Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That is what I mean by ambiguity. The character becomes evil because he has not developed the emotional maturity to handle adult relationships and responsibilities despite his being raised by the supposedly great and good. The character is redeemed against the protests of those same luminaries of justice and truth by an undisciplined, naive son who rejects their proffered wisdom, which itself turns out to be the very fear, anger, and hatred--albeit in cold and passionless form--that they claim to oppose. Vader's story contradicts every tenant of the film's articulated morality up until Luke himself re-articulates it by taking that story into account in conversation with Leia on Endor before turning himself over to Vader. In the end, as perhaps even Luke fails to consciously realize, it is not a choice of pacifism over violence that saves him from the Emperor and the Dark Side. Rather, it the choice in favor of inexplicable love for his absentee war-criminal father over a commitment to the moral rigidity of the Jedi that "saves" both him and Anakin.

Let us not forget, after all, that those moral paragons Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi both insist that the Emperor must be killed. Perhaps they want Luke to be calm and collected and even magnanimous in murder but the bottom line is that Palpatine must die--that it is right to kill him and just as right as well as necessary to kill Vader. They cannot fathom this as abominable patricide or understand Luke's revulsion at the notion. (Remember, they're both terrible father figures. Look how Anakin turned out . . . ) For the Jedi, what is right and what is necessary neatly match up. Not so with Luke, who thanks to Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru not to mention Han and Leia has an idea of the true value of human relationships--and also, not so of Anakin. Unfortunately for Anakin, he never had any real friends. Thanks to the Clone Wars, he was basically a stranger even to his wife.

...Manchu, that is profound.

@Manchu- So you feel the reason why the Jedi fell from grace was because of an ironic emotional disconnect with other living things while the were teaching that all things were connected.
Would you say that sums up a big part of the problem?

Also, what areas of the Star Wars universe would you like to explore?

Manchu wrote:That is what I mean by ambiguity. The character becomes evil because he has not developed the emotional maturity to handle adult relationships and responsibilities despite his being raised by the supposedly great and good.

I always thought that Lucas' point was that Anakin failed to develop effectively because he wasn't raised in accordance with the traditional Jedi ways; being noticeably older than other 'recruits'. Luke managed to avoid the same fate because he was older than Anakin upon being instructed; received at least some measure of preemptive guidance from Obi-wan, Owen, and Beru; and had his father to serve as an example of what to be wary of.

Tangentially, it seems fairly clear that one of the central tenets of the universe is the inherent evil of large organizations. We see this first through the Empire, but also through the incompetence and corruption of the Senate, and the manipulative detachment of the Jedi. The 'white' in the world of Star Wars isn't related to the self-profession of Good, but the individual desire for freedom and self-discovery as personified by Luke, Han, Leia, and the larger Rebellion. Palpatine, at first glance, appears to violate this premise, but he is never treated as a character unto himself; appearing as an extension of large, unseen organization with an ancient history dominated by a set of monolithic teachings.

Manchu wrote:
In the end, as perhaps even Luke fails to consciously realize, it is not a choice of pacifism over violence that saves him from the Emperor and the Dark Side. Rather, it the choice in favor of inexplicable love for his absentee war-criminal father over a commitment to the moral rigidity of the Jedi that "saves" both him and Anakin.

He listens to his heart, and comes through the better for it; continuing the trend towards individualism over group membership.

Manchu wrote:
Let us not forget, after all, that those moral paragons Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi both insist that the Emperor must be killed. Perhaps they want Luke to be calm and collected and even magnanimous in murder but the bottom line is that Palpatine must die--that it is right to kill him and just as right as well as necessary to kill Vader.

I don't think Lucas ever explicitly places killing on the evil end of the spectrum. Killing in the name of fear, anger, and hate is very clear evil, but killing in the name of self-defense, or necessity, is not.

focusedfire wrote:@Manchu- So you feel the reason why the Jedi fell from grace was because of an ironic emotional disconnect with other living things while the were teaching that all things were connected.
Would you say that sums up a big part of the problem?

Yes, and I think that Lucas was trying to make this theme more explicit in Episode I, albeit with some pretty bizarre concepts. In Episode I, there is a subtle rift in the Jedi establishment. The Council is on one side and Qui-Gon Jinn is on the other. Although it doesn't quite work out for a number of reasons, we--the audience--are supposed to be looking at this part of the story through the eyes of young padawan Kenobi, i.e., from the perspective of someone who doesn't quite understand all of this weighty philosophy yet. Right from the beginning on the Trade Federation ship, we see this exchange between Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon:

OBI-WAN
I have a bad feeling about this.

QUI-GON
I don't sense anything.

OBI-WAN
It's not about the mission, Master,
it's somethging...elsewhere...elusive.

QUI-GON
Don't center on your anxiety, Obi-
Wan. Keep your concentration here
and now where it belongs.

OBI-WAN
Master Yoda says I should be mindful
of the future...

QUI-GON
...but not at the expense of the
moment. Be mindful of the living
Force, my young Padawan.

And it's summed up right there. The Jedi are not focused on the vital connections that surround, bind, and penetrate all things. (Lucas even tries to make this super literal with midi-chlorians.) So, in a word, they're out-of-touch with the Force. Which explains why they fail to notice that it is Palpatine, right under their noses the whole time, who is the dreaded and elusive Sith Master. The massive dramatic irony of the audience knowing exactly who he is--most especially at Qui-Gon's funeral where a puzzled and thoughtful Jedi Council is standing only a few feet from Darth Sidious--makes the Jedis' blindness to the Force all the more obvious. Hence all the talk about someone bringing balance back to the Force. I wonder if the Jedi ever even considered that the Force was out of balance. Clearly, Qui-Gon was aware of this to some extent because he stood aloof from the Council and even all but overtly defied them on the matter of Anakin. But of course, there is no indication that he thinks Palpatine is the Sith Lord, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I don't think Lucas ever explicitly places killing on the evil end of the spectrum. Killing in the name of fear, anger, and hate is very clear evil, but killing in the name of self-defense, or necessity, is not.

Vader kills the Emperor in defense of Luke and in self-defense. But when Luke has the opportunity to kill the Emperor, it is not in self-defense. Luke realizes that he does not need to kill the Emperor at all. In their confrontation, more is at stake than simple physical survival. This is why Luke throws his lightsaber away. At that point, he has already "won" and he is already safe. Perhaps--like Obi-Wan before him--he will have to die (although he has no idea at that point how painful his death will be). But in dying uncorrupted, he will live on just as Obi-Wan did--becoming "more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

I think your reading of the theme as group = bad, individual = good isn't adequate. It hardly explains the actions and beliefs of either Anakin or Padme. After all, Anakin similarly "follows his heart" and ends up becoming evil. Padme, who is the real "good guy" of the prequels, never stops telling us how important democratic institutions are and is totally committed to the Senate. In Episode II, while she and Anakin picnic on Naboo, we see this conversation:

PADMÉ: You really don't like politicians, do you?

ANAKIN: I like two or three, but I'm not really sure about
one of them. (smiling) I don't think the system works.

PADMÉ: How would you have it work?

ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and
discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of
all the people, and then do it.

PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that
people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.

ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.

PADMÉ: By whom? Who's going to make them?

ANAKIN: I don't know. Someone.

PADMÉ: You?

ANAKIN: Of course not me.

PADMÉ: But someone.

ANAKIN: Someone wise.

PADMÉ: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.

In my view, the dictatorship that Anakin naively admires is the fantasy of an ultimate triumph of an individual over all groups. Padme, who has actually dealt the corruptions and complications of the democratic system firsthand while Queen of a besieged Naboo and proibably many times thereafter as a Senator, is the one who is committed to the Senate. I think your reading of the films is a decent enough parody of them (especially Four through Six) but doesn't go very far in explaining the whole picture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:Also, what areas of the Star Wars universe would you like to explore?

In the final analysis, the Star Wars universe only exists so that the the story of Darth Vader can be told. Any Star Wars story that it is not about Vader or does not focus on an analogue to Darth Vader will simply not feel like authentic Star Wars. How many times can you tell a variation of the Darth Vader story? That's how much life the Star Wars franchise has. I think the best Star Wars EU stuff can be found in the Tales of the Jedi comics from the mid- to late-Nineties. The original Knights of the Old Republic game is the next best, IMO. But the new KotOR comics seem pretty lackluster to me. I'm not sure that I would like to see more of that time period now. But maybe the new MMORPG will make up for those things. I probably won't find out, as I do not play MMORPGs.

The Clone wars suckded , i meen all the battle droids did was the commen simpel jack thing , without the mallet and the butter flys ... my avetar may be a Clone wars thing ... they where the only ones who didn't seem like compleat .

Clone Wars? That cartoon? I thought the droids were comic relief, not opponents.

Manchu wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Also, what areas of the Star Wars universe would you like to explore?

In the final analysis, the Star Wars universe only exists so that the the story of Darth Vader can be told. Any Star Wars story that it is not about Vader or does not focus on an analogue to Darth Vader will simply not feel like authentic Star Wars. How many times can you tell a variation of the Darth Vader story? That's how much life the Star Wars franchise has. I think the best Star Wars EU stuff can be found in the Tales of the Jedi comics from the mid- to late-Nineties. The original Knights of the Old Republic game is the next best, IMO. But the new KotOR comics seem pretty lackluster to me. I'm not sure that I would like to see more of that time period now. But maybe the new MMORPG will make up for those things. I probably won't find out, as I do not play MMORPGs.

I don't know if I agree with this. As compelling as the overstory of Vader was, the side story of Han Solo is what made the movies for a lot people. That was one of the things obviously missing from the Prequels. I think Episode 1 played better than the next two because of its gritty Tatooine parts that reminded us of the first movie where we were introduced to all of the main cast. If there had been an older roguish teen-aged friend to Anikin there to plant the seeds for a rebellious nature, the movie would have been much better.(Despite the presence of the annoying one. Come to think of it with both him and c3po in the same movie, lucas doubled the annoying level while redusing the cool level with no Han type Character.)

Think about it, if Lucas had given the Emperor an unwitting accomplice in the form of a rougish friend that bounced in and out of Anakins life, someone that Anikin saw as possible competition for Amedala's affections. If not that, then just a friend that matches Anakins piloting abilities without using the force. I'm thinking a cross between Han and Lando, a charachter that both encourages and challenges Anakin to occasionaly live dangerously and at least smile on occasion. Also make him be just as good of a pilot while having no force abilities to help him.

I think it was, on some level, the lack of non-force using heros that hurt the three prequels. This is why I think exploring the Corellian pirates and The life of Hans dad could be interesting.

focusedfire wrote:@Manchu- So you feel the reason why the Jedi fell from grace was because of an ironic emotional disconnect with other living things while the were teaching that all things were connected.

That is the story, bascially. The Jedi were fixated on distancing themselves from the personal to better understand the spiritual (the force). They knew there was an imbalance in the force, and felt Anakin would be the one to somehow resolve this. In the end it wasn't Anakin but Luke who achieved this balance, and he did it in a way that the council never expected - he embraced his personal connections and used them as his greatest strength.

dogma wrote:I always thought that Lucas' point was that Anakin failed to develop effectively because he wasn't raised in accordance with the traditional Jedi ways; being noticeably older than other 'recruits'. Luke managed to avoid the same fate because he was older than Anakin upon being instructed; received at least some measure of preemptive guidance from Obi-wan, Owen, and Beru; and had his father to serve as an example of what to be wary of.

The difference was his friends. In Leia, Han, Chewie and the rest he had a close group of friends who loved him, the fixation of the Jedi Council on maintaining distance from emotion and personal relationships prevented Anakin from developing a similar strength.

Tangentially, it seems fairly clear that one of the central tenets of the universe is the inherent evil of large organizations. We see this first through the Empire, but also through the incompetence and corruption of the Senate, and the manipulative detachment of the Jedi. The 'white' in the world of Star Wars isn't related to the self-profession of Good, but the individual desire for freedom and self-discovery as personified by Luke, Han, Leia, and the larger Rebellion. Palpatine, at first glance, appears to violate this premise, but he is never treated as a character unto himself; appearing as an extension of large, unseen organization with an ancient history dominated by a set of monolithic teachings.

I think that is less of a deliberate theme and more an inevitable result of swashbuckling movies. To create dramatic tension it's natural for the heroic underdogs will be up against the large monolithic entity.

I don't think the theme supports freedom and individualism, it embraces close friendship as a key value.

He listens to his heart, and comes through the better for it; continuing the trend towards individualism over group membership.

I think he shows loyalty to his family and friends, which is similar, but different in a very important way.

I don't think Lucas ever explicitly places killing on the evil end of the spectrum. Killing in the name of fear, anger, and hate is very clear evil, but killing in the name of self-defense, or necessity, is not.

The much hated Han shoots first moment actually had a fairly decent thematic reasoning behind it. It was the only point in the films where the person who initiated violence won and he wanted that changed.

That the revised version was completely stupid is taken as granted, but it does illustrate Lucas' understanding of violence and self-defence in the series.

I hated the revised version of that scene. When Han shot first, it kind of gave us a look at the gruff violent underworld of the smuggler and bounty hunter. It was a key part of the series as we saw the transformation of Han from a violent dirty smuggler, into a caring, loving individual who still kept a part of his original shoot first personality. When Han shot Greedo out of self-defence, it took away his hard criminal feel, as if he was going to let Greedo walk away.

That is the story, bascially. The Jedi were fixated on distancing themselves from the personal to better understand the spiritual (the force). They knew there was an imbalance in the force, and felt Anakin would be the one to somehow resolve this. In the end it wasn't Anakin but Luke who achieved this balance, and he did it in a way that the council never expected - he embraced his personal connections and used them as his greatest strength.

I'd have to disagree. We're assuming balance means that "the light side" or whatever triumphs. Thats just imbalance.

The imbalance was not the Empire, but the Jedi Knights. The "prophecy" or whatever it was called was indeed misintepreted. DV restored "balance" by wiping out the jedi.
Pre DV: Lots of jedi only 1-2 Sith. Imbalance
Post DV: 2 jedi (Yoda, Obi / DV, Emperor Bob)

having said all that, yea DV was a bad guy but it wasn't all about him in the first two movies. Once it started to movie away from all the normals in ROTJ it started to get dull (that and the crime against humanity that was the ewoks of course). Frankly jedis doing this and jedi's doing that get boring in the second series. Its the same problem as Superman. If you can't be killed you're dull.

Frazzled wrote:

That is the story, bascially. The Jedi were fixated on distancing themselves from the personal to better understand the spiritual (the force). They knew there was an imbalance in the force, and felt Anakin would be the one to somehow resolve this. In the end it wasn't Anakin but Luke who achieved this balance, and he did it in a way that the council never expected - he embraced his personal connections and used them as his greatest strength.

I'd have to disagree. We're assuming balance means that "the light side" or whatever triumphs. Thats just imbalance.

The imbalance was not the Empire, but the Jedi Knights. The "prophecy" or whatever it was called was indeed misintepreted. DV restored "balance" by wiping out the jedi.
Pre DV: Lots of jedi only 1-2 Sith. Imbalance
Post DV: 2 jedi (Yoda, Obi / DV, Emperor Bob)

having said all that, yea DV was a bad guy but it wasn't all about him in the first two movies. Once it started to movie away from all the normals in ROTJ it started to get dull (that and the crime against humanity that was the ewoks of course). Frankly jedis doing this and jedi's doing that get boring in the second series. Its the same problem as Superman. If you can't be killed you're dull.

I though the prophecy was misread as It was Luke, not Ani/DV that was to restore balance to the force by taking out the Emperor and DV destroying most of the darksides power allowing the lightside to develop again.

I think that the balance is means that the lightsidfe reches a peak and is allowed to stay at that peak for a while, then it's destroyed by the darkside, then the darkside is overthrown and it all happens again

FM Ninja 048 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

That is the story, bascially. The Jedi were fixated on distancing themselves from the personal to better understand the spiritual (the force). They knew there was an imbalance in the force, and felt Anakin would be the one to somehow resolve this. In the end it wasn't Anakin but Luke who achieved this balance, and he did it in a way that the council never expected - he embraced his personal connections and used them as his greatest strength.

I'd have to disagree. We're assuming balance means that "the light side" or whatever triumphs. Thats just imbalance.

The imbalance was not the Empire, but the Jedi Knights. The "prophecy" or whatever it was called was indeed misintepreted. DV restored "balance" by wiping out the jedi.
Pre DV: Lots of jedi only 1-2 Sith. Imbalance
Post DV: 2 jedi (Yoda, Obi / DV, Emperor Bob)

having said all that, yea DV was a bad guy but it wasn't all about him in the first two movies. Once it started to movie away from all the normals in ROTJ it started to get dull (that and the crime against humanity that was the ewoks of course). Frankly jedis doing this and jedi's doing that get boring in the second series. Its the same problem as Superman. If you can't be killed you're dull.

I though the prophecy was misread as It was Luke, not Ani/DV that was to restore balance to the force by taking out the Emperor and DV destroying most of the darksides power allowing the lightside to develop again.

I think that the balance is means that the lightsidfe reches a peak and is allowed to stay at that peak for a while, then it's destroyed by the darkside, then the darkside is overthrown and it all happens again

I think it is more the fact that the Force is seen as a living organism in and of itself,and as such,seeks a balance. As the Jedi(ie:Light)grew more and more powerful via their numbers,the Sith(Dark) grew more powerful in terms of the ability to use the Force and were able to conceal their actions.

I really don't see how Vader was ever the chosen one,either. In truth,Sidious did more to achieve that balance than Anakin. Sidious manipulated the entire Clone War,pitting sides against each other and dwindling the Jedi's numbers. Sidious dropped Order 66 and wiped out almost all of the Jedi council. Yeah,Anakin slaughtered some younglings in the Jedi Temple,but that's about it. Some point to him helping Sidious take out Mace Windu,but I always saw that as Sidious simply laying down to Windu in order to manipulate Anakin into joining him. In fact,if Yoda would have taken care of Sidious,then Vader would have died on Mostafar. Vader was just a pawn in Sidious' grand scheme. Luke was just able to turn them against each other.

The theme of Star Wars was pretty much that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Jedi essentially became all-powerful within the Republic,and became corrupt as a result. They began to believe that they WERE good and just instead of servants of good and justice. Even after Ep.3,Yoda decides to hide by himself on Deghobah instead of trying to take on Vader and/or the Emperor again because he is presumably afraid of his own destruction. The trait that seperates heros like Obi-Wan and Luke is self-sacrifice. Qui-gon sacrificed personal advancement within the Jedi Order to stand up for what he believed. Obi-Wan sacrificed himself so that Luke and the others could escape. Luke was willing to sacrifice himself to save his father. Anakin,however,refused to sacrifice anything,which led to his fall.

Whatever1 wrote:

FM Ninja 048 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

That is the story, bascially. The Jedi were fixated on distancing themselves from the personal to better understand the spiritual (the force). They knew there was an imbalance in the force, and felt Anakin would be the one to somehow resolve this. In the end it wasn't Anakin but Luke who achieved this balance, and he did it in a way that the council never expected - he embraced his personal connections and used them as his greatest strength.

I'd have to disagree. We're assuming balance means that "the light side" or whatever triumphs. Thats just imbalance.

The imbalance was not the Empire, but the Jedi Knights. The "prophecy" or whatever it was called was indeed misintepreted. DV restored "balance" by wiping out the jedi.
Pre DV: Lots of jedi only 1-2 Sith. Imbalance
Post DV: 2 jedi (Yoda, Obi / DV, Emperor Bob)

having said all that, yea DV was a bad guy but it wasn't all about him in the first two movies. Once it started to movie away from all the normals in ROTJ it started to get dull (that and the crime against humanity that was the ewoks of course). Frankly jedis doing this and jedi's doing that get boring in the second series. Its the same problem as Superman. If you can't be killed you're dull.

I though the prophecy was misread as It was Luke, not Ani/DV that was to restore balance to the force by taking out the Emperor and DV destroying most of the darksides power allowing the lightside to develop again.

I think that the balance is means that the lightsidfe reches a peak and is allowed to stay at that peak for a while, then it's destroyed by the darkside, then the darkside is overthrown and it all happens again

I think it is more the fact that the Force is seen as a living organism in and of itself,and as such,seeks a balance. As the Jedi(ie:Light)grew more and more powerful via their numbers,the Sith(Dark) grew more powerful in terms of the ability to use the Force and were able to conceal their actions.

I really don't see how Vader was ever the chosen one,either. In truth,Sidious did more to achieve that balance than Anakin. Sidious manipulated the entire Clone War,pitting sides against each other and dwindling the Jedi's numbers. Sidious dropped Order 66 and wiped out almost all of the Jedi council. Yeah,Anakin slaughtered some younglings in the Jedi Temple,but that's about it. Some point to him helping Sidious take out Mace Windu,but I always saw that as Sidious simply laying down to Windu in order to manipulate Anakin into joining him. In fact,if Yoda would have taken care of Sidious,then Vader would have died on Mostafar. Vader was just a pawn in Sidious' grand scheme. Luke was just able to turn them against each other.

The theme of Star Wars was pretty much that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Jedi essentially became all-powerful within the Republic,and became corrupt as a result. They began to believe that they WERE good and just instead of servants of good and justice. Even after Ep.3,Yoda decides to hide by himself on Deghobah instead of trying to take on Vader and/or the Emperor again because he is presumably afraid of his own destruction. The trait that seperates heros like Obi-Wan and Luke is self-sacrifice. Qui-gon sacrificed personal advancement within the Jedi Order to stand up for what he believed. Obi-Wan sacrificed himself so that Luke and the others could escape. Luke was willing to sacrifice himself to save his father. Anakin,however,refused to sacrifice anything,which led to his fall.

Order 66 had nothing to do with sidious. It was made before he had anything to do with troppers. It was made incase there was a jedi rebellion.

garret wrote:

Whatever1 wrote:

FM Ninja 048 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

That is the story, bascially. The Jedi were fixated on distancing themselves from the personal to better understand the spiritual (the force). They knew there was an imbalance in the force, and felt Anakin would be the one to somehow resolve this. In the end it wasn't Anakin but Luke who achieved this balance, and he did it in a way that the council never expected - he embraced his personal connections and used them as his greatest strength.

I'd have to disagree. We're assuming balance means that "the light side" or whatever triumphs. Thats just imbalance.

The imbalance was not the Empire, but the Jedi Knights. The "prophecy" or whatever it was called was indeed misintepreted. DV restored "balance" by wiping out the jedi.
Pre DV: Lots of jedi only 1-2 Sith. Imbalance
Post DV: 2 jedi (Yoda, Obi / DV, Emperor Bob)

having said all that, yea DV was a bad guy but it wasn't all about him in the first two movies. Once it started to movie away from all the normals in ROTJ it started to get dull (that and the crime against humanity that was the ewoks of course). Frankly jedis doing this and jedi's doing that get boring in the second series. Its the same problem as Superman. If you can't be killed you're dull.

I though the prophecy was misread as It was Luke, not Ani/DV that was to restore balance to the force by taking out the Emperor and DV destroying most of the darksides power allowing the lightside to develop again.

I think that the balance is means that the lightsidfe reches a peak and is allowed to stay at that peak for a while, then it's destroyed by the darkside, then the darkside is overthrown and it all happens again

I think it is more the fact that the Force is seen as a living organism in and of itself,and as such,seeks a balance. As the Jedi(ie:Light)grew more and more powerful via their numbers,the Sith(Dark) grew more powerful in terms of the ability to use the Force and were able to conceal their actions.

I really don't see how Vader was ever the chosen one,either. In truth,Sidious did more to achieve that balance than Anakin. Sidious manipulated the entire Clone War,pitting sides against each other and dwindling the Jedi's numbers. Sidious dropped Order 66 and wiped out almost all of the Jedi council. Yeah,Anakin slaughtered some younglings in the Jedi Temple,but that's about it. Some point to him helping Sidious take out Mace Windu,but I always saw that as Sidious simply laying down to Windu in order to manipulate Anakin into joining him. In fact,if Yoda would have taken care of Sidious,then Vader would have died on Mostafar. Vader was just a pawn in Sidious' grand scheme. Luke was just able to turn them against each other.

The theme of Star Wars was pretty much that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Jedi essentially became all-powerful within the Republic,and became corrupt as a result. They began to believe that they WERE good and just instead of servants of good and justice. Even after Ep.3,Yoda decides to hide by himself on Deghobah instead of trying to take on Vader and/or the Emperor again because he is presumably afraid of his own destruction. The trait that seperates heros like Obi-Wan and Luke is self-sacrifice. Qui-gon sacrificed personal advancement within the Jedi Order to stand up for what he believed. Obi-Wan sacrificed himself so that Luke and the others could escape. Luke was willing to sacrifice himself to save his father. Anakin,however,refused to sacrifice anything,which led to his fall.

Order 66 had nothing to do with sidious. It was made before he had anything to do with troppers. It was made incase there was a jedi rebellion.

Actually, without Palpatine/Sideous, there would have been no war, therefore no clone army. He sent Count Dooku to Kamino under the alias of another name to pay the Kaminoans. The Clone Wars was all orchestrated to destroy the Jedi Order. It's called Order 66 because it was the 66th order they implanted in them. I thin you misunderstood what they said in the movie. The Jedi rebellion was just a cover up to explain why the clones were slaughtering Jedi.

The balance issue is not in terms of light vs dark but rather, to use sebster's words, personal vs. spiritual. Qui-Gon Jinn calls the "personal" aspect the Living Force. Later, in the books, this gets mixed up in dichotomy with the "Unifying Force." But I don't think that spectrum of Living <---> Unifying has much to do with the theme of balance in Lucas's story. Keep in mind also that this idea of a prophecy about bringing balance to the Force did not exist until Episode I.

Also, ff, Episode I plays better than II and III? What are you smoking?

God, the prequals sucked. The only part worth watching was the battle scenes.

Frazzled wrote:I'd have to disagree. We're assuming balance means that "the light side" or whatever triumphs. Thats just imbalance.

The imbalance was not the Empire, but the Jedi Knights. The "prophecy" or whatever it was called was indeed misintepreted. DV restored "balance" by wiping out the jedi.
Pre DV: Lots of jedi only 1-2 Sith. Imbalance
Post DV: 2 jedi (Yoda, Obi / DV, Emperor Bob)

Which is what I'd assumed, and found the whole thing not making a lot of sense, until I read somewhere that Lucas felt balance wasn't about a balance between dark and light. It was about seperating the dark from the light, and about how the Jedi could no longer see clearly between the two. Or something. Hardly any of that is actually in the text, and is a mile away from a plain reading of the word 'balance'.

But at least it does allow the whole thing to make some kind of sense - if the Jedi were dominant and balance meant equality between dark and light, why the hell would the Jedi want to fulfill the prophecy?

having said all that, yea DV was a bad guy but it wasn't all about him in the first two movies. Once it started to movie away from all the normals in ROTJ it started to get dull (that and the crime against humanity that was the ewoks of course). Frankly jedis doing this and jedi's doing that get boring in the second series. Its the same problem as Superman. If you can't be killed you're dull.

Yeah, I agree, the Jedi were not interesting protagonists. I think it was a bit of trap, because Obi-Wan was so fantastic in the original film. But that was a supporting role, and it was played by Alec Guinness. I mean, Ewan MacGregor and Liam Neeson are fine actors, but they had to carry whole films by looking serene.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Munch Munch! wrote:I hated the revised version of that scene. When Han shot first, it kind of gave us a look at the gruff violent underworld of the smuggler and bounty hunter. It was a key part of the series as we saw the transformation of Han from a violent dirty smuggler, into a caring, loving individual who still kept a part of his original shoot first personality. When Han shot Greedo out of self-defence, it took away his hard criminal feel, as if he was going to let Greedo walk away.

Sort of, I could tolerate the hit to Han's character in order to fit the theme of the series. The real problem is that the revised scene had a bounty hunter that missed from across the table.

Maybe he's an ex-stormtrooper.

Whatever1 wrote:I really don't see how Vader was ever the chosen one,either. In truth,Sidious did more to achieve that balance than Anakin.

No, seriously, 'balance' was not meant to mean equality between good and evil, despite that being the plain meaning of the word, and despite it being what everyone assumed it meant. Lucas explained it, and the fact that he pretty failed entirely to establish what the prophecy actually meant in his movies is just another nail in the coffin of the prequels.

But it really did mean to seperate light from dark, to remove ambiguity as it were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:Order 66 had nothing to do with sidious. It was made before he had anything to do with troppers. It was made incase there was a jedi rebellion.

Dooku created the clone army on behalf of Sidius, who gave them order 66 under the excuse that the Jedi might one day rebel. He didn't think they were ever going to rebel, he just wanted to be able to wipe them out once he'd gain complete control of the Republic, as they would be the only real threat to his position.

Manchu wrote:
Also, ff, Episode I plays better than II and III? What are you smoking?

Many people will blame the scripts, but I blame Hayden Christiansen for episodes II&III. The movies felt like there were better scenes laying on the cutting room floor due to Haydens inability to act. The kid Jake Lloyd did a much better job of acting than Hayden did and the setting of the movie was better because it wasn't so OTT CG. Yes, we had to deal with the introduction of miticlorians and the most annoying character ever creayed outside of a Jim Carrey or Sasha Cohen movie in Episode I, but the acting was able to carry the movie. I didn't suspend disbelief every three minutes like the movies with Hayden playing Mannikin.

If there had been a young Han type character in episode I, slapping the annoying one around or kicking it in the shin every other time it said something stupid, the added comedic relief would have provided what was missing. It would also have set a tone for the other movies of not being so...sterile.

As far as which are the better scripts? I can't really judge because of the acting in II & III.

Munch Munch! wrote:God, the prequals sucked. The only part worth watching was the battle scenes.

Yes they did and I attribute it to Lucas miscasting key parts and the failure to add the type of character that he writes for and directs the best. A Harrison Ford scoundrel type of character. These movies could have been very good but Lucas seemed bound and determined to make them bad. The real problem could be that Lucas can't direct this younger generation. Shia Leboeff(sp?) is a very accomplished actor but in the Indiana Jones movie Lucas failed to show the kids talent.

BTW, instead of the "they sucked" comments, why don't you tell me how you would have shot the movies or at least fix them. This is a thread where you can discuss, create, gripe about or make jokes about Star Wars. The universe of the Galactic Empire could really be developed a lot more. Honestly I'd like to see a D10 based table top game that plays similar to 40K and uses a similar scale of models. I think that it could be fun if done right.

Well, I would start trying to fix them by removing Anakin's whineyness. For a protagonist, he wasn't very likable. I would also remove the gungans 'cause well their nature's dumbass.

I would also love to see a tabletop wargame of star wars. There is alot of factions to play as, many species to model, and so much history in it, dozens of vhicles and weapons, and alot of favourite scenarios could be played out. Even with clone troopers, there's alot of variation in armour customization.

Well how else would the ultimate villain start as? He is a whiny emo. and there used to be a table top. but got canceled.

focusedfire wrote:Many people will blame the scripts, but I blame Hayden Christiansen for episodes II&III. The movies felt like there were better scenes laying on the cutting room floor due to Haydens inability to act.

There was a whole lot more going wrong than Christiansen’s mediocre performance. He was mediocre, for sure, but the cast was studded with gifted, experienced actors who have been excellent in other roles, and here they were all underwhelming.

Much of it comes down to the scripts, which were all poorly written. Most people remark on the awkward dialogue, but honestly Star Wars dialogue has always been a little too formal and awkward, that’s kind of a trait of the series. The bigger problem is the lack of structure, and how little Lucas was willing to cut to get the structure and pacing right. Each script simply needed fewer scenes, fewer peripheral characters, fewer plot explanations, and a much clearer plot.

The first Star Wars script was the result of Lucas writing and rewriting his story countless times, and it’s interesting to read early version and see how messy they were, and how they had so many of the same faults as the prequels. The Empire script was similarly written and re-written, and this time Lucas only provided the story idea, it was written by industry heavyweights like Lawrence Kasdan. Return of the Jedi had similar talent behind it, but the script had a much reduced lead in time, and really could have used a little longer to get it right.

Lucas wrote the scripts for the prequels unassisted, and wrote each over a very short period of time. It really shows.

Munch Munch! wrote:I would also love to see a tabletop wargame of star wars. There is alot of factions to play as, many species to model, and so much history in it, dozens of vhicles and weapons, and alot of favourite scenarios could be played out. Even with clone troopers, there's alot of variation in armour customization.

It would be a challenge to get the feel right, as Star Wars is a swashbuckling adventure covered with a military veneer. You’d have to do it just right to pay proper service to the crazy achievements of the heroes, while still keeping the basic military structure underneath.

It’d be a tough thing, though Lord of the Rings style hero points would probably be the best place to start.

Manchu’s Episode I:

The scrolling text reads: A thousand years of peace are drawing to a close. The Outer Rim territories of the Galactic Republic are rife with crime and oppression while corruption and villainy fester at its Core. The noble Jedi Knights are stretched thin throughout the galaxy in defense of law and order. Some believe that the Republic must raise a self-defense force to protect its citizens. Others argue that creating such a force would lead only to tyranny. As debate continues in the Galactic Senate, violence escalates to war on the frontiers . . .

The story begins with a Falcon-esque freighter tearing through a screen-filling space battle between the Trade Federation and a Hutt Fleet. The freighter is captained by a brash, crude-talking young woman who hands the conn over to her R2 unit while she takes the guns. In her conversation with the R2 unit, we learn that she is a mercenary employed by Senator Skywalker of Alderaan to spy on the Trade Federation. As a side line, she’s been smuggling Trade Federation technologies to the Hutts. “How was I supposed to know they’d start a war over it?” she screams at the little droid, called R2-D2, over the explosion of another Droid fighter. “Senator Skywalker’s not going to like this at all. Threepio, you have that hyperdrive back up yet?” Cut to a golden protocol droid comically arguing with the ships brain. He apparently wins the argument and the scene ends with the stars turning into streaks of light.

Cut scene to Coruscant, in the Galactic Senate. Senator Palpatine of Naboo is finishing a speech to the Senate about the rapacious criminal activities of the Hutts and the need for a Republican Self-Defense Force to bring order to the galactic frontiers. His speech is met with both cheers and booing. Another middle-aged human Senator is cheering from the gallery as his aide comes up and whispers something in his ear. “Thank you, Bail,” he says and excuses himself.

Cut to a lavish office. Qui-Gon Jinn and his Padawan Anakin Skywalker are waiting there. The Senator strides in, waving off reporters who are blocked from entering by his aides. "Master Qui-Gon Jinn." The Senator formally bows to the Jedi and then greets them warmly. “Young Anakin,” he smiles “I am always hearing about your accomplishments.” “Thank you, Senator Skywalker,” Anakin replies evenly. Senator Skywalker gets down to business, explaining to Qui-Gon about the latest skirmish between the Hutts and the Trade Federation. He confides that his sources all point toward a major rift in the Republic given that some powerful members do not feel that the Jedi can protect them anymore. A self-defense force is necessary to maintain the security of the Republic. He implores Qui-Gon to speak to the Council and gain their support on his behalf. Clearly uncomfortable, Qui-Gon explains that he disagrees with the Council on many issues but will relay the message.

After the meeting, Anakin seems dissatisfied with the encounter. The Jedi are walking down a corridor lined with windows. It is sunset. “My own father treats me like a stranger,” he tells his master. Anakin and Qui-Gon pause by a window overlooking the Jedi Temple. Qui-Gon explains that in many ways they are strangers given that Senator Skywalker gave up Anakin to the Jedi Temple not long after his mother died in childbirth. “Do you think he blamed me for her death?” Anakin asks as they continue walking. “No,” Qui-Gon reassures him gently. “You must learn to heed the Living Force. Had you been more mindful of the moment, you would have sensed that your father is proud of you.” Anakin pauses again and gazes out of another, this time facing the sun setting over the Galactic Senate.

Anyone interested in reading more?

Hell yeah, I'm interested in reading more!

I will just put this right here

That was interesting read Manchu, I’d like to see more.

sebster wrote:There was a whole lot more going wrong than Christiansen’s mediocre performance. He was mediocre, for sure, but the cast was studded with gifted, experienced actors who have been excellent in other roles, and here they were all underwhelming.

I agree. After reading your post I can accept that the scripting was a major issue but also still feel that many of the major rolls were miscast thus compounding the script issues.
Palpatine, Duku and Ahmadala were the only three that I felt were cast well. While Liam Neeson and Samiel L. Jackson were good, there presence over-shadowed the story-lines. Ewan Macgregor was acceptable but, IMO, the part of young obi-wan could have been better cast.

sebster wrote:

Munch Munch! wrote:I would also love to see a tabletop wargame of star wars. There is alot of factions to play as, many species to model, and so much history in it, dozens of vhicles and weapons, and alot of favourite scenarios could be played out. Even with clone troopers, there's alot of variation in armour customization.

It would be a challenge to get the feel right, as Star Wars is a swashbuckling adventure covered with a military veneer. You’d have to do it just right to pay proper service to the crazy achievements of the heroes, while still keeping the basic military structure underneath.

It’d be a tough thing, though Lord of the Rings style hero points would probably be the best place to start.

I like your suggestions here. Do you see the game as to being able to be inclusive of both larger scale fleet actions and ground wars or based more around small bands of heros.

Would also like to point out your use of the term swashbuckling. Very apt and cuts to the gist of what I was saying about what was missing from the prequels. They were Epic but not really swashbuckling for some reason.

Manchu wrote:Anyone interested in reading more?

1)Yes, please.

2)Are wanting to go it alone or will the discussion in here help or ideas from others be welcome?

3)Looks like you have been doing some story boarding lately from your cut scene type of writing. Been working on a project lately?

BTW, Like your female Han character.
Later

I always knew there was something a bit odd going on.