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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I mean, nothing in "protect squadron leader so he can take the shot" means "stay in formation at all costs"

But that's exactly what happened. Even once the wingmen knew they were about to die they stayed in formation instead of pulling out of the trench to escape. And everyone knew that's what was going to happen. Red leader's encouragement was "just hold them off for a few seconds", not "you can beat them". Same thing with the y-wing pilot ordering everyone to stay on target even as they were seconds from inevitable death.

Though honestly, I'd say the worst actions of the rebellion depicted in the movie is probably on Hoth... what happened to all the guys who were freezing their bums off outside in the snow while the AT-ATs walked up and allowed the space ships and command elements to get airborne?

Good point. Just like Obi-Wan the rebellion accepted that they were going to have to accept losses to win the battle, and didn't allow sympathy for the poor victims of that decision to cost them everything.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'd say the worst actions of the rebellion depicted in the movie is probably on Hoth... what happened to all the guys who were freezing their bums off outside in the snow while the AT-ATs walked up and allowed the space ships and command elements to get airborne?

Rebel soldiers are volunteers in an ideological war. They understand they are putting themselves up against a better armed and more ruthless enemy. The fighters who died or were captured holding off the Empire while the rest of Echo Base evacuated were not the victims of the Rebellion; they were Rebels.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'd say the worst actions of the rebellion depicted in the movie is probably on Hoth... what happened to all the guys who were freezing their bums off outside in the snow while the AT-ATs walked up and allowed the space ships and command elements to get airborne?

Rebel soldiers are volunteers in an ideological war. They understand they are putting themselves up against a better armed and more ruthless enemy. The fighters who died or were captured holding off the Empire while the rest of Echo Base evacuated were not the victims of the Rebellion; they were Rebel scum.

fixed that for you.


But that's kind of my point.... the Republic seems to have this callous "Send in the next wave" mentality when it came to the clones and their deployment, whereas we are led to believe that the rebel alliance is small and as such, everyone knows that open conflict is extremely risky on many fronts, and as such they don't tend to just "throw away" bodies.

We definitely don't see the Rebels throwing away their people in any of the movies.

 Manchu wrote:
The Empire's idea of everyday governing is siphoning massive amounts of resources from systems, including slave labor, to build a giant gun to point at their heads to get more resources.

This is no longer canon.

I'm not sure why we arguing about Luke being irresponsible.

The point is that Luke was still thinking about everything in terms of how it relates to himself, not big-picture morality. Luke hates the Empire because they killed his family. Luke is willing to risk everything to save his friends because they're his friends. He isn't making calm philosophical decisions about what is right and wrong, he's just reacting emotionally.

My point is, Yoda was incorrect that Luke's departure would destroy everything they worked for. That was fear-mongering, which I guess if we believe Yoda is the same thing as dark side baiting.

If I say "don't jump off that building, you're going to die" but you somehow survive because there was a net that neither of us knew existed to stop your fall that doesn't mean I was fear-mongering. Luke didn't survive and avoid destroying everything because he was right, he did it because he was lucky.

At no point in ESB is Luke close to falling to the dark side so that cannot possibly be the point of the cave vision.

Why are you assuming that the cave vision has to be a prophecy about the immediate future? At the time he was certainly on a path that would take him dangerously close to the dark side (as demonstrated by his decision to take his weapons with him into the cave and to use them as his first reaction), and he would certainly face the possibility of falling in ROTJ. Perhaps Luke learned what he needed to learn from the experience and turned away from that path just enough.

The actual point is, just in terms of story telling, is to foreshadow the full revelation of the connection between Vader and Luke.

It doesn't really foreshadow that connection because the obvious interpretation ("if you use the force as a weapon you become a sith just like Vader") is not the actual revelation ("I am your father"). Remove either and the other still makes perfect sense.

RotJ invokes this in reverse to have son identify with father, realizing that he will not kill his own father in whom he knows there is still goodness.

But again, that's not really what happens. Luke doesn't refrain from killing Vader because he's still trying to turn him back to the light side, he throws away his weapon because he realizes that if he kills a wounded and helpless man out of anger he will become Vader.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
We definitely don't see the Rebels throwing away their people in any of the movies.

Sure we do. They throw away the troops on Hoth to buy time to evacuate the most important people and equipment, they throw away the wingmen in the death star trench, and they're willing to throw away the entire rebel fleet at Endor to buy more time for Han and friends to bring the shield down. There's really no difference between "stay on target" and "don't turn back to help them at the expense of our mission".

Do you mean the slave labour part is no longer canon? Because everything else is straight out of ANH.

Again, you want to saddle me with argument that Luke was right. So. Many. Strawmen. I think making a strawman argument is actually your way of conceding a point. My point was Yoda is wrong. Yoda claimed to see the future. Looks like his vision had not improved since RotS. And Luke was not even on a long-term trajectory toward the dark side. If anything, Yoda and Obi-Wan's fears for Luke are projections of their own unresolved guilt over Anakin and, you know, fething up everything.

Luke does not use the Force as a weapon in the cave or at any point in ESB. That's simply not what the scene is about. He takes weapons with him because he is afraid and feels like he needs to defend himself. This fear manifests as a vision of Vader and his connection to Vader, which pans out horrifically (THAT's NOT TRUE THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE) on Bespin.

Luke's motive throughout RotJ is to save Vader. He almost kills Vader himself, however. It is only by remembering that he is Vader's son and Vader is his father that he recovers himself and in the process catalyzes Anakin's moral courage.

None of the scenes you mention involve the Rebellion throwing away men. In each case, there is a calculated risk assumed by the smallest number of people possible to save a much larger group of people from harm.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, you want to saddle me with argument that Luke was right. So. Many. Strawmen. I think making a strawman argument is actually your way of conceding a point. My point was Yoda is wrong.

How exactly is Yoda supposed to be wrong about saying "WTF Luke, this is a really stupid and selfish idea" without Luke being right?

Yoda claimed to see the future.

You don't need to see the future to understand that running off to go save your friends instead of looking at the big picture and finishing your training is a bad idea. Yoda was still exactly right even without any visions of the future.

And Luke was not even on a long-term trajectory toward the dark side. If anything, Yoda and Obi-Wan's fears for Luke are projections of their own unresolved guilt over Anakin.

Evidence of this? In the actual movies we see Luke come dangerously close to the dark side and only pull back at the last moment.

Luke does not use the Force as a weapon in the cave or at any point in ESB. That's simply not what the scene is about. He takes weapons with him because he is afraid and feels like he needs to defend himself. This fear manifests as a vision of Vader and his connection to Vader, which pans out horrifically (THAT's NOT TRUE THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE) on Bespin.

No, he doesn't literally force lightning "Vader" to death, but he still goes into the cave with the assumption that he needs weapons. And as soon as he sees an opportunity he uses those weapons. Lesson: Luke is too aggressive, and that leads to the dark side.

And no, his fear doesn't really come true at Bespin. The vision in the cave is that Luke IS Vader, not that he's related to Vader. The vision never comes true because, at the end of ROTJ, Luke refrains from killing in anger and becoming Vader.

Luke's motive throughout RotJ is to save Vader. He almost kills Vader himself, however. It is only by remembering that he is Vader's son and Vader is his father that he recovers himself and in the process catalyzes Anakin's moral courage.

And, again, it isn't being Vader's son that stops him from killing Vader at the end, it's the fear of becoming Vader. If Luke kills a wounded and helpless man out of anger then he is no better than Vader and has fallen to the dark side just like his father. It doesn't matter if Vader is still good or not, or even if he's Luke's father. Luke can't kill him and still be a jedi. And so he throws away his weapon and accepts his fate.

None of the scenes you mention involve the Rebellion throwing away men. In each case, there is a calculated risk assumed by the smallest number of people possible to save a much larger group of people from harm.

Just like the scene where they "throw away" the clones. Obi-Wan takes a calculated risk with a small number of people to ensure the success of the mission and save a larger group of people from harm (the war continuing because the bad guys escape with their hostage). If that's throwing people away then so is Luke/Biggs/Wedge abandoning their squadron leader to die so that they don't delay their own torpedo run.

Again, Yoda isn't talking about what is a bad idea. He's talking about the future. You can tell me jumping out of the window is a bad idea. If I jump out the window and win the fething lottery instead of falling to my death, you're still right. Generally speaking, jumping out of windows is bad news. But if you predict that I will die if I jump out of that window right there and I don't die then you are incorrect.

We see Luke go off the deep end of rage for about 20 seconds at the end of the movie following the one you are talking about. He not only recovers himself but does so in such a full and convincing way that the Emperor decides he cannot be turned and must be killed.

You are taking a mystical vision way too literally. The vision manifests Luke's unconscious knowledge of his relationship to Vader. In SW, it is possible to know things through the insight of the Force. This is how Luke intuits that Leia is his sister. This is why Leia says she has always known when he tells her. This is why Vader tells Luke to search his feelings as EVIDENCE that Vader is telling the truth about being his dad.

Luke is not only afraid of falling to the dark side; he also struggles about whether he can save his father. Deep down, he knows there is still good in Anakin. But this is undermined by his douchey mentors and Vader's own evil behavior. Luke's eventual empathy with Vader is what finally and fully convinces him that he himself is a Jedi and what convinces Vader that he is still Anakin and must save his son.

It doesn't make sense to compare clones (grown, marketed, and purchased to fight in a war) with volunteers. To anyone following along, since Peregrine will ignore this, please contrast Obi-Wan's immediate callous disregard of the dying clones with Leia who has to be dragged away to the Falcon because she is so concerned with the fate of her comrades on Hoth.

If anyone wants proof of the Empire being evil racist bastards just look at the role of Stormtropper vs Jawas or Sandpeople.

Stormtrooper vs Rebel: can't hit a thing

Stromtrooper vs Jawas: can hit them in the eye from a thousand yards almost as if they have special Jawa racial targeting hardware on their blasters. Nothing makes a Stormtrooper's aim straight like Jawa hate.

Engaging in covert ops of slaughting Jawas and moisture farmers under the cover as a Sandpeople attack....

 Manchu wrote:
Again, Yoda isn't talking about what is a bad idea. He's talking about the future. You can tell me jumping out of the window is a bad idea. If I jump out the window and win the fething lottery instead of falling to my death, you're still right. Generally speaking, jumping out of windows is bad news. But if you predict that I will die if I jump out of that window right there and I don't die then you are incorrect.

Yoda is talking about the future, but he isn't necessarily making predictions based on seeing the future through the force. He says "if you do this you will destroy everything", not "I have seen the future and you will fail". So really you're just nitpicking the difference between "this is a really stupid idea and you will fail" and "this is a really stupid idea and you will almost certainly fail".

We see Luke go off the deep end of rage for about 20 seconds at the end of the movie following the one you are talking about. He not only recovers himself but does so in such a full and convincing way that the Emperor decides he cannot be turned and must be killed.

Because he overcame the lure of the dark side. He faced temptation and won. That doesn't mean that he was never in any danger.

You are taking a mystical vision way too literally.

And you're just speculating about this, unless you can cite a canon source for your interpretation. The straightforward interpretation is "don't be too aggressive or you'll fall to the dark side", Yoda takes it that way, and Luke doesn't say anything to suggest that he disagrees when Yoda says "remember your failure at the cave" as Luke is about to leave. There's no evidence that it shouldn't be taken literally.

Luke is not only afraid of falling to the dark side; he also struggles about whether he can save his father. Deep down, he knows there is still good in Anakin. But this is undermined by his douchey mentors and Vader's own evil behavior. Luke's eventual empathy with Vader is what finally and fully convinces him that he himself is a Jedi and what convinces Vader that he is still Anakin and must save his son.

And I guess we just disagree here. You think that Luke throws away his weapon because of empathy for his father, I think that he does it because he knows that if he kills a wounded and helpless opponent then he will be no better than Vader. And you don't really have any evidence that it's Luke's act of mercy that turns Vader from the dark side, rather than Vader simply not being able to watch his son be tortured to death.

It doesn't make sense to compare clones (grown, marketed, and purchased to fight in a war) with volunteers.

Why not? The clones aren't making the decision we're talking about, Obi-Wan is. If Obi-Wan's refusal to allow Anakin to turn back and help his meatshield wingmen at the expense of the mission is "throwing them away without caring about their deaths" then so is what the rebellion does. You can't criticize Obi-Wan for not caring about the lives of his fellow soldiers when almost everyone else does the same thing.

To anyone following along, since Peregrine will ignore this, please contrast Obi-Wan's immediate callous disregard of the dying clones with Leia who has to be dragged away to the Falcon because she is so concerned with the fate of her comrades on Hoth.

That's one character, contrasted with all of the other rebels who accept that people die in a war and put the mission ahead of individual lives.

Yoda could have told Luke going to Bespin is prospectively dumb. But what he actually told him is that going to Bespin would destroy everything his friends worked for. He was wrong. This is not nitpicking; it's merely reporting on what happened in the movie. The interesting part is discussing why Yoda made that prediction.

Your "straightforward" interpretation of the cave vision is actually nonsensical. It cannot be about Luke using the Force as a weapon because he doesn't do that. It cannot be about Luke being too aggressive because what he does in his vision makes sense and is not overly aggressive. An actually straightfoward interpretation is, Luke's fear is manifest in an image connecting him to Vader that foreshadows Vader's revelation on Bespin, which is what Yoda actually fears.

The point about Luke and Vader's co-redemption in RotJ is supported by the scene of Luke talking to Anakin unmasked. "You were right about me. Tell your sister you were right." Besides, FEAR of falling to the dark side obviously cannot protect you from falling to the dark side because ... fear leads to the dark side. What does prevent Luke from falling? His faith in the goodness within his father. Similarly, what redeems Vader? His son's faith in his goodness.

About Obi-Wan and Leia, it doesn't matter if the comparison is between two characters. These characters represent their respective affiliations.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
[But, again, defeating the Emperor and destroying the bulk of the Imperial navy at Endor was a crippling blow against the Empire. Surely that should be taken into account when you're advancing the setting by 30 years. Why would the rebels not have things more in order?

Though the Thrawn trilogy does say something about the losses too. Serving on Vader's flagship, the Executor, was a fast track for promotion. A disproportionate amount of the best and brightest junior officers in the Imperial Navy went down with that ship. Pellaeon regretted some of that himself in the trilogy, looking at himself (grey hair and moustache) taking reports from eager shiny-eyed twenty-something old ensigns. In the old days (he thought to himself) such youngsters would never have been on the bridge crew of an Imperial Star Destroyer. The loss of ships wasn't the issue as much as the loss of a large amount of the best up-and-coming officers the Empire had enlisted.

I'd kill to have a scene like this on the new movies. Thrawn and Paellon must be in the triology

M.

 Manchu wrote:
Yoda could have told Luke going to Bespin is prospectively dumb. But what he actually told him is that going to Bespin would destroy everything his friends worked for. He was wrong. This is not nitpicking; it's merely reporting on what happened in the movie. The interesting part is discussing why Yoda made that prediction.

Yes, it really is nitpicking. You're nitpicking the difference between "this will destroy everything your friends have worked for" and "this will almost certainly destroy everything your friends have worked for". Yoda happened to be wrong because Luke got lucky and survived the trap he walked into, but that doesn't mean that Yoda gave him the wrong advice.

Your "straightforward" interpretation of the cave vision is actually nonsensical. It cannot be about Luke using the Force as a weapon because he doesn't do that. It cannot be about Luke being too aggressive because what he does in his vision makes sense and is not overly aggressive.

It fits entirely. Yoda tells him that what is in the cave is "only what you bring with you". Luke chooses to bring his weapons, despite Yoda saying "you won't need those". He goes into the cave expecting to fight and kill the evil thing, which is a sign of aggression. And then when the image of Vader appears Luke is the first to activate his lightsaber and he immediately goes on the offensive to kill "Vader".

An actually straightfoward interpretation is, Luke's fear is manifest in an image connecting him to Vader that foreshadows Vader's revelation on Bespin, which is what Yoda actually fears.

Except that's not really straightforward because it relies on your assumption that this vague connection to Vader represents the knowledge that Vader is his father, not that Luke is in danger of becoming Vader. The straightforward interpretation of an image of Luke's head inside Vader's mask is that it's a symbol of Luke becoming Vader. And that's how everyone in the movie treats the incident.

The point about Luke and Vader's co-redemption in RotJ is supported by the scene of Luke talking to Anakin unmasked. "You were right about me. Tell your sister you were right."

That doesn't say anything about this co-redemption idea of yours. Vader states the obvious: Luke was right. That doesn't mean that Luke and Vader simultaneously redeemed each other, it just means that Vader was redeemed at some point in the story. Vader's statement works just fine if he simply decides that he can't stand watching his son being tortured to death and chooses family over loyalty to the dark side.

Besides, FEAR of falling to the dark side obviously cannot protect you from falling to the dark side because ... fear leads to the dark side.

Call it whatever you want: concern about falling to the dark side, determination not to fall to the dark side, etc. The concept is still the same. Luke does not want to become Vader, and so at the moment when he has to choose between finishing off a helpless opponent and taking the moral high ground he throws away his weapon and accepts his fate.

What does prevent Luke from falling? His faith in the goodness within his father.

Except that isn't really the way it's presented. Luke doesn't throw away his weapon because he can't convince himself to strike the fatal blow against his father, he does it because he compares his own mechanical hand to Vader's and realizes that it represents how he will become Vader if he does anything but throw away his weapon. This act of mercy against a helpless opponent doesn't require any faith in his father, as long as his father can no longer fight back.

And remember the emperor's earlier boasting: "I am a helpless target, kill me and you'll join the dark side". Same thing when Vader is the helpless victim.

About Obi-Wan and Leia, it doesn't matter if the comparison is between two characters. These characters represent their respective affiliations.

Except Leia doesn't represent her affiliation because other members of the rebellion don't act the same way. You can't just designate Leia as the Official Rebel Leader and dismiss anyone who does something different.

It wasn't a matter of Yoda giving Luke advice. He did not say, it is a bad idea for you to go to Bespin. He predicted, if you go to Bespin you can help your friends but you will destroy everything they have worked for. Yoda predicted, as a matter of looking into the future using the Force, "if X then Y" -- Luke did X and Y did not occur. "You aren't ready to fight Vader," is good advice. "You will destroy everything they have worked for," turns out to be flat out wrong. Which means Yoda's connection to the Force is still clouded after all these years or he was just trying to coerce Luke into staying through fear. Either way, looks bad for Yoda.

Regarding the cave vision and the throne room scene, our difference comes down to you only acknowledging one half of the arc -- Luke recognizing the darkness within himself. The other half is that Luke recognizes the good within his father. Luke says this a bunch of different times in RotJ as he struggles with the idea. By the end of the movie, Vader confirms that Luke is correct about this. If you miss this point, you have missed the point of RotJ and honestly the spiritual/moral arc of the entire trilogy.

SW is not a story about a farmboy who goes on a quest for revenge as you have suggested.

SW is actually a story about how a son becomes a hero by redeeming his father.

Leia certainly represents the Alliance. That's why she is the one who gives out medals. Even on Hoth, she sets the example: she is not the only Rebel holding out in the command bunker as the ceiling is crumbling in on them.

In response to the OP, my advice would be to enjoy the Star Wars films for what they are - an enjoyable way of passing a few hours watching a film or playing one of the video games set in the Star wars universe.

Yes, Disney are in it for the money. Yes, the films are set up to flog a few toys.

And yes, Star wars falls apart under any serious scrutiny when you analyse it's narrative and its place within the sci-fi canon.

 Manchu wrote:
The Empire itself is very clearly evil. A lot of non-evil people, however, are caught up in the ranks.

I slightly disagree with the first part.

Not everyone sees the evil the Empire propagates. Most see nothing at all beyond the news releases that the empire scrubs, and since most never leave their home planet nobody really notices the control over galactic news.

They're sort of like the Nazis in WW2. Even the people in Germany weren't aware of what exactly was going on in the concentration camps.

 Manchu wrote:


SW is not a story about a farmboy who goes on a quest for revenge as you have suggested.

SW is actually a story about how a son becomes a hero by redeeming his father.

Yes - well said!

That's what makes the original trilogy so good...and what helps it to stand the test of time as well as it does.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not everyone sees the evil the Empire propagates.

Whether a regime is evil is not a matter of how many people are aware of the evil things it does.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They're sort of like the Nazis in WW2. Even the people in Germany weren't aware of what exactly was going on in the concentration camps.

Well, let's set aside the question of how much ordinary Germans knew. In Star Wars, how many people does it take to crew the Death Star? Just a rough estimate will suffice. And how many of them do you think have no idea what the purpose of the Death Star is?

 Alpharius wrote:
That's what makes the original trilogy so good...and what helps it to stand the test of time as well as it does.

As long as parents have children and children have parents, the OT will be relevant. By contrast, the PT is so much more convoluted. It kind of makes sense when you think about what was going on with the culture that produced it. But I wonder how people in other countries interpreted it or how people who weren't alive/aware during the turn of the century interpret it. I have heard younger people, not little kids mind but teenagers, say they don't see what is so wrong with Jar Jar Binks.

 Manchu wrote:
I wonder how people in other countries interpreted it or how people who weren't alive/aware during the turn of the century interpret it. I have heard younger people, not little kids mind but teenagers, say they don't see what is so wrong with Jar Jar Binks.

Yes, and I am going to have to ask that question right here.
Why all the hate for Jar Jar? He had a funny voice which I guess you could find annoying, but does that justify so much dislike?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I wonder how people in other countries interpreted it or how people who weren't alive/aware during the turn of the century interpret it. I have heard younger people, not little kids mind but teenagers, say they don't see what is so wrong with Jar Jar Binks.

Yes, and I am going to have to ask that question right here.
Why all the hate for Jar Jar? He had a funny voice which I guess you could find annoying, but does that justify so much dislike?

It does.

It has a lot to with expectations. Pop culture in the US at the time was just entering the darker, character-arc-driven phase we take for granted today, which was totally suitable for the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. Instead, we got a little kid seemingly made from cardboard and an amphibioid Bugs Bunny.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
A brief note on the Empire and evil:

Before the destruction of Alderaan, we're treated to the cold blooded murders of Owen and Beru Lars (and the Jawas before them) for no other reason than being casually associated with rebel assets.

That's what settled the Empire as "evil" for me. It is not some stylized, space-operatic act of evil, but a low, dirty, all too human one. The kind of act we've seen commited by terrorist groups, death squads and occupying armies throughout our history.

what the sort of thing that happened in Vietnam?

Sadly in war even the best trained and supervised tend to overeact when there is a perception (right or wrong) that a civilian population might be helping out their insurgents/terrorists

The massacre at the Lars farmstead has nothing to do with Vietnam. There was no insurgency. The storm troopers had not even been under fire yet. They were looking for droids. Owen and Beru had no reason to hide the droids but they weren't there at the time. There really is no explanation for the storm troopers murdering them except the Empire is freaking evil. That is certainly the point of the scene.

 Manchu wrote:
The massacre at the Lars farmstead has nothing to do with Vietnam. There was no insurgency. The storm troopers had not even been under fire yet. They were looking for droids. Owen and Beru had no reason to hide the droids but they weren't there at the time. There really is no explanation for the storm troopers murdering them except the Empire is freaking evil. That is certainly the point of the scene.

I think we're having the same conversation on two threads

But,

If you see evil as evil, and good as good, then that's always a dangerous way to look at things. Even Palpatine wouldn't have started off as wholly evil I wish star wars had more shades of grey in it.

And that's the problem with the force. They talk about balance, but what they really mean is good winning all the time. Balance would be an equal number of Jedi and an equal number of Sith.

I'm no expert on Star Wars history, but has there ever been somebody at one with the force who was neither a Jedi or a Sith, but simply 'neutral?'

Logically, such a person would exist.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no expert on Star Wars history, but has there ever been somebody at one with the force who was neither a Jedi or a Sith, but simply 'neutral?'

Logically, such a person would exist.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gray_Jedi

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
has there ever been somebody at one with the force who was neither a Jedi or a Sith, but simply 'neutral?'

Yes, this guy:



http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Father_(Mortis)

But read at your own peril. This approaches or even equals midichlorian levels of stupidity. And it's canon!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If you see evil as evil, and good as good, then that's always a dangerous way to look at things.

The only danger of seeing the murder of Owen and Beru as evil is the danger of understanding the scene.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arguably, the balance sought is not between Jedi and Sith but between selfishness and selflessness, i.e., between the imminent and the transcendent.

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
has there ever been somebody at one with the force who was neither a Jedi or a Sith, but simply 'neutral?'

Yes, this guy:



http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Father_(Mortis)

But read at your own peril. This approaches or even equals midichlorian levels of stupidity. And it's canon!

Midichlorians still canon? Between that and the vaudeville racial stereotyping of aliens Phantom Menace ruined any enjoyment I could get from the prequels. Sure, RotJ and the ensuing Ewok movies pulled the vibe from the more serious ESB to straight up kid movies but at least they stayed consistent to the basic foundation put fourth in IV.

I hope there are Eworks in VII, if the Rebels were smart they'd have legions of Ewoks fighting for them, those guys are like little furry Fremen, massacring storm troopers.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Midichlorians still canon?

Yes.

Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
has there ever been somebody at one with the force who was neither a Jedi or a Sith, but simply 'neutral?'

Yes, this guy:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Father_(Mortis)

But read at your own peril. This approaches or even equals midichlorian levels of stupidity. And it's canon!

Easily the worst thing to come out of The Clone Wars.

Manchu wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Midichlorians still canon?

Yes.

It's important to note that Rebels (which is canon) has sort of retconned midichlorians though. Kanan makes it clear that they don't cause the Force, but rather are attracted to its energies. Its energies being most prevalent (apparently) in those that can actually use the Force.

 streamdragon wrote:

It's important to note that Rebels (which is canon) has sort of retconned midichlorians though. Kanan makes it clear that they don't cause the Force, but rather are attracted to its energies. Its energies being most prevalent (apparently) in those that can actually use the Force.

So Rebels is trying to back off the Parasite Eve plaigarism from Phantom Menace? Well, it's a step in the right direction.