So, apparently Star Wars is officially dead. Who would have thought, considering the "diverse" cast, director, and showrunners, that the series would be so poorly done. It's sitting on a 30% audience score right now. Shocking!
Bwwwaaaaaa...hahahahahaha...!
This show deserves the complete non-attention it's going to generate.
Even the outrage bait is old and tired at this point.
Blah blah balance blah blah female blah blah fuck whitey blah.
We all knew that it would be exactly what it was. You have to at least give Disney props for not doing another bait-and-switch.
sure, its terrible, but CriticalDrinkers review was funny as hell.
Go Away Now.
StrongFemale#1 killed a Jedi Master with a pocketknife. i really just dont know where to begin.....
I'm sitting this one out. Cancelled my Diznay Ploos subscription last year and my enthusiasm for Star Wars just ain't sufficient to spend the money anymore.
Fuggit, I say.
I have a Disney+/Hulu subscription so I could watch it any time I want. I haven't bothered.
Quote from: Thornhammer on June 07, 2024, 08:02:01 PMI'm sitting this one out. Cancelled my Diznay Ploos subscription last year and my enthusiasm for Star Wars just ain't sufficient to spend the money anymore.
Fuggit, I say.
I wouldn't even pirate it.
And pirating shit is a honored Mexican tradition.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2024, 11:38:23 AMQuote from: Thornhammer on June 07, 2024, 08:02:01 PMI'm sitting this one out. Cancelled my Diznay Ploos subscription last year and my enthusiasm for Star Wars just ain't sufficient to spend the money anymore.
Fuggit, I say.
I wouldn't even pirate it.
And pirating shit is a honored Mexican tradition.
Looks like you're not the only one.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 10, 2024, 02:55:40 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2024, 11:38:23 AMQuote from: Thornhammer on June 07, 2024, 08:02:01 PMI'm sitting this one out. Cancelled my Diznay Ploos subscription last year and my enthusiasm for Star Wars just ain't sufficient to spend the money anymore.
Fuggit, I say.
I wouldn't even pirate it.
And pirating shit is a honored Mexican tradition.
Looks like you're not the only one.
I mean, pirating stuff still means time and bandwith and disk space, I rather use that on stuff I can still laugh at how bad it is...
If only I could find that Italian "horror" movie (La Mansión cerca del Cementerio in Spanish)
I watched the first two episodes. The characters are not as bad as some are making them out to be, but they do make some terribly stupid decisions and the writing is weak. I have mixed feelings about the look of the costumes, sets, and effects--some are very Star Wars-y and some look very not-Star Wars-y to me. I don't think it's a great show, but I don't think it deserves the level of hate many seem to want to dump on it.
I haven't even watched it yet. My family used to like Star Wars on Disney+ but we've lost interest.
Also, the third episode revelation is just another predictable one-upping of past star wars. "Nope, Anakin wasn't the first immaculate conception, it was this strong female character!"
At that point, why not just make immaculate conception a routine thing, rather than special? The jedi and sith have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, so it actually makes more sense if immaculate conception happens all the time. I mean, we can get very close right now using our inferior technology. We have artificial insemination and we're developing the means to create gametes from stem cells, so in the near future it would be feasible for a woman to get pregnant using a test tube zygote created using the chromosomes from two women without a man ever being involved at any point in the process.
Eh, there was hints in the books that Yoda might be another creation of the Force.
Virginal conception/birth, not Immaculate Conception. :)
Quote from: Omega on June 12, 2024, 05:31:46 PMEh, there was hints in the books that Yoda might be another creation of the Force.
The books have a lot of crazy shit.
The Force made two single mothers. The Force is a black man now.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 12, 2024, 11:43:16 PMQuote from: Omega on June 12, 2024, 05:31:46 PMEh, there was hints in the books that Yoda might be another creation of the Force.
The books have a lot of crazy shit.
And thats not even getting to the Marvel comics. THOSE were crazy.
So reviews and commentary on ep 3 are out. Lesbian space witches make a force baby. This was the inevitable result of activist preaching thinly disguised as storytelling.
I think the show will spike at episode 3 while people gawk at the trainwreck, and then viewership will fade as the "story" trundles along until they run out of gas.
The only reason I started watching it was Carrie-Anne Moss. When they killed her off, I noped out. Yeah, that was like 5 minutes in.
Quote from: yosemitemike on June 16, 2024, 04:43:16 AMThe only reason I started watching it was Carrie-Anne Moss. When they killed her off, I noped out. Yeah, that was like 5 minutes in.
"We wanted to 'subvert expectations...'" Code word for "We cant write worth fuck all anything."
Reframing the jedi as oppressive villains with a patriarchal understanding of the force could've worked, albeit with a lot of retcons to how Lucas depicted them (and I don't think his writing is great, tbh), but these writers completely failed to pull it off.
The witch's explanation of the Weave was just ridiculous false equivocation. She just described the Force with word substitutions, not a genuinely different philosophy of using it. If I was being charitable, the writer was trying to make the jedi masculine and destructive while the witches are feminine and creative. But that's not remotely how the force has worked in previous stories.
The jedi are unambiguous heroes who can do no wrong. Even when, in the prequels, they're quashing rebellions as agents of a police state and assassinating democratically elected leaders. The jedi are ripe for reframing as villains since they did a ton of evil things (https://screenrant.com/star-wars-why-the-jedi-are-bad-guys-villains/) for the "greater good" (anytime someone mentions the greater good, it's a red flag), but Lucas was too incompetent and too unwilling, and other writers are simply too incompetent.
If you used Moorcockian logic then it would be very easy to reframe the light side as an oppressive dictatorial force that operates on cold callous utilitarian logic, but Lucas never intended it to be that way and later attempts to do so run into the problem that they contradict previous stories. The dark side has always been depicted as an oppressive dictatorial force whereas the light side is perfect mary sues. Lucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.
The fundamental issue is that, under Lucas' conception, the Force doesn't operate on Moorcockian logic. The Light side is balanced and the Jedi are perfect and good and can do no wrong, full stop. The dark side is the imbalance, the source of all evil, and the sith are all evil and can never have redeeming qualities. (Just ignore the Nightsisters using the dark side without being consumed by it; as a later addition they break the logic of the universe.)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMReframing the jedi as oppressive villains with a patriarchal understanding of the force could've worked, albeit with a lot of retcons to how Lucas depicted them (and I don't think his writing is great, tbh), but these writers completely failed to pull it off.
I dont think it was patriarchal. But more just a complete stagnation and striation of the Jedi to the point they were so out of touch that a major threat was shaking hands with them and they never noticed.
Yoda is the big problem it feels like. Probably created by the Force and so detached from life that suffering and trauma are barely understood. Emotions are seen as evil and it comes across as stifling. And since he was so long lived thats a stranglehold of centuries.
Disney of course tosses everything out for "the agenda!" and we get yet more woke trash.
Disney is tripling down on Toxic Fandom.
If you can't make a good product, hide behind "minorities" and use them as a meat shield.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 18, 2024, 06:59:39 PMDisney is tripling down on Toxic Fandom.
If you can't make a good product, hide behind "minorities" and use them as a meat shield.
I'm a Star Wars fan, now 100% more toxic! For the same price! :)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMIf you used Moorcockian logic then it would be very easy to reframe the light side as an oppressive dictatorial force that operates on cold callous utilitarian logic, but Lucas never intended it to be that way and later attempts to do so run into the problem that they contradict previous stories. The dark side has always been depicted as an oppressive dictatorial force whereas the light side is perfect mary sues. Lucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.
See I think the biggest mistake that was ever made with Star Wars was conceiving of the force in Moorcockian (or more accurately Manichean) terms, as an eternal conflict between cosmic powers. I doubt I can find the quote now, but if memory serves, Lucas originally conceived of the dark and light sides of the Force as a largely internal struggle. The light side is selflessness, self-discipline, humility, patience, and compassion. The dark side is self-aggrandizement, ambition, impatience, arrogance, callousness and so on. To bowdlerize a quote, you could say "the line between the light and dark side runs down the middle of the human heart". At any rate, you can certainly read the Original Trilogy that way. At an extreme stretch, you could maybe read the prequels that way as well, but it was definitely out the door in the Clone Wars, and AFAIK Disney Wars has never seriously engaged with it.
That I think is a far more compelling dichotomy, not least because it reflects very real dilemmas which everyone faces. But it only works if the conflict between light and dark is kept an internal dilemma for the Force-sensitive characters (as it is in the OT). As soon as you make it the central external conflict of the narrative, it falls apart. On top of that, the morality of that dichotomy is antithetical to the people writing Star Wars these days. Self-discipline, self-denial and humility aren't virtues to Hollywood morality, and self-aggrandizement very much is.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 18, 2024, 10:16:50 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMIf you used Moorcockian logic then it would be very easy to reframe the light side as an oppressive dictatorial force that operates on cold callous utilitarian logic, but Lucas never intended it to be that way and later attempts to do so run into the problem that they contradict previous stories. The dark side has always been depicted as an oppressive dictatorial force whereas the light side is perfect mary sues. Lucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.
See I think the biggest mistake that was ever made with Star Wars was conceiving of the force in Moorcockian (or more accurately Manichean) terms, as an eternal conflict between cosmic powers. I doubt I can find the quote now, but if memory serves, Lucas originally conceived of the dark and light sides of the Force as a largely internal struggle. The light side is selflessness, self-discipline, humility, patience, and compassion. The dark side is self-aggrandizement, ambition, impatience, arrogance, callousness and so on. To bowdlerize a quote, you could say "the line between the light and dark side runs down the middle of the human heart". At any rate, you can certainly read the Original Trilogy that way. At an extreme stretch, you could maybe read the prequels that way as well, but it was definitely out the door in the Clone Wars, and AFAIK Disney Wars has never seriously engaged with it.
That I think is a far more compelling dichotomy, not least because it reflects very real dilemmas which everyone faces. But it only works if the conflict between light and dark is kept an internal dilemma for the Force-sensitive characters (as it is in the OT). As soon as you make it the central external conflict of the narrative, it falls apart. On top of that, the morality of that dichotomy is antithetical to the people writing Star Wars these days. Self-discipline, self-denial and humility aren't virtues to Hollywood morality, and self-aggrandizement very much is.
Lucas has explained that the Dark Side is being out of balance. When you lose control of your darker impulses and they overwhelm you.
Cruelty, callousness, self-aggrandizement, violence, impatience, ambition, etc, etc, are symptoms, or consequences of falling to the Dark Side.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMThe jedi are unambiguous heroes who can do no wrong. Even when, in the prequels, they're quashing rebellions as agents of a police state and assassinating democratically elected leaders. The jedi are ripe for reframing as villains since they did a ton of evil things (https://screenrant.com/star-wars-why-the-jedi-are-bad-guys-villains/) for the "greater good" (anytime someone mentions the greater good, it's a red flag), but Lucas was too incompetent and too unwilling, and other writers are simply too incompetent.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMLucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.
I haven't seen The Acolyte and have no opinion about it, but I thought this generality was interesting.
Contrary to BoxCrayonTales, I think Lucas intended the prequel Jedi to be flawed - and their hubris causes their tragic flaw. However, he saw minor flaws in basically good people and philosophy -- while many other people see as outright evil, like in the Screenrant link you give. I suspect there are plenty of writers who could do an interesting turn of the Jedi as evil, but if they're writing official Star Wars material, their hands are tied by the IP owners in terms of how they portray the Jedi.
I think it's possible to take Lucas' mild shades of gray, and play those up while still staying within the Star Wars framework. Given how wide-ranging Star Wars stories are - I think there's a lot of latitude.
I've always seen Old-Republic-era Jedi as bad guys. I had a game where there was a former Imperial inquisitor who used the Dark Side, but turned away from the Empire while continuing to hate the Jedi. He would say that both love and hate are important, and that one should feel both of them. One should hate injustice, and love one's family and friends. I think having ambiguity makes the setting more interesting.
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2024, 02:35:22 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMThe jedi are unambiguous heroes who can do no wrong. Even when, in the prequels, they're quashing rebellions as agents of a police state and assassinating democratically elected leaders. The jedi are ripe for reframing as villains since they did a ton of evil things (https://screenrant.com/star-wars-why-the-jedi-are-bad-guys-villains/) for the "greater good" (anytime someone mentions the greater good, it's a red flag), but Lucas was too incompetent and too unwilling, and other writers are simply too incompetent.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMLucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.
I haven't seen The Acolyte and have no opinion about it, but I thought this generality was interesting.
Contrary to BoxCrayonTales, I think Lucas intended the prequel Jedi to be flawed - and their hubris causes their tragic flaw. However, he saw minor flaws in basically good people and philosophy -- while many other people see as outright evil, like in the Screenrant link you give. I suspect there are plenty of writers who could do an interesting turn of the Jedi as evil, but if they're writing official Star Wars material, their hands are tied by the IP owners in terms of how they portray the Jedi.
I think it's possible to take Lucas' mild shades of gray, and play those up while still staying within the Star Wars framework. Given how wide-ranging Star Wars stories are - I think there's a lot of latitude.
I've always seen Old-Republic-era Jedi as bad guys. I had a game where there was a former Imperial inquisitor who used the Dark Side, but turned away from the Empire while continuing to hate the Jedi. He would say that both love and hate are important, and that one should feel both of them. One should hate injustice, and love one's family and friends. I think having ambiguity makes the setting more interesting.
I did some research and came to the conclusion that the Jedi are toxic and George Lucas has warped ideas of goodness.
https://youtu.be/tUPD1w78D5I
https://youtu.be/Ya-btfwfnfI
https://youtu.be/gRBJbc5VY4Y
https://indianathan.medium.com/why-the-jedi-were-wrong-why-its-okay-canon-9f6d1dd1e414
There's basically two views here:
Lucas' view is that the Jedi are perfectly good. So Anakin is completely at fault for falling and the Gray Jedi are nonsense. Attachment is bad, fear leads to the dark side, etc.
Then there's the death of the author view based on observing the text without letting Lucas dictate what you should think. If you see the Jedi philosophy as toxic and driving Anakin to the dark side, which makes total sense as the first video illustrates, then yeah the Jedi are de facto evil even if they think they're the good guys. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This goes way beyond being flawed. They're so afraid of falling to the dark side that they've completely discarded their own humanity and don't care about the humanity in others. They're a toxic cult. The Sith are worse for being completely out of control, sure, but the Jedi are still horrible here.
The Jedi could totally work as villains if you acknowledge that their philosophy is toxic and empowers the dark side by not dealing with their emotions in a healthy way. Anakin's fall could've been completely avoided by sending him to a therapist and listening to his concerns. Visions of his loved ones in danger? Investigate! Don't leave him at the mercy of forces he doesn't understand!
It might not be Lucas' intent for the Jedi to be a toxic cult, but his morals are so warped that it's impossible for him not to write them as a toxic cult. He didn't intentionally write a toxic cult, he genuinely thinks they're right.
Even the original trilogy shows Luke triumphing by rejecting Jedi teachings! His New Order allowed Jedi to marry and have attachments, in flagrant violation of the Old Order's teachings. That doesn't make sense if the Old Order is supposed to be correct, it only makes sense if they're supposed to be toxic. A lot of people seem to confuse Luke's personal views with those of the Old Order, but the two couldn't be further apart. The Old Order rejected love, rejected humanity. They doomed themselves and damned the galaxy. Luke surrendered to love, to humanity. It saved him and the galaxy.
Not that Disney is even remotely competent enough to recognize any of this, much less use it as plot hooks.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 19, 2024, 07:41:14 AMLucas' view is that the Jedi are perfectly good. So Anakin is completely at fault for falling and the Gray Jedi are nonsense.
The problem with trying to suss out Lucas' morals is that his messages often get muddled by the fact that he just isn't a very good screenwriter. The prequels make it abundantly clear that while the Jedi path might be correct in the abstract, the Jedi Order isn't perfectly walking it. If they were perfect they never would have fallen. How much of that is intentional, and how much is ineptitude? Difficult to say, but the sheer heavy-handedness with which the counsel is shown to be incompetent strikes me as evidence that even a bad screen-writer has to be doing it intentionally. One thing Lucas has always been consistent on is that the Jedi way is difficult, versus the dark side which is the "quick and easy path".
When you hear Lucas give his explanation of Yoda's "fear -> anger -> hate -> suffering" maxim in the quote Ratman posted, its obviously true. Of course fear leads to aggression. You can see that in animals. And of course aggression easily turns into hate and produces suffering. But the way it's dropped into the scene in Phantom Menace, it sounds like gibberish. The distinction between selfless and possessive love is a valid and important one, and a great writer could make an exceptional story out of it. Lucas clearly thinks that's what he's doing with Anakin and Padme, but a viewer who doesn't know that could be forgiven for missing it entirely. Not making these things clear is arguably a pretty serious flaw in what Lucas himself claims are children's movies.
Could you write a story where the prequel-era Jedi are the villains? Yeah of course, but you'd either be retconning the force into a much less interesting version, or writing a story about how they fail to understand it. Arguably that's something the prequels already did.
As a side note, that Pop Culture Detective video is truly moronic, and also an excellent example of what I said above about trendy current morality running counter to the ideas that underline the Force. I knew the guy was an idiot when he accused Lucas of "misappropriating" eastern ideas. Asia doesn't own a copyright on mindfulness, and the idea that learning from other cultures is theft is a cataclysmically stupid one. He then goes on to complain at length about emotional suppression without bothering to try and understand what the point of stoicism and self-control is. The whole point is to recognize your negative emotions, understand them, and then overcome them so that you can do good. Emotions, even positive ones, are usually destructive when not tempered by self-control. Love becomes jealousy, conviction becomes hubris, motivation becomes impatience, compassion becomes self-martyrdom, etc. etc. This should be pretty basic stuff.
The OT understands this a lot better than Pop Culture Detective does. Neither Obi-Wan nor Yoda are emotionless automatons (nor is Qui-Gon it has to be said). They laugh; they smile; Obi-Wan in particular shows a great deal of affection, both to Luke and in his memories of Anakin. Obi-Wan is basically the stereotype of the "wise mentor" figure: wise, caring, calm, etc. But they don't let their emotions get out of control or in the way of what they think needs to be done. Yoda and Obi-Wan aren't entirely wrong either. When Yoda advises Luke not to face Darth Vader in Empire, he's right. Luke gets his ass kicked, and could easily have died or been turned. Both Obi-Wan and Yoda are right to think that Luke is ready to face Vader in Jedi, but they're aware of the risks. When Obi-Wan tells Luke to "bury" his emotions, first of all the video ignores the next sentence where he says "they do you credit", but more importantly it's practical advice. He says it in the context of Luke going up against the Emperor. Those emotions are a vulnerability against Palpy, which is very clearly shown in the following scenes. Obviously that's true to life. Manipulating someone's fear of loss is effective, especially if they haven't properly reckoned with and overcome that fear. Luke's victory is in overcoming his fear and associated aggression, and placing his faith in his friends and family.
The prequels muddle this a bit more. Young Obi-Wan preaches a lot more about detachment, which makes him look like a hypocrite when compared with his own outgoing and emotional personality. Yoda is colder in the prequels as well, and Mace Windu is the closest we get to the emotionless Jedi Master in the whole series. But again, how much of that is intentional? Mace Windu seems to be a character we're supposed to mistrust by the end of ROTS, and all the Jedi Masters are implicitly contrasted against the much warmer and more emotionally intelligent Qui-Gon.
*edit* Redundant reply.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMAs a side note, that Pop Culture Detective video is truly moronic, and also an excellent example of what I said above about trendy current morality running counter to the ideas that underline the Force. I knew the guy was an idiot when he accused Lucas of "misappropriating" eastern ideas. Asia doesn't own a copyright on mindfulness, and the idea that learning from other cultures is theft is a cataclysmically stupid one. He then goes on to complain at length about emotional suppression without bothering to try and understand what the point of stoicism and self-control is. The whole point is to recognize your negative emotions, understand them, and then overcome them so that you can do good. Emotions, even positive ones, are usually destructive when not tempered by self-control. Love becomes jealousy, conviction becomes hubris, motivation becomes impatience, compassion becomes self-martyrdom, etc. etc. This should be pretty basic stuff.
Johnathan McIntosh was Anita Sarkeesian's (of Feminist Frequency "fame") idea man until she kicked him to the curb. The guy is an insufferable ideologue who doesn't understand feminism, men or women, or pop culture.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMThe whole point is to recognize your negative emotions, understand them, and then overcome them so that you can do good. Emotions, even positive ones, are usually destructive when not tempered by self-control. Love becomes jealousy, conviction becomes hubris, motivation becomes impatience, compassion becomes self-martyrdom, etc. etc. This should be pretty basic stuff.
I don't think self-control accurately describes the prequel Jedi, though. Never marrying, and never protecting your own family isn't just tempering love with self-control. Likewise, taking a young child from his mother, leaving her in slavery and telling him to never try to save her, or even visit her. That's not love tempered by self-control. That's destructive repression, and it is a move by cults to disorient and reprogram.
Emotions like love and compassion don't have to be overcome. They are a source of strength and conviction. Self-control is involved in guiding and focusing and learning from that love, but not in overcoming it.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMThe OT understands this a lot better than Pop Culture Detective does. Neither Obi-Wan nor Yoda are emotionless automatons (nor is Qui-Gon it has to be said). They laugh; they smile; Obi-Wan in particular shows a great deal of affection, both to Luke and in his memories of Anakin. Obi-Wan is basically the stereotype of the "wise mentor" figure: wise, caring, calm, etc. But they don't let their emotions get out of control or in the way of what they think needs to be done.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMThe prequels muddle this a bit more. Young Obi-Wan preaches a lot more about detachment, which makes him look like a hypocrite when compared with his own outgoing and emotional personality. Yoda is colder in the prequels as well, and Mace Windu is the closest we get to the emotionless Jedi Master in the whole series. But again, how much of that is intentional? Mace Windu seems to be a character we're supposed to mistrust by the end of ROTS, and all the Jedi Masters are implicitly contrasted against the much warmer and more emotionally intelligent Qui-Gon.
Note - I haven't yet watched any of the videos that BoxCrayonTales wrote, only his first ScreenRant link so far.
I agree that the pattern is intentional - that Qui-Gon is supposed to be warmer, and that the Jedi council was too cold. But all of them support the basic Jedi practices that are intolerable - like pulling toddlers away from their family and putting them into weapons training; teaching them to reject love and family; and more.
Qui-Gon was warmer than most of the rest of the Jedi, but that's an incredibly low bar. He showed no problems with the basic Jedi practices, only urging that Anakin should be trained because he's powerful and destined. That's not actually caring for Anakin's human and good urges to, say, save his mother from slavery.
Before the sequels, looking at just the original trilogy, it was possible to see Kenobi and Yoda as individually flawed people who represented a basically good order. With the prequels, I don't think it's possible.
Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2024, 04:57:00 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMThe whole point is to recognize your negative emotions, understand them, and then overcome them so that you can do good. Emotions, even positive ones, are usually destructive when not tempered by self-control. Love becomes jealousy, conviction becomes hubris, motivation becomes impatience, compassion becomes self-martyrdom, etc. etc. This should be pretty basic stuff.
I don't think self-control accurately describes the prequel Jedi, though. Never marrying, and never protecting your own family isn't just tempering love with self-control. Likewise, taking a young child from his mother, leaving her in slavery and telling him to never try to save her, or even visit her. That's not love tempered by self-control. That's destructive repression, and it is a move by cults to disorient and reprogram.
Emotions like love and compassion don't have to be overcome. They are a source of strength and conviction. Self-control is involved in guiding and focusing and learning from that love, but not in overcoming it.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMThe OT understands this a lot better than Pop Culture Detective does. Neither Obi-Wan nor Yoda are emotionless automatons (nor is Qui-Gon it has to be said). They laugh; they smile; Obi-Wan in particular shows a great deal of affection, both to Luke and in his memories of Anakin. Obi-Wan is basically the stereotype of the "wise mentor" figure: wise, caring, calm, etc. But they don't let their emotions get out of control or in the way of what they think needs to be done.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMThe prequels muddle this a bit more. Young Obi-Wan preaches a lot more about detachment, which makes him look like a hypocrite when compared with his own outgoing and emotional personality. Yoda is colder in the prequels as well, and Mace Windu is the closest we get to the emotionless Jedi Master in the whole series. But again, how much of that is intentional? Mace Windu seems to be a character we're supposed to mistrust by the end of ROTS, and all the Jedi Masters are implicitly contrasted against the much warmer and more emotionally intelligent Qui-Gon.
Note - I haven't yet watched any of the videos that BoxCrayonTales wrote, only his first ScreenRant link so far.
I agree that the pattern is intentional - that Qui-Gon is supposed to be warmer, and that the Jedi council was too cold. But all of them support the basic Jedi practices that are intolerable - like pulling toddlers away from their family and putting them into weapons training; teaching them to reject love and family; and more.
Anakin chose to go with the Jedi. He was not pulled from anyone.
We have no evidence that the Jedi remove children from their families. Qui Gonn says that Anakin would have been identified earlier, but that's just noting that he has potential. Jedi are allowed to leave the order. Dooku did, and he was a full Jedi Master. Jedi training isn't a prison. Anakin was given a choice, and his mother was right there to supervise. There's no reason to think that it's much different for any child with force potential in the Republic.
We don't know if the children students are removed from their families. For all we know, children in training live at home and commute to the temple to train.
Now, I'll aknowledge that they likely live at the temple, but the problem is that we don't know the details. One of the big issues with the prequels is that Lucas brings up a ton of unanswered questions like this about just how complicit the Jedi are in their own downfall.
I admit showing little children training with lightsabers was dumb. I can fanwank that they were training lightsabers, low powered versions that don't cut. But there's no reason to think that's the case. Another example of Lucas either not explaining his premises fully, or jut not caring.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMThe distinction between selfless and possessive love is a valid and important one, and a great writer could make an exceptional story out of it. Lucas clearly thinks that's what he's doing with Anakin and Padme, but a viewer who doesn't know that could be forgiven for missing it entirely.
One of the best bits on this comes from WotC's
Dark Side Sourcebook from 2001: "A character who acts out of love is in no danger of falling to the Dark Side, but a character who acts out of the
need for love risks losing everything."
Hey, I ain't claiming the prequels are well written, because they certainly aren't. I'm not claiming the Jedi come off well from them either, though again I'm not sure they're supposed to.
Not doing anything about Anakin's mother is one of the more egregious errors shown, and it directly leads to their downfall. It reflects particularly badly on Obi Wan, since he volunteers for the role of Anakin's guardian. There are arguments to be made for why they might have made that decision, but they really needed to be in the movie. Otherwise it comes over like George just expected the audience to forget Schmi exists until she becomes useful to the plot.
I suspect you're being unfair to Qui Gon, though. From what we see in the movie there's reason to believe that if Anakin was his pupil, he'd have gone back for her. He does try to get her freed, and the whole "bomb in the brain" plot device is clearly there to explain why he can't free her by force. He just couldn't go back on account of, you know, being dead.
The thing about taking kids from their families seems to be less damning to me than to others. Maybe there's more about this in the EU material that I don't know about. The only Jedi we see recruited in the movies is Anakin, and that's done with both his and his mother's consent. I always assumed that families in the old Republic would voluntarily enroll their children in the Jedi order, whether for the prestige or a better life or because they earnestly believe the Jedi are serving a worthy cause. It's not something I would do, but there's precedent for it in real world monastic orders.
I also don't know at what age the Jedi canonically recruit. The youngest kids we see in the temple look like they might be a couple years younger than Anakin. If canonically they do actually recruit toddlers, then that is really dumb.
EDIT: I had to type this comment up on my phone, and while I was doing it Ratman made at least one of the same points. I'll put a strikethrough through the part that is redundant to save people reading the same argument twice.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 07:48:54 PMHey, I ain't claiming the prequels are well written, because they certainly aren't. I'm not claiming the Jedi come off well from them either, though again I'm not sure they're supposed to.
Not doing anything about Anakin's mother is one of the more egregious errors shown, and it directly leads to their downfall. It reflects particularly badly on Obi Wan, since he volunteers for the role of Anakin's guardian. There are arguments to be made for why they might have made that decision, but they really needed to be in the movie. Otherwise it comes over like George just expected the audience to forget Schmi exists until she becomes useful to the plot.
I suspect you're being unfair to Qui Gon, though. From what we see in the movie there's reason to believe that if Anakin was his pupil, he'd have gone back for her. He does try to get her freed, and the whole "bomb in the brain" plot device is clearly there to explain why he can't free her by force. He just couldn't go back on account of, you know, being dead.
The thing about taking kids from their families seems to be less damning to me than to others. Maybe there's more about this in the EU material that I don't know about. The only Jedi we see recruited in the movies is Anakin, and that's done with both his and his mother's consent. I always assumed that families in the old Republic would voluntarily enroll their children in the Jedi order, whether for the prestige or a better life or because they earnestly believe the Jedi are serving a worthy cause. It's not something I would do, but there's precedent for it in real world monastic orders.
I also don't know at what age the Jedi canonically recruit. The youngest kids we see in the temple look like they might be a couple years younger than Anakin. If canonically they do actually recruit toddlers, then that is really dumb.
EDIT: I had to type this comment up on my phone, and while I was doing it Ratman made at least one of the same points. I'll put a strikethrough through the part that is redundant to save people reading the same argument twice.
Great minds and all that. :)
The disturbing thought in the whole child training to me is that it implies that Jedi padawans are taught... I'd even use the word indoctrinated... to not feel unhealthy attachment. And that's part of the reason why Anakin fell to the dark side. He lacked that crucial phase of the training.
But that is the age that children form attachments. We have real life examples of children being raised in this way. The one that I think of is the Jannisaries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary) A brilliant and ruthless tactic of replacing a child's attachment to their parents with attachment to a father figure in the Sultan. Making them incredibly loyal and self-sacrificing... at first.
Again, I don't know if Lucas even considered this angle for his family friendly space opera movie franchise.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 19, 2024, 08:54:58 PMGreat minds and all that. :)
The disturbing thought in the whole child training to me is that it implies that Jedi padawans are taught... I'd even use the word indoctrinated... to not feel unhealthy attachment. And that's part of the reason why Anakin fell to the dark side. He lacked that crucial phase of the training.
But that is the age that children form attachments. We have real life examples of children being raised in this way. The one that I think of is the Jannisaries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary) A brilliant and ruthless tactic of replacing a child's attachment to their parents with attachment to a father figure in the Sultan. Making them incredibly loyal and self-sacrificing... at first.
Again, I don't know if Lucas even considered this angle for his family friendly space opera movie franchise.
He probably didn't think it through. Lucas clearly has a lot of knowledge when it comes to literature, mythology and film, but I've never seen it said that he's well educated on history.
I assume he was thinking of Christian and Buddhist monasteries, which did take in quite young children and raise them within their orders. An interesting theme which comes through in the prequels is the idea of a spiritual institution getting involved with, and eventually subservient to, a political power. People who know more about Chinese history than I do can expound, but my understanding is that the Shaolin temple was at various times an influential political institution in Imperial China, and that that fact is largely responsible for it being repeatedly destroyed. That'd be an interesting accidental historical parallel.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 19, 2024, 08:54:58 PMThe disturbing thought in the whole child training to me is that it implies that Jedi padawans are taught... I'd even use the word indoctrinated... to not feel unhealthy attachment. And that's part of the reason why Anakin fell to the dark side. He lacked that crucial phase of the training.
But that is the age that children form attachments. We have real life examples of children being raised in this way. The one that I think of is the Jannisaries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary) A brilliant and ruthless tactic of replacing a child's attachment to their parents with attachment to a father figure in the Sultan. Making them incredibly loyal and self-sacrificing... at first.
Yes. That's exactly my point. This is what Lucas wrote. I think he didn't intend it to be as horrible as it is, but it is completely horrible.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 07:48:54 PMI also don't know at what age the Jedi canonically recruit. The youngest kids we see in the temple look like they might be a couple years younger than Anakin. If canonically they do actually recruit toddlers, then that is really dumb.
The lore is that they normally test children for midichlorians at birth, and recruit them before age 6. At age 9, Anakin was too old to be recruited and required special dispensation that he nearly failed,
because he cared and worried for his mother. For example, here's Ahsoka Tano being recruited in "The Gathering" - estimated to be around 3 years old.
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/open-uri20150608-27674-15sxsdt_4b056a09.jpeg)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 19, 2024, 06:53:39 PMWe don't know if the children students are removed from their families. For all we know, children in training live at home and commute to the temple to train.
Like your suggestion that younglings only had safety "training light sabers", I don't think this is supported even in the main films, and certainly not in the wider lore. In The Clone Wars, we see Ahsoka being recruited as a toddler, and it is treated as normal. In Anakin's case,
no one mentions or suggests that he should have family with him. It's not just a personal failure by Obi Wan. Anakin desperately wants to free or at least visit his mother, but he is never allowed to see her. It's the implied standard for the Jedi order, that no one questions or complains about.
---
The whole point of the prequel plotlines is that the Jedi are not acting for good. They are setting up storm troopers and totalitarian imperial rule, which is an easy step for them since they already act essentially as secret police who are above the law, which they justify because democracy is corrupt.
That's what Lucas intended for them. I don't think he quite understood how awful he was making them, but they are pretty awful - and are only kept looking vaguely good because the Sith are portrayed even worse.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 12:35:37 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 19, 2024, 08:54:58 PMThe disturbing thought in the whole child training to me is that it implies that Jedi padawans are taught... I'd even use the word indoctrinated... to not feel unhealthy attachment. And that's part of the reason why Anakin fell to the dark side. He lacked that crucial phase of the training.
But that is the age that children form attachments. We have real life examples of children being raised in this way. The one that I think of is the Jannisaries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary) A brilliant and ruthless tactic of replacing a child's attachment to their parents with attachment to a father figure in the Sultan. Making them incredibly loyal and self-sacrificing... at first.
Yes. That's exactly my point. This is what Lucas wrote. I think he didn't intend it to be as horrible as it is, but it is completely horrible.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 07:48:54 PMI also don't know at what age the Jedi canonically recruit. The youngest kids we see in the temple look like they might be a couple years younger than Anakin. If canonically they do actually recruit toddlers, then that is really dumb.
The lore is that they normally test children for midichlorians at birth, and recruit them before age 6. At age 9, Anakin was too old to be recruited and required special dispensation that he nearly failed, because he cared and worried for his mother. For example, here's Ahsoka Tano being recruited in "The Gathering" - estimated to be around 3 years old.
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/open-uri20150608-27674-15sxsdt_4b056a09.jpeg)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 19, 2024, 06:53:39 PMWe don't know if the children students are removed from their families. For all we know, children in training live at home and commute to the temple to train.
Like your suggestion that younglings only had safety "training light sabers", I don't think this is supported even in the main films, and certainly not in the wider lore. In The Clone Wars, we see Ahsoka being recruited as a toddler, and it is treated as normal. In Anakin's case, no one mentions or suggests that he should have family with him. It's not just a personal failure by Obi Wan. Anakin desperately wants to free or at least visit his mother, but he is never allowed to see her. It's the implied standard for the Jedi order, that no one questions or complains about.
If so, then we're faced with the issue that, as portrayed in the films, the Jedi were
correct. Their system worked for a thousand years and it's when tradition was broken by Qui Gonn, that Anakin was in severe danger of turning to the Dark Side.
Quote---
The whole point of the prequel plotlines is that the Jedi are not acting for good. They are setting up storm troopers and totalitarian imperial rule, which is an easy step for them since they already act essentially as secret police who are above the law, which they justify because democracy is corrupt.
That's what Lucas intended for them. I don't think he quite understood how awful he was making them, but they are pretty awful - and are only kept looking vaguely good because the Sith are portrayed even worse.
That's not what I took from the films. The Jedi were just as duped as the rest of galactic society into participating in Palpatine's master plan.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 12:35:37 AMThe lore is that they normally test children for midichlorians at birth, and recruit them before age 6.
Yeah that's so ridiculous it made me google whether or not George Lucas has children. Turns out all three of his kids were adopted, and now I wonder at what age he adopted them. I have a 3 year old, and kids at that age are 1) even more attached to their mothers, and 2) pointless to put into any kind of training. Also, it turns out that one of his daughters is a former pro MMA fighter, so that's a fun fact.
The idea of the Jedi somehow blood-testing every child in the Republic at birth is preposterous anyway. Ironically, the method of recruitment we're shown with Anakin, where a wandering master runs into a promising pupil and offers to the pupils parents to take the child on as an apprentice, makes more sense and also aligns more closely with the whole monk/kung fu inspiration.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 12:35:37 AMLike your suggestion that younglings only had safety "training light sabers", I don't think this is supported even in the main films, and certainly not in the wider lore.
I seem to remember something from the EU stuff about the power on a lightsaber being able to be turned down to the point where it becomes essentially harmless. If that's true, then we could reasonably presume that they put some kind of power limiter on the kids' lightsabers. The alternative is so unbelievable you'd have to chalk it up to a film-making error. If they let 7 year olds wave real lightsabers around, none of them would live long enough to become Padawans.
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 12:35:37 AMAnakin was too old to be recruited and required special dispensation that he nearly failed, because he cared and worried for his mother
Being fair to the movie, I think we're supposed to read from that scene that Yoda senses something beyond just the usual childhood attachment to a parent in Anakin, and the Jedi Counsel only relents because they don't want Obi-Wan going rogue and training him outside the order. There's still problems with that. One would be that if they sense all this dark side potential in Anakin, not training him is probably more dangerous than training him. Another is that it suggests the counsel is so impotent that a single newly appointed Jedi can force them to reverse policy just by refusing to comply.
The primary problem with the "Jedi" and their portrayal is one of unexpected success. If you understand the source material for Star Wars (especially Kurosawa films), it becomes patently obvious that Jedi and the Force were simply California pop-culture reframing of the idea of stoic Buddhist warriors. Much like a samurai longing for the "good old days" after the Meiji Restoration, Obi-wan looks back on a more "civilized" age. It was a vague concept Lucas added in to the trilogy to give it a mythic quality, and to allow his space opera to have "magic" without needing magic.
The problem comes when the prequels are needed to actually show that "civilized" age. Anyone that has listened to Lucas opine on political/social topics will recognize that he's not a "deep" thinker. He had to come up with a direct demonstration of what the Jedi Order actually looked like, and he threw together a concept based on Hollywood-Buddhism (see Seven Years in Tibet...) and a surface construction of what training would be necessary to create a stoic warrior class that didn't constantly fall to the dark side.
Anyone who is trying to ascribe a deeper meaning or coherent philosophy to the portrayal of the Jedi in the prequels is... for lack of a better term... brutally ignorant. Is the Jedi Order in the prequels coherent, logical, and suited to their description in the original trilogy? Hell, no! The better question is, considering who George Lucas is and the fact that this is a space opera (and blatantly not science fiction), why are you expecting a coherent and logical philosophy from these movies?
And this is the much greater failing of the Acolyte. It doesn't fail because it contradicts the lore. It fails because it is a terrible story. It isn't mythic, isn't thematically consistent, and it isn't space opera. So it's not Star Wars...
Wait, the jedi perform tests on every child born in the republic at or near their birth? That makes absolutely no sense unless the test is a normal part of pediatric care and can be performed by non-jedi. There should also be a billion jedi running around unless the galaxy is super under populated a la the Stargate galaxy (where canonically Earth outnumbers the rest of the galaxy combined).
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 20, 2024, 09:15:44 AMAnyone who is trying to ascribe a deeper meaning or coherent philosophy to the portrayal of the Jedi in the prequels is... for lack of a better term... brutally ignorant. Is the Jedi Order in the prequels coherent, logical, and suited to their description in the original trilogy? Hell, no! The better question is, considering who George Lucas is and the fact that this is a space opera (and blatantly not science fiction), why are you expecting a coherent and logical philosophy from these movies?
Ayup. It's a similar argument to the Droid Enslavement discussion we had a bit ago. It's hard to grapple with such issues when the film maker clearly didn't give two shits. Are droids people? Are Jedi Padawans indoctrinated child enforcers? Who fuggin cares? Pew! Pew! Boom!
I think people go off the rails because the original trilogy did have a somewhat coherent philosophy. But Lucas lost it somewhere between ROTJ and the Special Editions.
QuoteAnd this is the much greater failing of the Acolyte. It doesn't fail because it contradicts the lore. It fails because it is a terrible story. It isn't mythic, isn't thematically consistent, and it isn't space opera. So it's not Star Wars...
That is the tradegy of Darth Kennedy the Foolish. Disney Star Wars doesn't even recognize what made the films popular in the first place.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 18, 2024, 11:47:10 PMLucas has explained that the Dark Side is being out of balance. When you lose control of your darker impulses and they overwhelm you.
Lukas has shown time and again that he has no fucking clue about the very thing he helped create. Kind of like the designers of 5e D&D.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 20, 2024, 04:47:40 PMIt's a similar argument to the Droid Enslavement discussion we had a bit ago. It's hard to grapple with such issues when the film maker clearly didn't give two shits. Are droids people? Are Jedi Padawans indoctrinated child enforcers? Who fuggin cares? Pew! Pew! Boom!
I think people go off the rails because the original trilogy did have a somewhat coherent philosophy. But Lucas lost it somewhere between ROTJ and the Special Editions.
Quote from: Omega on June 20, 2024, 06:12:22 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 18, 2024, 11:47:10 PMLucas has explained that the Dark Side is being out of balance. When you lose control of your darker impulses and they overwhelm you.
Lukas has shown time and again that he has no fucking clue about the very thing he helped create. Kind of like the designers of 5e D&D.
Agreed, Omega. I find conservative defense of Lucas weird - when he is a Californian leftist hippy who explicitly wrote that the theme was "a large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters" and said "When I did it, they were Viet Cong". He's pushing a distorted view of Eastern religion that is at odds with Christian family values.
Sure, they're action movies - but they're for kids. Personally, I care
more about the moral message in movies for kids than I would in, say, an R-rated horror movie or drama. Kids are a lot more impressionable. I still remember talking about the prequels with my son after he saw them.
I'm trying not to dwell on obscure points or fan theories. Anakin being separated from his mother and not allowed to help or visit her because of Jedi rules was at the center of the prequel movies. The light-saber-wielding younglings were prominent as well. Similar is how they willingly adopted and used clone troopers.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 20, 2024, 09:15:44 AMThe primary problem with the "Jedi" and their portrayal is one of unexpected success. If you understand the source material for Star Wars (especially Kurosawa films), it becomes patently obvious that Jedi and the Force were simply California pop-culture reframing of the idea of stoic Buddhist warriors. Much like a samurai longing for the "good old days" after the Meiji Restoration, Obi-wan looks back on a more "civilized" age.
I'd broadly agree with that, but I don't think that resolves the question. One of my favorite Hong Kong action movies is Tai Chi Master (1993) which stars Jet Li and Chin Siu Ho as orphans raised in a Buddhist monastery. The theme of the movie is how awful and abusive their upbringing was, which leads Chin Siu Ho's character to become a violent warlord, while Jet Li's character recovers and learns a more balanced way by finding a family and harmony (i.e. Tai Chi).
In Kurosawa's movies, the old samurai order is not shown as unquestionable good. Kurosawa is famous for his ambiguity in these portrayals. Kurosawa clearly loved Toshiro Mifune the actor, but Mifune's character in _The Hidden Fortress_ was violent and crazy.
Quote from: Omega on June 20, 2024, 06:12:22 PMI'm trying not to dwell on obscure points or fan theories. Anakin being separated from his mother and not allowed to help or visit her because of Jedi rules was at the center of the prequel movies.
Was it because the Jedi forbade it? Was it because the Republic didn't have any serious legal juristiction over Tatooine? Was it because a Jedi running around freeing slaves would have been seen as favoritism? No matter how "good" the results would be. Should the Jedi run around and fix all the family problems of it's membership? Why didn't Padme shell out a few credits and buy Shmi from Watto? As a queen and then senator, I imagine she got a decent paycheck, and her family seemed to be pretty upper class wealthy. (Lake Retreat and all)
Care to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?
It was created by a corrupt, greedy Commiefornian "hippy", the dude knows jack and shit about stoicism, budhism, shintoism or any other religion or philosophy, his brain was probably fried with drugs.
As for the prequels... Everybody hated them until the sequels landed and by comparison yes, the prequels are not as shitty.
Now, back to the topic, Now we have a dude that wasn't even born running around as an adult...
But no, it's totally not breaking canon...
Wow. People have lost their shit over The Acolyte.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2024, 09:06:15 PMCare to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?
Because stories that make some kind of sense are better than stories that don't. And because Star Wars is about morality Good vs Evil. And because Star Wars was and kinda still is a big, popular franchise. And because we're nerds on the internet and have to dissect everything.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 12:53:07 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2024, 09:06:15 PMCare to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?
Because stories that make some kind of sense are better than stories that don't. And because Star Wars is about morality Good vs Evil. And because Star Wars was and kinda still is a big, popular franchise. And because we're nerds on the internet and have to dissect everything.
Fine, then you need to stick to the OT, if you include the prequels there's no way it makes ANY sense.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2024, 01:01:42 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 12:53:07 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2024, 09:06:15 PMCare to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?
Because stories that make some kind of sense are better than stories that don't. And because Star Wars is about morality Good vs Evil. And because Star Wars was and kinda still is a big, popular franchise. And because we're nerds on the internet and have to dissect everything.
Fine, then you need to stick to the OT, if you include the prequels there's no way it makes ANY sense.
I know. *sadface* It' just frustating.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 20, 2024, 09:06:15 PMCare to tell me why is ANYONE trying to extract ANY coherent moral philosophy from Star Wars?
It was created by a corrupt, greedy Commiefornian "hippy", the dude knows jack and shit about stoicism, budhism, shintoism or any other religion or philosophy, his brain was probably fried with drugs.
Because ANH was a lot less toxic than a lot of other stuff at the time, and RotJ actually approaches the good with its take on repentance and mercy. :)
Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 07:36:25 PMAgreed, Omega. I find conservative defense of Lucas weird - when he is a Californian leftist hippy who explicitly wrote that the theme was "a large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters" and said "When I did it, they were Viet Cong". He's pushing a distorted view of Eastern religion that is at odds with Christian family values.
George Lucas' moral thinking seems to have crystallized somewhere in the mid-70s, and a 70s leftist hippy is still pretty conservative by today's standards. Plus when you're dealing in the kind of broad moral generalities that Star Wars does, there used to be a lot more common ground between left and right. Tolkien was by all accounts extremely conservative, but the hippies loved him.
More than that, I think Ratman's last two comments encapsulate it. Most of the people who are inclined to defend Lucas got attached to Star Wars on the basis of the OT and the first EU era (pre-prequel). The original films aren't flawless, but they are thematically consistent and morally creditable. A lot of that goes wrong in the prequels, but by then people are invested, and will tend to write that off as writing incompetence rather than moral corruption.
The Viet Cong thing is ironic, because what almost all of the audience saw there was the French Resistance against the Nazis. Did Lucas pull the wool over everyone's eyes, or did he bungle his own metaphor? For me, that's what makes him interesting to discuss. I stopped being a fan of Star Wars around the time of Attack of the Clones, but Lucas' bizarre combination of grand vision and incompetent execution keeps me interested in it on an academic level.
I generally avoid arguments about Christian morality, since I'm not Christian, but I'll note that Christian monasteries also took children and separated them from their families.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 21, 2024, 09:04:19 AMGeorge Lucas' moral thinking seems to have crystallized somewhere in the mid-70s, and a 70s leftist hippy is still pretty conservative by today's standards. Plus when you're dealing in the kind of broad moral generalities that Star Wars does, there used to be a lot more common ground between left and right. Tolkien was by all accounts extremely conservative, but the hippies loved him.
Which is why I make it a policy never to judge a work by its fans. :)
QuoteMore than that, I think Ratman's last two comments encapsulate it. Most of the people who are inclined to defend Lucas got attached to Star Wars on the basis of the OT and the first EU era (pre-prequel). The original films aren't flawless, but they are thematically consistent and morally creditable. A lot of that goes wrong in the prequels, but by then people are invested, and will tend to write that off as writing incompetence rather than moral corruption.
Guilty as charged. :) Indeed, if it weren't for Timothy Zahn and West End Games, I probably would have left Star Wars behind long before I actually did.
My take on the Prequel Jedi is that they took the quicker, easier way of setting up rules that cut off anything that
might lead to the Dark Side, resulting in a structure that was strong in most cases but brittle at key points.
QuoteI generally avoid arguments about Christian morality, since I'm not Christian, but I'll note that Christian monasteries also took children and separated them from their families.
With parental consent, in most cases, which was the way the Jedi handled it in the post-Prequels EU. I'm given to understand The Acolyte might have changed this. And the children were free to leave when they grew up before taking solemn vows (although there might have been pressure applied, admittedly). Also, only the most strictly cloistered orders seem to have enforced the total disconnection practiced by the Jedi.
Anyone know anything about Buddhist/Shaolin practices? Those seem to have had more of an influence on Lucas than Christian monasticism.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 21, 2024, 09:19:06 AMQuote from: ForgottenF on June 21, 2024, 09:04:19 AMI generally avoid arguments about Christian morality, since I'm not Christian, but I'll note that Christian monasteries also took children and separated them from their families.
With parental consent, in most cases, which was the way the Jedi handled it in the post-Prequels EU. I'm given to understand The Acolyte might have changed this. And the children were free to leave when they grew up before taking solemn vows (although there might have been pressure applied, admittedly).
My understanding is that Christian monasteries were generally not open to children. I'm sure there are cases children being raised in monasteries (especially orphans), but the vast majority of Christian monks and nuns join as adults and take their vows. I don't know how common the practice is, but the general impression I have of monasteries is that children are at most the rare exception. I'd be curious if there was more information on this.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 21, 2024, 09:19:06 AMAnyone know anything about Buddhist/Shaolin practices? Those seem to have had more of an influence on Lucas than Christian monasticism.
Children are much more common in Buddhist monasteries than in Christian ones, though practices vary by country. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this, seeing it only through media portrayals. (I mentioned the movie Tai Chi Master earlier.) This is backed up by my reading, though.
QuoteDonald Swearer discusses additional motivations for ordaining as a teenager in his book 'The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia' (1995), p. 48:
In Thailand one of the principle reasons for being ordained is to acquire an education. Among poorer families often children cannot afford to attend school. Ordination as a novice provides for their material needs as well as a basic education. Indeed, if a boy is bright and highly motivated he may complete secondary school as a novice or monk, graduate from a monastic college, and then earn an advanced degree from a university in another country, such as India. After teaching in a monastery school for several years or serving as an administrator in a larger provincial monastery he will probably disrobe and take a responsible and respected secular job. Although such exploitation of the monastic educational structure siphons off able leadership, it has become standard practice and bears little or no social stigma.
Here's a 2021 paper about current status:
QuoteTens of thousands of children in India, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and other Asian countries are living as child Buddhist monks. Many are in temples and monasteries far from home and do not see their parents for months, even years. Some are as young as 6 years of age. The aim of this article is to engage scholars, practitioners, child rights advocates, and others in a conversation around the rights and vulnerabilities of child Buddhist monks and children susceptible to being entrusted to monasteries to live as child monks.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23493003211012108
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 21, 2024, 09:04:19 AMQuote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 07:36:25 PMAgreed, Omega. I find conservative defense of Lucas weird - when he is a Californian leftist hippy who explicitly wrote that the theme was "a large technological empire going after a small group of freedom fighters" and said "When I did it, they were Viet Cong". He's pushing a distorted view of Eastern religion that is at odds with Christian family values.
George Lucas' moral thinking seems to have crystallized somewhere in the mid-70s, and a 70s leftist hippy is still pretty conservative by today's standards. Plus when you're dealing in the kind of broad moral generalities that Star Wars does, there used to be a lot more common ground between left and right. Tolkien was by all accounts extremely conservative, but the hippies loved him.
More than that, I think Ratman's last two comments encapsulate it. Most of the people who are inclined to defend Lucas got attached to Star Wars on the basis of the OT and the first EU era (pre-prequel). The original films aren't flawless, but they are thematically consistent and morally creditable. A lot of that goes wrong in the prequels, but by then people are invested, and will tend to write that off as writing incompetence rather than moral corruption.
Do you think that Lucas intended the Jedi to be as cruel and awful as some of the criticisms suggest?
QuoteThe Viet Cong thing is ironic, because what almost all of the audience saw there was the French Resistance against the Nazis. Did Lucas pull the wool over everyone's eyes, or did he bungle his own metaphor? For me, that's what makes him interesting to discuss. I stopped being a fan of Star Wars around the time of Attack of the Clones, but Lucas' bizarre combination of grand vision and incompetent execution keeps me interested in it on an academic level.
The Viet Cong thing is funny because the Viet Cong didn't win militarily. They won a PR war with the American civilians.
edit double
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 04:44:35 PMDo you think that Lucas intended the Jedi to be as cruel and awful as some of the criticisms suggest?
Not at all. I would guess that Lucas thinks being recruited into the Jedi Temple is one of the best things that can happen to a kid, so he wouldn't see a problem with it. As far as the Anakin's mom thing goes, like I said, I think he expected the audience not to question it. He kind of wrote himself into a corner, too, because he wants Anakin's fall to be owed to his overattachment, but he also wants it to be sympathetic to the audience, and give him a reason to blame the Jedi for it. Just having him be overly possessive of Padme would have made him way too unlikeable. Just having him be afraid of her dying in ROTS would have been way too abrupt when he wanted the fall to be more gradual, and he couldn't plausibly blame the Jedi for it. He still bungled it, and he probably should have gone with another plot entirely, but that's what he went for so that's what we got.
EDIT:
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 04:44:35 PMThe Viet Cong thing is funny because the Viet Cong didn't win militarily. They won a PR war with the American civilians
Also, America at its worst isn't a ready analogue for the Galactic Empire.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 20, 2024, 08:26:52 PMQuote from: Omega on June 20, 2024, 06:12:22 PMI'm trying not to dwell on obscure points or fan theories. Anakin being separated from his mother and not allowed to help or visit her because of Jedi rules was at the center of the prequel movies.
Was it because the Jedi forbade it? Was it because the Republic didn't have any serious legal juristiction over Tatooine? Was it because a Jedi running around freeing slaves would have been seen as favoritism? No matter how "good" the results would be. Should the Jedi run around and fix all the family problems of it's membership? Why didn't Padme shell out a few credits and buy Shmi from Watto? As a queen and then senator, I imagine she got a decent paycheck, and her family seemed to be pretty upper class wealthy. (Lake Retreat and all)
um... I did not say that? Not sure who you quoted but wasnt me.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 04:44:35 PMDo you think that Lucas intended the Jedi to be as cruel and awful as some of the criticisms suggest?
I do not think Lucas knows what the fuck he is doing. And the prequels may have had some Kennedy meddling if she had any hand in them. But odds are its all Lucas.
The vibe, intentional or not, is that the Jedi have lost touch with the force. Especially Yoda. The only person who knew what the hell to do was Qui-Gon and he gets offed.
Quote from: Omega on June 22, 2024, 01:05:13 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 20, 2024, 08:26:52 PMQuote from: Omega on June 20, 2024, 06:12:22 PMI'm trying not to dwell on obscure points or fan theories. Anakin being separated from his mother and not allowed to help or visit her because of Jedi rules was at the center of the prequel movies.
Was it because the Jedi forbade it? Was it because the Republic didn't have any serious legal juristiction over Tatooine? Was it because a Jedi running around freeing slaves would have been seen as favoritism? No matter how "good" the results would be. Should the Jedi run around and fix all the family problems of it's membership? Why didn't Padme shell out a few credits and buy Shmi from Watto? As a queen and then senator, I imagine she got a decent paycheck, and her family seemed to be pretty upper class wealthy. (Lake Retreat and all)
um... I did not say that? Not sure who you quoted but wasnt me.
My bad. That was a jhkim quote. Editing nested quotes gets tricky.
Quote from: ForgottenF on June 22, 2024, 12:47:57 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 21, 2024, 04:44:35 PMDo you think that Lucas intended the Jedi to be as cruel and awful as some of the criticisms suggest?
Not at all. I would guess that Lucas thinks being recruited into the Jedi Temple is one of the best things that can happen to a kid, so he wouldn't see a problem with it. As far as the Anakin's mom thing goes, like I said, I think he expected the audience not to question it. He kind of wrote himself into a corner, too, because he wants Anakin's fall to be owed to his overattachment, but he also wants it to be sympathetic to the audience, and give him a reason to blame the Jedi for it. Just having him be overly possessive of Padme would have made him way too unlikeable. Just having him be afraid of her dying in ROTS would have been way too abrupt when he wanted the fall to be more gradual, and he couldn't plausibly blame the Jedi for it. He still bungled it, and he probably should have gone with another plot entirely, but that's what he went for so that's what we got.
Right. So the topic of how horrible it is to recruit babies into the Jedi order and train them as toddlers falls apart because the films are completely unrealistic about how that actually happens and the consequences of it. The author is just writing what sounds good, and doesn't care about the ramifications.
The furthest the conversation can productively go is "It doesnt seem Lucas put much thought into these issues."
If someone blames the fall of the Jedi on the fact that they recruit babies and seem callous to the psychological and moral issues, the answer is simply, it's not a problem because the author didn't see a problem with it, and so it wasn't included as a factor in the fall of the Jedi.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2024, 02:38:31 AMMy bad. That was a jhkim quote. Editing nested quotes gets tricky.
It doesn't seem to work on mobile safari, but if you use a desktop browser you should be able to highlight text and quote that
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2024, 02:56:46 AMRight. So the topic of how horrible it is to recruit babies into the Jedi order and train them as toddlers falls apart because the films are completely unrealistic about how that actually happens and the consequences of it. The author is just writing what sounds good, and doesn't care about the ramifications.
The furthest the conversation can productively go is "It doesnt seem Lucas put much thought into these issues."
If someone blames the fall of the Jedi on the fact that they recruit babies and seem callous to the psychological and moral issues, the answer is simply, it's not a problem because the author didn't see a problem with it, and so it wasn't included as a factor in the fall of the Jedi.
Maybe go with death of the author? We already don't like Lucas' thoughts on it, so why not go full reinterpretation? He's not Tolkien and even Tolkien didn't like how publishing a story set it in stone, as it were.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2024, 09:45:38 AMMaybe go with death of the author? We already don't like Lucas' thoughts on it, so why not go full reinterpretation? He's not Tolkien and even Tolkien didn't like how publishing a story set it in stone, as it were.
No, for several reasons:
First, "death of the author" is postmodernist bullshit. Have you ever read Roland Barthes? (I have, for my grad work in Lit). Part of the problem with taking French literary critics seriously is that they don't take themselves seriously, either (they categorize their criticism as "word play"). French critics of Barthes' ilk try to twist concepts and definitions to highlight the inherent contradictions in definitions and conceptualization. Unfortunately, other French, German and American critics latched on to this deconstruction as if it was the f-ing new scientific method. Hence the postmodernist stupidity that followed (see Foucault, et al.).
Second, it's mental masturbation. Without some grounding in the author's intent (or some other "first cause"), any piece of literature can be "interpreted" to mean anything, even something that is directly contradicted by the text. It's (as Robert Frost once defined free verse) playing tennis with the net down... and also no out-of-bounds, unlimited hits, and no ball. I'm open to a critical theory that establishes the basis of interpretation as something other than the author (I lean towards Historicism myself, but Elliot's Modernism has its strengths as well), but that something needs to be objective and/or universal. Otherwise you're just wanking your hopes and dreams onto somebody else's story.
Third, it's not just the death of the author, it's the death of communication. The whole purpose of communication is to transmit an idea from one person to another. If all communication is held hostage to the interpretation of the hearer/reader alone, then such a transfer is impossible.
Put simply, the "death of the author" is a loaded term, whatever you might intend to use it as. And it's a pernicious term, with implications that defeat the purpose of storytelling to begin with. If you have some other external measure of story, beyond the author's intent, that you feel would be a useful lens to approach understanding the story, that's great. Promote that. Describe that. Advocate for that. But if your point is "we can make up what we want the story to mean" (which is a simplification, but not too far from what "death of the author" means in a literary context), then you are part of the problem.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2024, 02:43:16 PMSecond, it's mental masturbation. Without some grounding in the author's intent (or some other "first cause"), any piece of literature can be "interpreted" to mean anything, even something that is directly contradicted by the text. It's (as Robert Frost once defined free verse) playing tennis with the net down... and also no out-of-bounds, unlimited hits, and no ball. I'm open to a critical theory that establishes the basis of interpretation as something other than the author (I lean towards Historicism myself, but Elliot's Modernism has its strengths as well), but that something needs to be objective and/or universal. Otherwise you're just wanking your hopes and dreams onto somebody else's story.
Yep. If we're going to reinterpret bullshit with more bullshit, then we've got multiple layers of bullshit to contend with. I'm pretty sure that just makes the problem worse.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 22, 2024, 02:43:16 PMWithout some grounding in the author's intent (or some other "first cause"), any piece of literature can be "interpreted" to mean anything, even something that is directly contradicted by the text. It's (as Robert Frost once defined free verse) playing tennis with the net down... and also no out-of-bounds, unlimited hits, and no ball. I'm open to a critical theory that establishes the basis of interpretation as something other than the author (I lean towards Historicism myself, but Elliot's Modernism has its strengths as well), but that something needs to be objective and/or universal. Otherwise you're just wanking your hopes and dreams onto somebody else's story.
I don't advocate the "death of the author" as a general principle. I don't claim to know the full meaning of that. But I also don't think that the author is the final word in how we judge the characters.
If George Lucas thinks Jar Jar Binks is a hilarious and heroic character, I don't have to agree with him. I equally don't have to agree with Rian Johnson in how heroic he thinks Rose Tico is in _The Last Jedi_, or agree with J.K. Rowling that Dumbledore is really gay.
Declaring that the author is always right dismisses any connection to the text. I think that the text itself is the primary. The author doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether a character is funny, or smart, or likable, or good in their work.
If a character acts dumb, I can make an argument that they're dumb. It doesn't matter if the author declares that they're really smart. If the text shows them doing dumb things, then I have a point.
Authors can fail to convey their intentions, and create stuff that doesn't say what they originally intended.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2024, 06:34:59 PMI don't claim to know the full meaning of that.
Uhhh, then your opinion is, by your own admission, ignorant, and therefore, irrelevant. I
do know the meaning, history, and modern usage of the term, so how about you educate yourself a little before you opine? If I want some ignorant rando's wrong opinion, I'll go to Twitter.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2024, 06:34:59 PMDeclaring that the author is always right dismisses any connection to the text.
Well, good thing no one did that, or even suggested it. Authorial intent has nothing to do with "correctness" or authorial infallibility. You don't know what you are talking about, and it's embarrassingly obvious.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2024, 06:34:59 PMDeclaring that the author is always right dismisses any connection to the text. I think that the text itself is the primary. The author doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether a character is funny, or smart, or likable, or good in their work.
If a character acts dumb, I can make an argument that they're dumb. It doesn't matter if the author declares that they're really smart. If the text shows them doing dumb things, then I have a point.
Authors can fail to convey their intentions, and create stuff that doesn't say what they originally intended.
Finding a character dumb is one thing. It's another to make up content out of whole cloth.
For example, we can say "Jar Jar wasn't funny. He was annoying." It's another thing to say that Jar Jar was a secret Sith Lord working in cahoots with Sidious to overthrow the Republic, and that's the most likely explanation for his annoying behavior as a ruse to cause people to not take him seriously. Which is a real thing that fans came up with as a joke and then seemed to take seriously.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DarthJarJar/
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2024, 08:31:19 PMQuote from: jhkim on June 22, 2024, 06:34:59 PMDeclaring that the author is always right dismisses any connection to the text. I think that the text itself is the primary. The author doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether a character is funny, or smart, or likable, or good in their work.
If a character acts dumb, I can make an argument that they're dumb. It doesn't matter if the author declares that they're really smart. If the text shows them doing dumb things, then I have a point.
Authors can fail to convey their intentions, and create stuff that doesn't say what they originally intended.
Finding a character dumb is one thing. It's another to make up content out of whole cloth.
For example, we can say "Jar Jar wasn't funny. He was annoying." It's another thing to say that Jar Jar was a secret Sith Lord working in cahoots with Sidious to overthrow the Republic, and that's the most likely explanation for his annoying behavior as a ruse to cause people to not take him seriously. Which is a real thing that fans came up with as a joke and then seemed to take seriously.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DarthJarJar/
More importantly, authorial intent describes the functional role of an element within the narrative and theme, not the in-narrative attributes of the characters. Lucas may have intended Jar Jar to be a comic relief character and a nexus between plot elements (the Jedi and the Gungans), along with a marketable character for children. That doesn't mean that Jar Jar was effective at any of the above. It does mean that a statement that Jar Jar was intended to satirize religious authorities would be be unsupported wankery.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2024, 08:31:19 PMFinding a character dumb is one thing. It's another to make up content out of whole cloth.
For example, we can say "Jar Jar wasn't funny. He was annoying." It's another thing to say that Jar Jar was a secret Sith Lord working in cahoots with Sidious to overthrow the Republic, and that's the most likely explanation for his annoying behavior as a ruse to cause people to not take him seriously.
OK, I agree with this. That's why I was skeptical of the suggestion that the Jedi younglings lived with their families and only commuted to the Jedi temple, and/or that they weren't using real light sabers. Those seem like a stretch based on what was shown in the movies, more like the latter than the former.
I feel like calling the prequel Jedi wrong for their behavior is more like the former. I'm talking about judging the actual things they do on-screen.
Quote from: jhkim on June 22, 2024, 09:40:04 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2024, 08:31:19 PMFinding a character dumb is one thing. It's another to make up content out of whole cloth.
For example, we can say "Jar Jar wasn't funny. He was annoying." It's another thing to say that Jar Jar was a secret Sith Lord working in cahoots with Sidious to overthrow the Republic, and that's the most likely explanation for his annoying behavior as a ruse to cause people to not take him seriously.
OK, I agree with this. That's why I was skeptical of the suggestion that the Jedi younglings lived with their families and only commuted to the Jedi temple, and/or that they weren't using real light sabers. Those seem like a stretch based on what was shown in the movies, more like the latter than the former.
I feel like calling the prequel Jedi wrong for their behavior is more like the former. I'm talking about judging the actual things they do on-screen.
My fanwankery is no better or worse than anyone else's fanwankery.
What we are shown in the films is that infants can be taken into the Jedi temple, trained at a very young age with extremely dangerous weapons, and the Jedi teachings result in healthy, balanced adults who are responsible with their Jedi powers.
It's when Qui-Gonn goes against tradition that we are shown a character who goes off the rails and falls to the dark side.
As crazy as those ideas may seem, any critique of the Jedi must start by accepting those premises, or we're arguing about fanwankery.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2024, 08:31:19 PMQuote from: jhkim on June 22, 2024, 06:34:59 PMDeclaring that the author is always right dismisses any connection to the text. I think that the text itself is the primary. The author doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether a character is funny, or smart, or likable, or good in their work.
If a character acts dumb, I can make an argument that they're dumb. It doesn't matter if the author declares that they're really smart. If the text shows them doing dumb things, then I have a point.
Authors can fail to convey their intentions, and create stuff that doesn't say what they originally intended.
Finding a character dumb is one thing. It's another to make up content out of whole cloth.
For example, we can say "Jar Jar wasn't funny. He was annoying." It's another thing to say that Jar Jar was a secret Sith Lord working in cahoots with Sidious to overthrow the Republic, and that's the most likely explanation for his annoying behavior as a ruse to cause people to not take him seriously. Which is a real thing that fans came up with as a joke and then seemed to take seriously.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DarthJarJar/
Don't forget Skippy the Jedi Droid.....
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Skippy_the_Jedi_Droid
Well Lucas made a 40 year old fan magazine theory that Darth Vader had a beef with the Sand People a reality so god only knows what they might do to JarJar.
Here's an example of the kind of dippy bullshit you get from people who talk about "death of the author". There's a theory that is making the rounds again that Earl and Val, the two male leads from Tremors are actually a gay couple. It's pushed by the kind of people who see any camaraderie between men and immediately assume that they must be gay. I have seen this movie several times. There is nothing at all in the text to support this idea. If you point this out, people will cite "death of the author" to justify their pet theory even though they are clearly not gay and were never meant to be gay. it's also used to justify smearing anyone who contradicts this fanwank bullshit as homophobes.
Death of the author is just word games and wankery to allow people to say that any story means anything they want it to mean even if that ignores or directly contradicts what the author said about their own work. The only thing that actually matters is how good you are at slinging bullshit and getting people to believe it. It's not saying that authorial intent isn't the only way to interpret something. It's saying that authorial intent and, for that matter, the author do not matter at all. That's why it's called death of the author.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2024, 10:10:33 PMQuote from: jhkim on June 22, 2024, 09:40:04 PMOK, I agree with this. That's why I was skeptical of the suggestion that the Jedi younglings lived with their families and only commuted to the Jedi temple, and/or that they weren't using real light sabers. Those seem like a stretch based on what was shown in the movies, more like the latter than the former.
I feel like calling the prequel Jedi wrong for their behavior is more like the former. I'm talking about judging the actual things they do on-screen.
My fanwankery is no better or worse than anyone else's fanwankery.
What we are shown in the films is that infants can be taken into the Jedi temple, trained at a very young age with extremely dangerous weapons, and the Jedi teachings result in healthy, balanced adults who are responsible with their Jedi powers.
It's when Qui-Gonn goes against tradition that we are shown a character who goes off the rails and falls to the dark side.
As crazy as those ideas may seem, any critique of the Jedi must start by accepting those premises, or we're arguing about fanwankery.
This is not what is shown in the films. Anakin is far from the first time a Jedi has fallen to the Dark Side. Count Dooku had a normal Jedi adoption and training, and he fell to the Dark Side. In general, falling to the Dark Side is implied to be a significant danger to any Jedi.
Training Anakin at 9 years old (instead of the usual cutoff at 6) was an exception, but it is not implied that this was the first time in a thousand years that any rule was broken in Jedi training. Qui-Gon might have suggested the idea of training him, but the Council as a whole endorsed it.
The stated history is that the Jedi as a whole have remained generally loyal and thus stayed in power for a thousand years, so falling to the Dark Side was only a small percentage of Jedi. However, staying in power for a thousand years isn't a moral quality. The Assyrian Empire lasted for 1500 years, for example. I'm fine with saying that the Jedi were roughly as moral as the Assyrians.
---
Lucas' intent was to say that the Force was out of balance in Qui-Gon's time. Qui-Gon openly says to the council that he thinks Anakin is destined to restore balance to the Force, and they don't deny that it is out of balance.
It's not clear that training Anakin was the wrong move. If Anakin had been rejected, Palpatine still could have found him and trained him. If so, then Anakin's children might have been raised to the Dark Side, and the Empire would have been a long-lasting dynasty instead of a brief blip in galactic history. Even if Anakin was killed, it is an open question what would have happened to Palpatine's bid.
At the end of the day, it's easier to just make up a new universe with more consistent rules. Corpos should stop taking existing IPs and twisting them into something they're not. We need to retire old IPs and make new ones. Reform copyright law too, while we're at it. Fans should be free to make new IPs recycling material from old IPs, and revive abandoned IPs, rather than locking it in copyright jail.
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2024, 11:35:17 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 22, 2024, 10:10:33 PMQuote from: jhkim on June 22, 2024, 09:40:04 PMOK, I agree with this. That's why I was skeptical of the suggestion that the Jedi younglings lived with their families and only commuted to the Jedi temple, and/or that they weren't using real light sabers. Those seem like a stretch based on what was shown in the movies, more like the latter than the former.
I feel like calling the prequel Jedi wrong for their behavior is more like the former. I'm talking about judging the actual things they do on-screen.
My fanwankery is no better or worse than anyone else's fanwankery.
What we are shown in the films is that infants can be taken into the Jedi temple, trained at a very young age with extremely dangerous weapons, and the Jedi teachings result in healthy, balanced adults who are responsible with their Jedi powers.
It's when Qui-Gonn goes against tradition that we are shown a character who goes off the rails and falls to the dark side.
As crazy as those ideas may seem, any critique of the Jedi must start by accepting those premises, or we're arguing about fanwankery.
This is not what is shown in the films. Anakin is far from the first time a Jedi has fallen to the Dark Side. Count Dooku had a normal Jedi adoption and training, and he fell to the Dark Side. In general, falling to the Dark Side is implied to be a significant danger to any Jedi.
Training Anakin at 9 years old (instead of the usual cutoff at 6) was an exception, but it is not implied that this was the first time in a thousand years that any rule was broken in Jedi training. Qui-Gon might have suggested the idea of training him, but the Council as a whole endorsed it.
The stated history is that the Jedi as a whole have remained generally loyal and thus stayed in power for a thousand years, so falling to the Dark Side was only a small percentage of Jedi. However, staying in power for a thousand years isn't a moral quality. The Assyrian Empire lasted for 1500 years, for example. I'm fine with saying that the Jedi were roughly as moral as the Assyrians.
---
Lucas' intent was to say that the Force was out of balance in Qui-Gon's time. Qui-Gon openly says to the council that he thinks Anakin is destined to restore balance to the Force, and they don't deny that it is out of balance.
It's not clear that training Anakin was the wrong move. If Anakin had been rejected, Palpatine still could have found him and trained him. If so, then Anakin's children might have been raised to the Dark Side, and the Empire would have been a long-lasting dynasty instead of a brief blip in galactic history. Even if Anakin was killed, it is an open question what would have happened to Palpatine's bid.
We are shown in PM that the Jedi originally refused to train Anakin, and two prominent issues were his age and his attachment to his mother. They relented at the end of PM, but note that it was to let Obi Wan take Anakin as a padawan. Which was Qui Gonn's work-around to circumvent the Jedi council. And the idea that that decision was wrong was reinforced by his attempt to rescue Shmi in AOTC that resulted in the violent murder of a tribe of Sandpeople. (Maybe they deserved it, but dark side and all that) A moment master Yoda could feel via the Force all the way at Coruscant. Even Anakin himself knew he was fucking up. "I'm a Jedi. I know I'm better than this."
The films are pretty clear that Anakin was not suitable for Jedi training, and in the issue of his downfall, the Jedi are complicit by not sticking to their guns and refusing to train Anakin. The films say it outright, they demonstrate it in events.
We don't know the details of Dooku's falling to the Dark Side, so he is useless as a comparison point.
Well making a new universe/setting with lesbian space witches as the good and true of the universe is going to have about as much appeal as a turd in a punch bowl. Degenerates can not create they must subvert and pervert that which already exists.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 24, 2024, 06:25:48 AMWell making a new universe/setting with lesbian space witches as the good and true of the universe is going to have about as much appeal as a turd in a punch bowl.
Unless you make a...certain kind of movie... if you take my meaning.
There's nothing wrong with lesbian space witches. Focusing on that plot point gives the opposition ammunition to dismiss criticism as istaphobia. Nevermind that the opposition has created a self-fulfilling prophecy where they're actually making otherwise non-prejudiced people repulsed by the mere presence of characters who tick any boxes. https://youtu.be/rcJ7LOCUszk
Quote from: yosemitemike on June 23, 2024, 11:06:56 AMIt's pushed by the kind of people who see any camaraderie between men and immediately assume that they must be gay. I have seen this movie several times.
Thats been a thing since at least Star Trek came out and during the 80s and 90s got especially bad with people trying to claim ANY show with two guys in it was gay representation somehow.
Theres always going to be people like that and they make everyone else just minding their own business look bad.
Quote from: jhkim on June 23, 2024, 11:35:17 AMQui-Gon might have suggested the idea of training him, but the Council as a whole endorsed it.
The council endorsed it because Qui Gon threatened to do it even if they said no.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 23, 2024, 12:40:57 PMAt the end of the day, it's easier to just make up a new universe with more consistent rules. Corpos should stop taking existing IPs and twisting them into something they're not. We need to retire old IPs and make new ones. Reform copyright law too, while we're at it. Fans should be free to make new IPs recycling material from old IPs, and revive abandoned IPs, rather than locking it in copyright jail.
They want to reboot a setting. Effectively ye ol edition treadmill. But dont want to lose all the fans. Unlike edition treadmills who could care less.
The new MLP series tried to do both and botched it so bad that the CGI part looks to be cancelled. They want a sequel. But dont want a sequel.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 23, 2024, 01:19:46 PMAnd the idea that that decision was wrong was reinforced by his attempt to rescue Shmi in AOTC that resulted in the violent murder of a tribe of Sandpeople. (Maybe they deserved it, but dark side and all that) A moment master Yoda could feel via the Force all the way at Coruscant. Even Anakin himself knew he was fucking up. "I'm a Jedi. I know I'm better than this."
No. The problem was the Jedi kept ignoring very clear anxiety and stonewalling Anakin from investigating. At the very least they could have sent someone else to go check. Its not like they dont have alot of apprentices with nothing better to do.
Instead they ignore the problems and bring about their own destruction. And the Jedi were already so far off track that they could not even sense Palpetine point blank. Not even Yoda. That alone says alot about how far they fell well before Anakin.
Quote from: Omega on June 24, 2024, 08:48:47 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 23, 2024, 12:40:57 PMAt the end of the day, it's easier to just make up a new universe with more consistent rules. Corpos should stop taking existing IPs and twisting them into something they're not. We need to retire old IPs and make new ones. Reform copyright law too, while we're at it. Fans should be free to make new IPs recycling material from old IPs, and revive abandoned IPs, rather than locking it in copyright jail.
They want to reboot a setting. Effectively ye ol edition treadmill. But dont want to lose all the fans. Unlike edition treadmills who could care less.
The new MLP series tried to do both and botched it so bad that the CGI part looks to be cancelled. They want a sequel. But dont want a sequel.
It's really stupid. I think creators should be free to make reboots. That doesn't invalidate the previous iterations. Indeed, I find reboots vastly preferable to whatever the hell corpos are doing now.
Quote from: Omega on June 24, 2024, 08:53:35 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 23, 2024, 01:19:46 PMAnd the idea that that decision was wrong was reinforced by his attempt to rescue Shmi in AOTC that resulted in the violent murder of a tribe of Sandpeople. (Maybe they deserved it, but dark side and all that) A moment master Yoda could feel via the Force all the way at Coruscant. Even Anakin himself knew he was fucking up. "I'm a Jedi. I know I'm better than this."
No. The problem was the Jedi kept ignoring very clear anxiety and stonewalling Anakin from investigating. At the very least they could have sent someone else to go check. Its not like they dont have alot of apprentices with nothing better to do.
This just brings up my question of how responsible the Jedi order are or should be for addressing the personal problems of all their members. Do they serve the Republic or do they serve their own personal interests?
https://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.
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?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 24, 2024, 07:59:33 AMThere's nothing wrong with lesbian space witches. Focusing on that plot point gives the opposition ammunition to dismiss criticism as istaphobia. Nevermind that the opposition has created a self-fulfilling prophecy where they're actually making otherwise non-prejudiced people repulsed by the mere presence of characters who tick any boxes. https://youtu.be/rcJ7LOCUszk
Except for lots of people there is a problem with it. That is reality, some people do not want a very miniscule world view/life style presented as good and true. Plenty can overlook it...but they are OVERLOOKING it and letting it slide...not loving it. Put that in a supposed main stream show ON A FAMILY channel, and you are starting off in the red. Toss in how crap the shows writing/production/acting/leadership is and you are going deeeeep into the red.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 25, 2024, 02:43:52 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 24, 2024, 07:59:33 AMThere's nothing wrong with lesbian space witches. Focusing on that plot point gives the opposition ammunition to dismiss criticism as istaphobia. Nevermind that the opposition has created a self-fulfilling prophecy where they're actually making otherwise non-prejudiced people repulsed by the mere presence of characters who tick any boxes. https://youtu.be/rcJ7LOCUszk
Except for lots of people there is a problem with it. That is reality, some people do not want a very miniscule world view/life style presented as good and true. Plenty can overlook it...but they are OVERLOOKING it and letting it slide...not loving it. Put that in a supposed main stream show ON A FAMILY channel, and you are starting off in the red. Toss in how crap the shows writing/production/acting/leadership is and you are going deeeeep into the red.
And they are going to accuse critics of istaphobia no matter what the criticisms actually are.
May as well mock them. The whole lesbian space witches angle is pure identity politics drivel that's going to age like milk in the sun.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 23, 2024, 01:19:46 PMThe films are pretty clear that Anakin was not suitable for Jedi training, and in the issue of his downfall, the Jedi are complicit by not sticking to their guns and refusing to train Anakin. The films say it outright, they demonstrate it in events.
In the big picture, it's obvious that the Jedi mishandled Anakin, but in the muddled plot, it is not explicit what they were supposed to do. In the OT, it was explicit that training a Jedi even over 18 years old (i.e. Luke) isn't too late, and further that Vader himself
was redeemable - even after years in the Dark Side.
Quote from: Omega on June 24, 2024, 08:53:35 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on June 23, 2024, 01:19:46 PMAnd the idea that that decision was wrong was reinforced by his attempt to rescue Shmi in AOTC that resulted in the violent murder of a tribe of Sandpeople. (Maybe they deserved it, but dark side and all that) A moment master Yoda could feel via the Force all the way at Coruscant. Even Anakin himself knew he was fucking up. "I'm a Jedi. I know I'm better than this."
No. The problem was the Jedi kept ignoring very clear anxiety and stonewalling Anakin from investigating. At the very least they could have sent someone else to go check. Its not like they dont have alot of apprentices with nothing better to do.
Instead they ignore the problems and bring about their own destruction. And the Jedi were already so far off track that they could not even sense Palpetine point blank. Not even Yoda. That alone says alot about how far they fell well before Anakin.
Agreed, 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.
Luke was successful in this. I draw the conclusion that the best outcome would have been if someone had done this decades earlier.
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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 AMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 AMQuote 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 PMQuote 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
As a heavy guy, I don't like to make weight jokes, but they were asking for this one.
(https://i.imgflip.com/8vj741.jpg)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 07:28:45 PMI 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.
Why should we be promoting this idea?
Quote from: yosemitemike on July 01, 2024, 02:52:32 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 07:28:45 PMI 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.
Why should we be promoting this idea?
You know, after a rocky start to the film, I was onboard with Rey as a scrapyard scavenger nobody who gets catapulted into galactic events and gets by on being gutsy and clever.
And then they dumped her into the Jedi bucket and I lost interest.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 01, 2024, 03:14:18 AMYou know, after a rocky start to the film, I was onboard with Rey as a scrapyard scavenger nobody who gets catapulted into galactic events and gets by on being gutsy and clever.
And then they dumped her into the Jedi bucket and I lost interest.
There seemed to be a disconnect between what Abrams wanted to do and what Johnson. We went from Rey's mysterious parents being important to her parents being nobodies to her grandfather being Emperor Palpatine.
None of that explains why anyone has any duty or obligation to promote that idea.
Quote from: yosemitemike on July 01, 2024, 02:52:32 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 07:28:45 PMI 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.
Why should we be promoting this idea?
Why should we promote the idea that only nepo babies are important?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 07:28:45 PMI 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.
Quote from: SHARK on June 30, 2024, 08:32:12 PMWell, 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.
BoxCrayonTales - I'd agree that it pulls from aristocratic themes like King Arthur. However, one can't decide based on politics what people like in art. I fully support trying to make stories about heroes with no special bloodline, but not limiting stories to that.
That said, I also disagree with SHARK here. Modern democratic nation-states have gotten stuff done insanely well. For most of history, famine, war, and plague were constant threats to everyone's life. All three have been reduced to a miniscule fraction of their former threat. People are now more likely to die from obesity complications than starvation, and more likely to die from suicide than murder. Cancer is considered terrible today not because cancer is worse, but because we're eradicated so many other diseases, and our lifespan is vastly longer.
I can and do complain a lot about how bad politics is, but the pre-democratic eras were even worse on just about any quantitative measure.
Quote from: jhkim on July 01, 2024, 04:39:30 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 07:28:45 PMI 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.
Quote from: SHARK on June 30, 2024, 08:32:12 PMWell, 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.
BoxCrayonTales - I'd agree that it pulls from aristocratic themes like King Arthur. However, one can't decide based on politics what people like in art. I fully support trying to make stories about heroes with no special bloodline, but not limiting stories to that.
That said, I also disagree with SHARK here. Modern democratic nation-states have gotten stuff done insanely well. For most of history, famine, war, and plague were constant threats to everyone's life. All three have been reduced to a miniscule fraction of their former threat. People are now more likely to die from obesity complications than starvation, and more likely to die from suicide than murder. Cancer is considered terrible today not because cancer is worse, but because we're eradicated so many other diseases, and our lifespan is vastly longer.
I can and do complain a lot about how bad politics is, but the pre-democratic eras were even worse on just about any quantitative measure.
You mean free market capitalism right? Because that's what drove all of those changes not democracy.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 01, 2024, 07:34:06 PMQuote from: jhkim on July 01, 2024, 04:39:30 PMThat said, I also disagree with SHARK here. Modern democratic nation-states have gotten stuff done insanely well. For most of history, famine, war, and plague were constant threats to everyone's life. All three have been reduced to a miniscule fraction of their former threat. People are now more likely to die from obesity complications than starvation, and more likely to die from suicide than murder. Cancer is considered terrible today not because cancer is worse, but because we're eradicated so many other diseases, and our lifespan is vastly longer.
I can and do complain a lot about how bad politics is, but the pre-democratic eras were even worse on just about any quantitative measure.
You mean free market capitalism right? Because that's what drove all of those changes not democracy.
I support free market capitalism too. I'd agree that free market capitalism and especially science are also important drivers, and they're all intertwined in influence.
Quote from: jhkim on July 02, 2024, 07:04:50 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on July 01, 2024, 07:34:06 PMQuote from: jhkim on July 01, 2024, 04:39:30 PMThat said, I also disagree with SHARK here. Modern democratic nation-states have gotten stuff done insanely well. For most of history, famine, war, and plague were constant threats to everyone's life. All three have been reduced to a miniscule fraction of their former threat. People are now more likely to die from obesity complications than starvation, and more likely to die from suicide than murder. Cancer is considered terrible today not because cancer is worse, but because we're eradicated so many other diseases, and our lifespan is vastly longer.
I can and do complain a lot about how bad politics is, but the pre-democratic eras were even worse on just about any quantitative measure.
You mean free market capitalism right? Because that's what drove all of those changes not democracy.
I support free market capitalism too. I'd agree that free market capitalism and especially science are also important drivers, and they're all intertwined in influence.
Greetings!
Yeah, Jhkim, free trade and science are very important influences. Ancient Persia, Ancient India, such as the Gupta Empire, the Kushite Empire, Ancient China, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire made all kinds of advancements and improvements--with only Greece and Rome flirting with democratic principles--the others made enormous advancements with very little to do with "democracy."
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 01, 2024, 09:28:23 AMWhy should we be promoting this idea?
Why should we promote the idea that only nepo babies are important?
[/quote]
No one said we should be promoting that idea. Only one person said we should be promoting a specific idea and that's you. You haven't said why either. You just tried to deflect.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 07:28:45 PMI 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.
So, now that your previous objections have been shown to be stupid, you pivot to this? OK, I'll bite.
First, as democracy is one of the worst forms of government, and is the least protective of rights, I find it abhorrent that anyone would promote such an idea. Because I personally live in a Constitutional Representative Republic, I would much rather promote the ideas inherent in that governmental structure: natural rights, civic duty, and personal freedom (none of which are "democratic" values). Since these values have created arguably one of the greatest nations in human history, I far prefer its values to those of mob rule.
Second, there is room for all kind of movies with all kinds of values. One thing that most of us here agree on is that we object to blatant political propaganda in our games, movies, etc. If a movie contains some ideas that are political in nature as a necessity for the story, it's no big deal. But to "tune" your story for a political message? That's propaganda. And that's just as bad.
So no, we don't need those values crammed into this movie series. It's not even true. People aren't born equal in ability. What they should have are equal rights, not equal outcomes.
Okay, my previous objections were stupid.
I think we should tell stories about jedi main characters who aren't nepo baby wunderkinds like Anakin, Luke, Rey, or Osha. I don't need to give a reason.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 03, 2024, 08:34:25 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 30, 2024, 07:28:45 PMI 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.
So, now that your previous objections have been shown to be stupid, you pivot to this? OK, I'll bite.
First, as democracy is one of the worst forms of government, and is the least protective of rights, I find it abhorrent that anyone would promote such an idea. Because I personally live in a Constitutional Representative Republic, I would much rather promote the ideas inherent in that governmental structure: natural rights, civic duty, and personal freedom (none of which are "democratic" values). Since these values have created arguably one of the greatest nations in human history, I far prefer its values to those of mob rule.
Second, there is room for all kind of movies with all kinds of values. One thing that most of us here agree on is that we object to blatant political propaganda in our games, movies, etc. If a movie contains some ideas that are political in nature as a necessity for the story, it's no big deal. But to "tune" your story for a political message? That's propaganda. And that's just as bad.
So no, we don't need those values crammed into this movie series. It's not even true. People aren't born equal in ability. What they should have are equal rights, not equal outcomes.
To be fair, he did say "Through hard work and determination". I'd agree With the caveat that we can't always factor for serendipity. (Can't be a hero if you randomly get hit by a bus...)
Like I said earlier, I would have much preferred Rey if she were a nobody. Han was arguably a nobody, kinda had a rep with the local crime boss, but so did some other of Jabba's minions.
It's not like you have to be a powerful Jedi to be a player in the Star Wars universe. And it diminishes the fiction when the films become fan fiction and make bad fan arguments because X writer didn't like Y thing about the original films.
(And Democracy, as the joke goes, is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch...)
The funny thing about Return of the Jedi is that nothing Luke does in the final act matters in the grand scheme of things. Confronting the Emperor and turning Vader back to the light is a spiritual victory and completes his journey to become a Jedi, but without it, Han would still have dropped the shields and Lando would still have blown up the Death Star.
Kinda what I meant in my (much) earlier post about how Star Wars works best when the light-vs-dark battle is kept personal to the characters and not made the central conflict of the setting.
Quote from: ForgottenF on July 03, 2024, 04:16:38 PMThe funny thing about Return of the Jedi is that nothing Luke does in the final act matters in the grand scheme of things. Confronting the Emperor and turning Vader back to the light is a spiritual victory and completes his journey to become a Jedi, but without it, Han would still have dropped the shields and Lando would still have blown up the Death Star.
Kinda what I meant in my (much) earlier post about how Star Wars works best when the light-vs-dark battle is kept personal to the characters and not made the central conflict of the setting.
I think Luke put it best in the shuttle. "I'm endangering the mission. I shouldn't have come."
But he had Jedi (plot) stuff to do there.
Arguably, being distracted by Luke meant Vader wasn't on Endor, and the Emperor was focused on turning Luke to the dark side instead of the battle around him.
Just my 2 cents on fan fiction and using the Force. In my thread about fan creations for Star Wars, none of the fan films posted have Jedi in them or Force users in action except as background. The stories are about everyday people in the Star Wars universe and not what you'd consider heroes, but they are good stories nonetheless. The key is the writing.
The Acolyte fails as media due to shit writing and a lot of fan films (like "Days Past") succeed due to competent well-thought out writing.
Not saying that there aren't some shit fan films out there, but a lot are better than what Disney+ has been shoveling at the subscribers.
Quote from: jeff37923 on July 03, 2024, 07:00:53 PMJust my 2 cents on fan fiction and using the Force. In my thread about fan creations for Star Wars, none of the fan films posted have Jedi in them or Force users in action except as background. The stories are about everyday people in the Star Wars universe and not what you'd consider heroes, but they are good stories nonetheless. The key is the writing.
The Acolyte fails as media due to shit writing and a lot of fan films (like "Days Past") succeed due to competent well-thought out writing.
Not saying that there aren't some shit fan films out there, but a lot are better than what Disney+ has been shoveling at the subscribers.
That's the key: good writing. Partly that requires experience, which none of these Disney writers have. They've been hired for their sex, color, and sexuality, not because they know how to write compelling stories (primarily because they've never done anything worthwhile in their lives). Partly it requires something complex to say, and these Disney writers have nothing worth saying. They live in a simple, binary world. There's "good" (them), and "evil" (not them), and their stories exist to affirm their moral superiority, not to ask moral questions or demonstrate moral answers. Great stories cross time and culture, to touch on those parts of us that we share as fundamental human beings. These people can only tell superficial stories about themselves. And that is why they fail...
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 03, 2024, 05:01:04 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on July 03, 2024, 04:16:38 PMThe funny thing about Return of the Jedi is that nothing Luke does in the final act matters in the grand scheme of things. Confronting the Emperor and turning Vader back to the light is a spiritual victory and completes his journey to become a Jedi, but without it, Han would still have dropped the shields and Lando would still have blown up the Death Star.
Kinda what I meant in my (much) earlier post about how Star Wars works best when the light-vs-dark battle is kept personal to the characters and not made the central conflict of the setting.
I think Luke put it best in the shuttle. "I'm endangering the mission. I shouldn't have come."
But he had Jedi (plot) stuff to do there.
Arguably, being distracted by Luke meant Vader wasn't on Endor, and the Emperor was focused on turning Luke to the dark side instead of the battle around him.
It's absolutely this.
We can ignore all of the ex post facto explanations involving Force powers that were invented later and assigned to Palpatine to rebut the argument that Luke did nothing. They're totally unnecessary. If Darth Vader is down on the forest moon, the rebels get stomped. Period.
Everybody knows that if Luke isn't confronting Vader, everyone who is not Luke has to do it, and they can't.
Quote from: Corolinth on July 11, 2024, 06:28:16 PMIt's absolutely this.
We can ignore all of the ex post facto explanations involving Force powers that were invented later and assigned to Palpatine to rebut the argument that Luke did nothing. They're totally unnecessary.
Maybe, but they're not quite
ex post facto--it shows up in the original novelization:
QuoteFor the Emperor was dead. The central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire was gone; and when the dark side was this diffused, this nondirected—this was simply where it led. Confusion. Desperation. Damp fear.
Lucas, George; Kahn, James. Star Wars Trilogy (Star Wars Trilogy Boxed Book 2) . Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 11, 2024, 08:11:54 PMQuote from: Corolinth on July 11, 2024, 06:28:16 PMIt's absolutely this.
We can ignore all of the ex post facto explanations involving Force powers that were invented later and assigned to Palpatine to rebut the argument that Luke did nothing. They're totally unnecessary.
Maybe, but they're not quite ex post facto--it shows up in the original novelization:
QuoteFor the Emperor was dead. The central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire was gone; and when the dark side was this diffused, this nondirected—this was simply where it led. Confusion. Desperation. Damp fear.
Lucas, George; Kahn, James. Star Wars Trilogy (Star Wars Trilogy Boxed Book 2) . Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I have no doubt that like LOTR Sauron, the Emperor was doing some Dark Side mojo to make the Empire more Empier-ey. But also I think fans put too much weight on any one factor in his reign. He also manipulated people and institutions regardless of Force and Dark Side factors.
great thread, guys, tickled my inner nerd and star wars fan in all the special places - didn't expect that looking at the title. thank you <3
one special piece made in star wars universe i'd personally mention that offers an interesting take on some of the stuff discussed here would be kotor games, especially the 2nd one. not to spoil anything - the games are so old that some may not have played them - it explores the Force as, you know, its own power in the universe, and offers an interesting perspective to view the events of the movies even.
the games are completely standalone though, and are not considered canon afaik, but it's pretty clear that they influenced filoni (i think he says that much in some of his interviews on the subject) and maybe others as well.
Revan was slated to appear in Clone Wars as a force ghost or sith force ghost. But never happened apparently.
First (and likely only) season is finished. I have not watched one episode and have no interest in doing so. The reactions is that the show was incoherent. I can totally understand. I think this has been a thing in modern entertainment. I noticed it in the 2009 Star Trek reboot. Payoff without setup. Scenes for pure, exaggerated drama. Over the top action without tension. I think it's that instead of being inspired by sources, they're rote copying the "cool" parts of older, better movies and shows without understanding them.
When a woke progressive goes this route, and then interjects their checklist of diversity, equity and inclusion, it's a special kind of terrible storytelling.
I tried watching it again. How is this show so boring? How do they make a 35 minute episode seem like it drags on forever? How is there so much stupid padding in a show that is only 8 episodes long? Why is everyone so stupid? Why does nothing anyone do make any sense?
Spoilers in the video, if anyone cares.
"The place is made of stone, so the fire spreads quickly."
Savaged.
Either Disney is lying about the numbers or people are hate watching the show (they pay for Mandilorian anyway, I guess).
Bye
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/08/19/the-acolyte-reportedly-cancelled-ahead-of-season-2-which-is-no-great-shock/
Quote from: Aglondir on August 20, 2024, 11:47:42 AMBye
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/08/19/the-acolyte-reportedly-cancelled-ahead-of-season-2-which-is-no-great-shock/
It's as if millions of voices quietly said "Meh" and were suddenly silenced.
Quote from: yosemitemike on July 17, 2024, 07:18:33 PMI tried watching it again. How is this show so boring? How do they make a 35 minute episode seem like it drags on forever? How is there so much stupid padding in a show that is only 8 episodes long? Why is everyone so stupid? Why does nothing anyone do make any sense?
Im starting to suspect it was written by "AI". But having seen alot of shows long before AI that have these soers of idiot plots... who knows.
Just gonna leave this here
Help De-canonize The Acolyte, at Change.org
https://www.change.org/p/help-de-canonize-the-acolyte
Quote from: Aglondir on September 03, 2024, 01:37:00 PMHelp De-canonize The Acolyte, at Change.org
https://www.change.org/p/help-de-canonize-the-acolyte
I consider everything post-Lucas to not be canon.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 03, 2024, 06:37:21 PMQuote from: Aglondir on September 03, 2024, 01:37:00 PMHelp De-canonize The Acolyte, at Change.org
https://www.change.org/p/help-de-canonize-the-acolyte
I consider everything post-Lucas to not be canon.
I place Disney's work on the same level as the Expanded Universe ... but for all its flaws, I found the old EU more satisfying than what I've seen of Disney's contributions, especially with the knowledge to cherry-pick the best parts of the EU. :)
Honestly, after big franchise setting makes first retcon, no matter if you like it or not, you should really drop idea of any persistent canon whatsoever.
Just cherry pick best pieces for your own good, bro. It's not religion.