did was make it scientifically measurable.

Originally, "the Force is strong in my family" could have been taken more as "faith is strong in my family" rather than as a genetic thing. Of course, that does make it weird when Luke (and Leia) were not raised as a part of that family. This angle only has any chance of being true before the prequels, when the Force was more spiritual/mystical.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 29, 2024, 12:03:33 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 29, 2024, 11:37:35 AMThe problem with making the force sensitivity so strongly heritable is that this would then be prioritized by natural selection. Eventually everyone would be jedi. There would be dynasties of force users, upper classes lording over peasants (who are themselves steadily evolving to close the gap). And all this would've happened in the 10 millennia of Republic rule prior to Palpatine's birth. It clashes with the actual intent of the story. Star Wars is about jedi knights fighting sith lords, not x-men outbreeding muggles.

Just because it was used in the original trilogy doesn't mean it's a good idea. Once you make something hereditary rather than a non-heritable skill, then your setting will become about eugenics if you're consistent or the writers will pretend nothing changes even tho that makes no sense.

Tell me you don't understand anything about evolution without telling me you don't understand anything about evolution.

First, "10 millennia", a.k.a. 10,000 years, is nothing on an evolutionary timescale.  We are fundamentally the same creatures as our ancestors 10,000 years ago, with all of the same equipment.  What changes so quickly, allowing human beings to adapt so much better than other species, is culture.  So natural selection wouldn't happen on those timescales in the first place.

Second, evolution only works when the mutations have some direct effect on breeding and survivability of children.  As long as the children are fertile and numerous, the mutation (good or bad) doesn't matter.  It's why there are so many genetic-related diseases that strike people in middle age and older... they aren't bred out of the population.  So, unless the force has a direct impact on breeding and child production, it's not going to matter.

And this is why the "social standing" argument fails as well.  First, you'd need the transmission of the force genetically to be predictable and understood (which it isn't... see Darth Plagueis), in order to purposely breed force sensitives.  And Star Wars doesn't have its own Bene Gesserit order.  Second, you'd need the force users to be out-breeding normal folks.  That's hard to do when a) you don't know who they are, and b) the ones you do identify are being taken by an order that discourages personal attachments... like, oh, breeding.  Half this thread has been attacking the idea of the jedi as ascetics, now we are worried about them out-breeding normies?

The most compelling reason is... Star Wars isn't supposed to make sense.  The more Lucas tried to define things in the prequels, the more he screwed them up.  It's a space opera.  I recognize that this triggers the latent autism in some of you, who must put stories in neat little categories with perfectly constructed plots... but Star Wars ain't that.  It is a science fantasy retelling of the Hero's Journey, and the more you try to make it science fiction, the more you will fail...

Your point about evolution isn't always true: Punctuated Equilibrium, given the environmental pressures evolution can happen really fast (from a geological stand point). IIRC there's at least one case where it took a few thousand years (might have been 100k or less that I'm not sure).

But, if the force is in everyone, then it obviously has an evolutionary advantage, even untrained force sensitives are "luckier", better pilots, etc.

Plus it's not as if the force came into existence in the last 10 years.

But, as you correctly point, it's science fantasy, it's not meant to make sense, and Lucas was incapable of making it make sense, maybe because he wasn't trying for it to make sense in the OT?

Then the prequels broke everything.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 29, 2024, 11:08:29 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2024, 01:15:50 AMNone of the stuff after the original trilogy kept any idea of the Force as a spiritual pursuit - except Rogue One. Instead, it's just midichlorians from family genetics. Even if they didn't use the term, the sequels and series still treat the Force as something primarily from birth, like with Grogu.

Aptitude with the force has always clearly been heritable. That's made explicit twice in the OT, in Empire when Vader and Palpy talk about Luke's potential specifically in the context of him being "the son of Skywalker", and then in Jedi when Luke talks about the Force being "strong in my family". All midichlorians did was make it scientifically measurable.

And when Lucas made the Force something a character can measure with a device, he ruined it.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 29, 2024, 12:47:23 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 29, 2024, 11:08:29 AMAptitude with the force has always clearly been heritable. That's made explicit twice in the OT, in Empire when Vader and Palpy talk about Luke's potential specifically in the context of him being "the son of Skywalker", and then in Jedi when Luke talks about the Force being "strong in my family". All midichlorians did was make it scientifically measurable.

Originally, "the Force is strong in my family" could have been taken more as "faith is strong in my family" rather than as a genetic thing. Of course, that does make it weird when Luke (and Leia) were not raised as a part of that family. This angle only has any chance of being true before the prequels, when the Force was more spiritual/mystical.

Luke had spiritual potential, but he showed no essentially no power until he started training with Kenobi. Like, the child of a minister might also have the qualities to make a good minister - but that doesn't mean that ministering is a property of the blood. Luke was a talented "bush pilot" at age 19, but only enough for local recognition.

That's very different than the portrayal in the prequels, where Anakin was an over-the-top wunderkind at age 9 who with no training: built his winning podracer and C3PO, won the prestigious podrace, and singlehandedly destroyed the droid control ship. If he'd gone on without Jedi training to age 19, he'd be an even more ridiculous Mary Sue.

And as HappyDaze notes, the prequel training showed almost none of the spirituality/mysticism that Kenobi and Yoda showed in the OT.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 29, 2024, 11:37:35 AMThe problem with making the force sensitivity so strongly heritable is that this would then be prioritized by natural selection. Eventually everyone would be jedi.

I suspect the instances of Sith would cancel it out. Even a single sith can wreak havok and they have this recurring tendency to kill off all their family, which would be rffectively a self pruning tree. And the Jedi apparently dont get it on much so theres likely another kill switch on the proliferation.

Maybe that is why the Force keeps bypassing the problem and just putters around impregnating women.

I find this plot point antidemocratic. We should be promoting the idea that a nobody without any special bloodline can become a hero through hard work and determination.

Greetings!

Well, historically, the "virtues" of a democracy or a democratic process are definitely a mixed bag. Ancient peoples everywhere promoted their leaders not originally based upon any kind of bloodline, per se, but rather the virtues of Fighting, Leadership, Knowledge, and Getting Shit Done.

These four virtues, either alone or in combination, were what went into and marked the early leaders of ancient times. Even in ancient Rome--there was no blue-blooded elite aristocracy. The leaders emerged as being harsh, ruthless warriors that got shit done. It was these harsh and brutal warriors, a few wise elders, and some quick-thinking smart people that gave birth to children and scions that would eventually become the early Senate, and which then went on to promote the elite, blue-blooded Senatorial Class.

We see the same dynamic all over the world, from ancient China, India, and Japan, to Turkey, Mongolia, and Dark Ages Germania, Britain, the Vikings, and the Slavs.

The leadership is forged and claimed through merit and demand, and courage. Democracy has had only very little to do with the process of forging leaders.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK