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.

 dogma wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

To be fair they are pretty standard in fiction/fantasty/sci-fi - Gandalf, Merlin etc etc all tell their charges / people what they think people need to be told in order to get stuff done - great good and all that.

The angels and gods of the Tolkien universe are expected to be manipulative; they're angels and gods. Yoda and Obi-Wan aren't angels and gods.

Merlin's not a god, the druid out of Shanara isn't, there are very many examples of similar figures in literature and fiction.

Also Yoda and Obi-wan pretty much do become angels.

 dogma wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Putting in that manner tends to forget that they tend to do it to teach someone to help themselves.

It is true that the Jedi teach people in order to help themselves.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because saying you are no better then "Genocide the Jedi, Enslave the wookies and galaxy" Palpatine and "Genocide the species on that one planet, take over the galaxy" is.. kind of summing up things in a very weird fashion.

Canonically the Sith were founded by a Jedi, the Wookies were already de facto enslaved by the Transdoshans, and Palp didn't enslave anyone. The slavery was all done by the Hutts.

Yeah the Sith overall were founded.... Well okay it depends on what sources being used, as it seems to be in general they've been changing how the Sith overall started each time and I'm not actually sure what the current disneycanon is. Though Jedi don't exactly help themselves when it comes to giving the Sith new members due to their rules.

The Wookie's were enslaved by the Trandoshans while being given direct benefit to do so by the Empire. Which turned the planet into a defacto slave race for the Empire in general while granting the Trandoshans overall power as a result. The Empire quite overlooks the slave trade when it comes to aliens since they generally were very humancentric. Though I imagine if there was a reason the Empire would've eventually turned and tried to conquer the outer rim fully and take over the Hutts operations.

 dogma wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

A constant in the OT is both Obi and Yoda saying something that is only kind of true when viewed in the right context but isn't wholly true.

They tell Luke what they think he needs to hear to set him on the path they think he needs to take. That often involves at the very least lies of omission.

Yoda tells Luke "There is nothing in there that Rey does not already posses". Which tells luke that she doesn't need the books. Omitting that Rey stole the books already. You have to look at EVERYTHING they say to Luke through that lens. What do they want Luke to know. What are they trying to nudge Luke into doing and what conclusions do they want Luke to reach. Saying Luke lost ben might be Yodas way to kick Luke in the pants and get him to have hope for the kid again in the same way that hearing he would have to face Vader made Luke try to save him.

So Yoda and Obi are both manipulative pricks, making them no better than Palpatine or Snoke?

Wow, talk about a whole lot of Whataboutism right there!

No, they are in no way equivalent. Yes, they are all manipulative. One wants to push some one for self-improvement and betterment, while the others are bent on power, control and destruction. I really hope you can see the difference in philosophy there.

That is like saying Dale Carnegie (who wrote How to Win Friends and Influence People) is no different than Hitler because they both were about Persuasion through communication. Their goals and methods in the use of Persuasion were very different.

You know, the plot to even the original trilogy is pretty far fetched when you think about it. It started going off the rails with RotJ when Leia suddenly turned out to be Luke’s sister (even Vader as Luke’s dad can be explained). Then the prequels came along and...dear god.

It’s not the space magic that’s the problem. It’s the fact that there’s so many contrived coincidences and people don’t act the way you’d expect adults to act. That we still (somewhat) enjoy it despite these shows how good it is.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
You know, the plot to even the original trilogy is pretty far fetched when you think about it. It started going off the rails with RotJ when Leia suddenly turned out to be Luke’s sister (even Vader as Luke’s dad can be explained). Then the prequels came along and...dear god.

It’s not the space magic that’s the problem. It’s the fact that there’s so many contrived coincidences and people don’t act the way you’d expect adults to act. That we still (somewhat) enjoy it despite these shows how good it is.

Absolutely, I am not a "fan" of star wars as movies, I much prefered the books even though quality wise they were all over the place, at least they were mostly (hah) consistent and followed a defined path, one thing led to another in a kind of logical sense.

 dogma wrote:

At the very least Luke didn't ride around on Rey like a backpack while remarking "Hmmm, hmmm."

Are you sure about that?

 Lance845 wrote:

Im not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point is that Yoda and Obi aren't expected to be manipulative, but they absolutely are.

 dogma wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Im not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point is that Yoda and Obi aren't expected to be manipulative, but they absolutely are.

I never expected them to be otherwise.

Again, did you watch the OT? By RotJ everything obi and yoda have said to him was at least misinformation.

 Easy E wrote:

No, they are in no way equivalent. Yes, they are all manipulative. One wants to push some one for self-improvement and betterment, while the others are bent on power, control and destruction. I really hope you can see the difference in philosophy there.

Is self-improvement not power for the Jedi? Betterment for the Jedi? Control for the Jedi? The Sith push their devotees for all of those things.

 dogma wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

No, they are in no way equivalent. Yes, they are all manipulative. One wants to push some one for self-improvement and betterment, while the others are bent on power, control and destruction. I really hope you can see the difference in philosophy there.

Is self-improvement not power for the Jedi? Betterment for the Jedi? Control for the Jedi? The Sith push their devotees for all of those things.

The Sith Code


The Jedi Code
May not be relevant but it's always something that's intrigued me how similar, but very different they are.

 Lance845 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Im not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point is that Yoda and Obi aren't expected to be manipulative, but they absolutely are.

I never expected them to be otherwise.

Again, did you watch the OT? By RotJ everything obi and yoda have said to him was at least misinformation.

One can manipulate people by telling them the truth.

One can also tell them "white lies" in an attempt to spare their feelings.

 Lance845 wrote:

Again, did you watch the OT? By RotJ everything obi and yoda have said to him was at least misinformation.

Yes, I did. I've referenced RoTJ several times in this thread; arguing that it establishes Yoda and Obi-Wan as being dumb.

I really enjoyed TLJ. I don't think it was quite as much a subversion of SW, as a revisionist take on SW, which I thought the franchise needed.

Were there plot holes? Sure. Were there more plot holes than ESB, which is my other fave? Nope. Do I gauge my enjoyment of a SW movie primarily by counting plot holes? Nope.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I really enjoyed TLJ. I don't think it was quite as much a subversion of SW, as a revisionist take on SW, which I thought the franchise needed.

Were there plot holes? Sure. Were there more plot holes than ESB, which is my other fave? Nope. Do I gauge my enjoyment of a SW movie primarily by counting plot holes? Nope.

can I ask what were the particular things that stood out for you in it as quite interested? thanks

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I really enjoyed TLJ. I don't think it was quite as much a subversion of SW, as a revisionist take on SW, which I thought the franchise needed.

Were there plot holes? Sure. Were there more plot holes than ESB, which is my other fave? Nope. Do I gauge my enjoyment of a SW movie primarily by counting plot holes? Nope.

I've never thought that SW holds up well even to a moderate level of scrutiny and analysis. Then again, I was never an EU person, and perhaps it added some kind of support that lent strength to the whole enterprise. I dunno.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I really enjoyed TLJ. I don't think it was quite as much a subversion of SW, as a revisionist take on SW, which I thought the franchise needed.

Were there plot holes? Sure. Were there more plot holes than ESB, which is my other fave? Nope. Do I gauge my enjoyment of a SW movie primarily by counting plot holes? Nope.

can I ask what were the particular things that stood out for you in it as quite interested? thanks

You can Google that and get examples. The entire battle of Hoth is a good place to start.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
I never expected them to be otherwise.

Again, did you watch the OT? By RotJ everything obi and yoda have said to him was at least misinformation.

They're also just plain wrong a lot. What would have happened to Leia -- and thereby the entire Rebel Alliance -- if Luke doesn't go to Bespin to get R2 on board the Falcon to fix the hyperdrive?

 gorgon wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I really enjoyed TLJ. I don't think it was quite as much a subversion of SW, as a revisionist take on SW, which I thought the franchise needed.

Were there plot holes? Sure. Were there more plot holes than ESB, which is my other fave? Nope. Do I gauge my enjoyment of a SW movie primarily by counting plot holes? Nope.

I've never thought that SW holds up well even to a moderate level of scrutiny and analysis. Then again, I was never an EU person, and perhaps it added some kind of support that lent strength to the whole enterprise. I dunno.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I really enjoyed TLJ. I don't think it was quite as much a subversion of SW, as a revisionist take on SW, which I thought the franchise needed.

Were there plot holes? Sure. Were there more plot holes than ESB, which is my other fave? Nope. Do I gauge my enjoyment of a SW movie primarily by counting plot holes? Nope.

can I ask what were the particular things that stood out for you in it as quite interested? thanks

You can Google that and get examples. The entire battle of Hoth is a good place to start.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
I never expected them to be otherwise.

Again, did you watch the OT? By RotJ everything obi and yoda have said to him was at least misinformation.

They're also just plain wrong a lot. What would have happened to Leia -- and thereby the entire Rebel Alliance -- if Luke doesn't go to Bespin to get R2 on board the Falcon to fix the hyperdrive?

Leia is starlingly unimportant to the rebel alliance.
Had she perished on Bespin, ultimately someone else would have been assigned as flight crew to the shuttle Tyderium. This might have lead to Luke Skywalker staying at home, which might well have prevented Vader noticing the entire rebel striketeam turning up.
She does nothing further of concequence for the rebellion once aquiring the death star plans until Star Wars legends.

Leia could potentially give up a ridiculous amount of intel. Sure, she resisted in ANH, but that was apparently only one go at it before she escaped.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Leia is starlingly unimportant to the rebel alliance.

I always assumed her importance was money and connections, she was a princess from a world that Tarkin singles out as being significant.

 dogma wrote:
Indeed his seemingly wise statements about the dark side consuming the people who start down that path are proven wrong in RoTJ, which makes it doubly weird when he claims that Luke lost Ben. As of TLJ Yoda knows people can be pulled back from the dark side, his force ghost is standing right there next to Anakin's at the conclusion of the OT.

That's a good point, although it also - at least in my opinion - really calls into question the "happy ending" of RotJ. Vader's redemption was sacrificing himself in order to save his son from being murdered - or worse, being chained to the will of the Emperor, as he himself had been. But does this really earn him a place in "Jedi Heaven" alongside Obi-Wan and Yoda? Nowadays, we could tease apart the notion that being a Force Ghost is equivalent to achieving Jedi sainthood but it seems to me that was clearly the message of that shot in RotJ.

Consider for a moment, what if Anakin had survived the end of RotJ? Would he have suddenly been a completely reformed good guy? I really doubt it. Years of suffering, pain, and anger had twisted his psyche and personality. I think he would have remained a tyrannical bully just by default, at least for years to come. In which time, Luke would really have to face the truth of what Obi-Wan said: that Vader was indeed twisted and evil; that there are not two personalities, the good Anakin and the evil Vader. Rather there is just one person, someone who collapsed under admittedly severe moral and psychological pressures but ultimately willingly embraced evil, up to and including tortuing his own daughter (albeit unbeknownst to him) on at least two separate occasions. Recovering Dark Side Addict Darth Vader would not have just automatically transformed into a nice old grandpa. It would have taken years of hard work to give up and move past all that trauma and bloodlust.Maybe he would have never changed entirely.

As it stands, he made one noble choice after years of evil, terrible deeds and then, probably fortunately for everyone, died immediately. Well, not fortunately for Ben Solo, I guess, because I think Anakin's death and the fact that Luke didn't have to deal with his father for years to come as basically a recovering addict, skewed Luke's viewpoint to a more simplistic black/white approach that left him completely unprepared to deal with a student like Ben. Here is where TLJ could have made some realy headway with Luke, Ben, and even Rey: maybe while training Rey, Luke could begin to realize that just like how Yoda and Obi-Wan's view of Vader left no room of hope that Anakin might not be completely inhuman, so too did Luke's view of Ben preclude the notion, if only for a(n all-importnat) moment, that Ben needing training rather than murdering in his bed in the middle of the night.

I was 9 years old I think, when the first Star Wars film was released (before it was retroactively renamed A New Hope). I was swept up in the whole Star Wars mania, as were all of my friends. It was, I thought, the most amazing film ever made. There was never any expectation that there would be sequel. Sequels weren’t that big a thing back then, so when Empire was announced, we were all very excited and I ended up loving that too.

However, in the time between Empire and Return of the Jedi, I became a teenager. I was interested in music, discovered that girls weren’t icky after all and lost all interest in toys and kids movies. So, when Return of the Jedi was released, I didn’t go see it.

In fact I don’t think I watch RotJ until I was in my twenties, many years later, more out of curiosity. It was interesting to see how they had ended the story. I quite enjoyed it.

The prequels I went to see out of a sense of nostalgia for my childhood. I found them disappointing and they often made no sense. I mean, I was expected to believe that it was the good guys who were the ones using an army of clones, that were essentially slaves? The prequels even managed to make the original trilogy seem worse, by making some of it make no sense in the context of the 6 movies.

So my opinion of the sequel trilogy is basically, I don’t see the point of them. The story ended with RotJ in a pretty satisfying way. The prequels don’t feel like the next chapter, so much as a tribute act. They’re all the same things rehashed with worse characters and better effects. They dialogue isn’t as cringingly awful as Lucas’ could be, but there’s no spark somehow.

I watched TLJ and quite enjoyed it in places. Some of the visuals were fantastic, but the story felt weak. I don’t feel like it really went anywhere and I honestly don’t care what happens next.

I mean, Star Wars is ok. Just ok. I can watch a Star Wars film and not be bored, but if Disney announced they were pulling the plug tomorrow and there would never be another Star Wars film ... well, whatever. There are much more interesting films being made.

 gorgon wrote:
Leia could potentially give up a ridiculous amount of intel. Sure, she resisted in ANH, but that was apparently only one go at it before she escaped.

She also commands the evacuation of Echo Base, gets Han to stay around, participates in his rescue by dressing up as Boushh, strangles Jabba to death with a gold chain while wearing a gold bikini, and with C-3PO gets the Ewoks on the Rebels side.

Stages four and five fit this thread.

 Manchu wrote:

Consider for a moment, what if Anakin had survived the end of RotJ? Would he have suddenly been a completely reformed good guy? I really doubt it. Years of suffering, pain, and anger had twisted his psyche and personality. I think he would have remained a tyrannical bully just by default, at least for years to come. In which time, Luke would really have to face the truth of what Obi-Wan said: that Vader was indeed twisted and evil; that there are not two personalities, the good Anakin and the evil Vader. Rather there is just one person, someone who collapsed under admittedly severe moral and psychological pressures but ultimately willingly embraced evil, up to and including tortuing his own daughter (albeit unbeknownst to him) on at least two separate occasions. Recovering Dark Side Addict Darth Vader would not have just automatically transformed into a nice old grandpa. It would have taken years of hard work to give up and move past all that trauma and bloodlust.Maybe he would have never changed entirely.

A fair point, and to expand on it if Anakin survives he's almost certainly gotta go into a self-imposed exile because you know there's a bunch of people throughout the galaxy that want his blood; especially a lot of members of the Alliance. Most people aren't just going to take Luke at his word that Vader saved his life and offed Palpatine, and would probably take a suspicious view of the twins if it became widely known that Vader was their father. In fact if Vader doesn't die in RoTJ Luke probably wouldn't get any support for his attempt to refound the Jedi Order, it was a proximal cause of a galaxy wide war and brutal empire, and Leia probably doesn't become a major government figure.

 Manchu wrote:

As it stands, he made one noble choice after years of evil, terrible deeds and then, probably fortunately for everyone, died immediately. Well, not fortunately for Ben Solo, I guess, because I think Anakin's death and the fact that Luke didn't have to deal with his father for years to come as basically a recovering addict, skewed Luke's viewpoint to a more simplistic black/white approach that left him completely unprepared to deal with a student like Ben. Here is where TLJ could have made some realy headway with Luke, Ben, and even Rey: maybe while training Rey, Luke could begin to realize that just like how Yoda and Obi-Wan's view of Vader left no room of hope that Anakin might not be completely inhuman, so too did Luke's view of Ben preclude the notion, if only for a(n all-importnat) moment, that Ben needing training rather than murdering in his bed in the middle of the night.

By the time of TLJ Luke knows Ben not only killed all of his students, but his own father/Luke's best friend. I think that somewhat justifies Luke's belief that Ben is beyond redemption, those actions were a lot more personal than Vader's atrocities. But you're right, TLJ absolutely should have had Luke running with the Gray Jedi concept; it's already set up in the OT.

The issue is the Gray Jedi in the movie canon are just Jedi who do not answer to the council. Qui Gon Jinn was a Grey Jedi and to a much lesser extent Obi Wan was heading that way. The council was all "Don't train this kid" and Qui Gon was all "Yeah, thanks but no thanks, I am going to anyway" because he was Gray.

It's only in certain EU material that Grey Jedi refers to someone who trains in both the light and dark and tries to find a balance. And those sources are no longer valid.

and would probably take a suspicious view of the twins if it became widely known that Vader was their father.

This was how the novels actually explained why Leia fell from grace in the new republic.. First Order Plot that revealed that she was really Darth Vaders daughter.

 LunarSol wrote:

 dogma wrote:

At the very least Luke didn't ride around on Rey like a backpack while remarking "Hmmm, hmmm."

Are you sure about that?

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:

I didn't say his martial arts or his detective skills I said his intellect. His raw intelligence. Give me a reason why the only people on the planet more intelligent then him are meta humans with enhanced intelligence or have something wrong with them to make them smarter. And even THOSE people are less intelligent than him the vast majority of the time. Or, we could keep talking about starwars.

The issue here, for me, is that raw intelligence is not something I need to have explained. Some people are just born with intellectual gifts that dwarf the common man, it happens in the world and we have many great thinkers throughout history to prove it. I have no problem that Batman was born an extremely intelligent person who then worked himself up to master detective after years of studying and practising his craft. Rey's spontaneous proficiency with the Force is absolutely something that I need to have explained, because it runs so contrary to the established rules of the Star Wars universe. Luke was Force sensitive his entire life but that sensitivity manifested itself in very subtle ways, like being able to bullseye native life on Tatooine in his skyhopper. It wasn't until he actually started working at it with Obi-Wan that he was able to do anything that would qualify as space magic.

Rey? Completely throws all that out of the window. She not only resists but actually reverses a mind probe, beats Kylo Ren after she was thrown hard enough into a tree to be knocked out, flys the Falcon better than Han, etc. Sure, Luke manages to fly an X-wing, but he at least had some experience flying in his T-16. Rey is depicted as a homeless scavenger who scrounges parts all day just to get her next meal, when the flying feth would she possibly have learned to be a pilot? And a pilot that's that good? Everything about Rey just flies in the face of the Star Wars universe, which is a huge reason why I really dislike the sequel trilogy. It's fine if they want to make her powerful, but they need to make her earn it.

 Lance845 wrote:

It's only in certain EU material that Grey Jedi refers to someone who trains in both the light and dark and tries to find a balance. And those sources are no longer valid.

They were never cannon, but that doesn't mean they can't be inspiration. After all, Thrawn is now cannon.

 Thargrim wrote:

There is a part of me that thinks this actually should have happened in the movie, I mean the movie is already almost parody level at some moments... it is might as well embrace it 100%.

Daisy Ridley is only like 30 pounds lighter than Mark Hamill, the same height, and 40 years younger. I think she could manage it...maybe not with a front flip.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Sure, Luke manages to fly an X-wing, but he at least had some experience flying in his T-16.

The T-16 was also made by the same company, and Luke states they have similar controls.

One day, I’m going to start a thread in which we talk about how to ‘fix’ the plot of Star Wars from start to finish. And it’ll be highly...contentious and will probably be shut down asap. But good ideas will be had by all.

 Thargrim wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 dogma wrote:

At the very least Luke didn't ride around on Rey like a backpack while remarking "Hmmm, hmmm."

Are you sure about that?

Spoiler: