Hurin

Yep, a FAST Packed 1/48 is a thing of beauty. Especially with some aftermarket stickers/decals on 'em! Enjoy!

The answers you seek are in this thread. Complete with pictures and such. The trick is that the hatch that the head passes through can actually be pressed down further than flush, where it then snaps into couple of pegs. But the pictures in that thread explain it better than I can here. Congrats on the FAST Pack purchase! H

If you're more comfortable with "blue chick" and "conehead guy", we can do that. I can also refer to Vader as "black plastic man" and the Death Star as "big friggin laser ball" if it would help. Blaine, you know I love ya! And I'm as lost with these Jedi names as you are. But I'm sure you'll admit that that was freakin' funny!

I have no problem with other people's interpretations. Especially when stated with some degree of humility or uncertainty. And the degree of humility expressed should be directly proportional to how far into your ass you are reaching to pull out your theory while contradicting the artist's expressly stated intent. There's a big difference in saying: "I think Qui-Gon really marks the beginning of a new Order of Jedi that may reach culmination with Luke as a sort of disciple of the Living Force. Indeed, it may be the case that the Jedi needed to die along with the Sith in order to bring the Force into balance. And Luke, as a sort of hybrid may represent that balance." I've come up with a few hair-brained ideas in this thread, all espoused with a sense of "hey, this might be cool." For example: When I said that Palpatine might be 800 years old and the same Sith Lord that witnessed the fall of the Sith. But, of course if someone gave me a quote from Lucas stating that Palpatine was sixty-five, I'd friggin' drop it! Even if I was very, very sure that it made perfect sense. Contrast that with: There is no: "Here's the way I see it." Or: "Hey, have you considered this?" It's just: Here is the way it is. And that is immensely more irksome when it flies in the face of what Lucas himself has said and all sorts of "facts" are being pulled out of a certain nether-regions with no basis in the movies, scripts, interviews, or even film novelizations. If you're going to contradict the clearly stated view of the creator, you have to have something and be willing to back it up. Another prime example of Togo's humble style: This is essentially the way he states most of his opinions. And responses to counter-arguments are even more terse. This tone is just simply not respectful of dissenting views. So, in turn, he should expect no respect. So, you could argue that I don't respect his views. . . but actually, there is no higher form of respect in an argument than taking the opposing argument seriously enough to rigorously address it, as I have done repeatedly. Duke Togo rarely if ever returns that respect (with anyone, actually). Indeed, he pretends and asserts that counter-arguments simply don't exist or make no sense while ignoring inconvenient facts or his own logical errors when they are pointed out. Thanks to all who have given me the benefit of the doubt. I believe in firmly disagreeing without being disagreeable whenever possible. But in this thread, you're more likely to be dismissed as a nut-job fanboy than actually having your views fairly heards and analyzed. In this thread, you had to come in a little more ready to rumble because a lot of baggage was dragged in here from prior Star Wars threads. It's funny that someone should mention that I usually attempt to keep things civil since I think in this case I did become a little condescending and uncivil in tone towards the end. But, well, those who would receive respect must also give it. And towards the end, I began to lose patience with someone who doesn't seem to abide by any rules of dialog or debate. You guys have already covered the "artistic intent" stuff better than I could. But I'm still at a loss as to how people can still say that Lucas's will on this matter is still somehow totally unknown. I'm not even sure how Lucas could be more clear on it. And even if it is technically possible that he has changed his mind since those statements, there is absolutely no evidence that he has done so. It really just seems delusional. But we've been there, done that. And the facts speak for themselves. But, finally, if someone had said: "I know I can't prove this and Lucas has said otherwise, but I think it would be cool if the Prophecy meant this. . ." I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. I know I wouldn't have! H

Wow. . . it would be easier for you to just go back through the whole thread. But I have time today. So here you go: Hmmm, (1) you claimed that I "deny the existence of the prequels" (obiously false). (2) You then again said that I now may acknowledge Ep1, but I must not then acknowledge Ep2 and 3 (again, nonsense). But your point is that the pophecy's meaning changed after Episode I. (3) I then point out that it would be hard for Lucas to change his view on it because of some revelation between Ep1 and Ep3 because he's known the story (in general) for decades and in detail for years. (4) And I also pointed out that most of the foundation for your beliefs about the prophecy is based in Episode I (where Qui-Gon is most prevalent), and Lucas's most clear and decisive comment where he both says that only one side must die, and that the Sith are that side comes when he completes EpI in the Making of Episode I book. (5) I also point out to you that it is hard for the Prophecy to be about Anakin killing the Jedi as the Chosen One since he didn't kill all the Jedi, the Clone Troopers did it at the command of the Emperor. You ignored all these points. (6,7,8,9,10,11,12) I then posted a little chart with point after point. You ignored all these too and have not addressed a single one except (much later) to say that you find it easy to discount Lucas as recently as five years ago (which again, ignores my point that what he said five years ago was directly related to the foundation of your argument in Ep1). Hmmm, moving on, you then avoid things by making fun of me for not ignoring you. . . and then you inexplicably ask, as though it hadn't been answered five times already, how the Force can be in balance if the Jedi don't die. I answer this again (for the fifth time). . . and, Lo and behold, for the only time, you actually manage to muster an attempt at a response. . . which I quickly point out is full of contradictions (example: (13) You say there is a Dark Side and Light Side and that there is a will to the Dark Side that controls the Sith, and then you say there is no good or evil in the Force). (14) I also point out that your definition of a Sith is a bit off according to Sidious's own words and what we've always known. At this point, you post some quotes from Space.com, claiming that it supports your view. (15) But, when asked how it does so, you can't explain why and merely state that you stand by your argument. (16) But then, when you are pressed and post the full article, it turns out that the article actually refutes your view. (17) You then, wanting to avoid that reality, misquote me and try to make it sound like I haven't understood your point, then concede that I do. . . (and I always have). The rest is collectively made up of you simply stating: "I don't think that proves anything." Well, a ten minute, quick review shows at least 17 unanswered points. I'm sure there are more. So, if you want to go back through the thread now and address those points, I'd be thrilled. But I don't think you can. Because you didn't. But really, all that is fluff. This is the bottom line: Lucas's explanation works. It presents no problems and does not require a solution. It fully explains the arc of all six movies. You want more. You obviously want Qui-Gon to be more central to the arc and the Prophecy. So you're willing to twist things to see it that way and dismiss what Lucas has said. You can have it that way in your own mind. But it's not what Lucas believes because he has told us what he believes. And you have no evidence to the contrary from the movies or any interviews. Anything beyond that is fanboy speculation.

Dude. . . you're so f'ing hopeless that I can't stop laughing! How many times have you stated something in this thread only to have it rebutted or blow up in your face. . . and then you just move on to deny something else. . . only to have that backfire. Then you start quoting things and citing them as support, but you can't explain or even describe how they support you. And, in fact, they quite explicitly disavow your view. And every time any of this is pointed out to you, you just obfuscate and avoid. . . and move on to your next diversion. . . until you've got nowhere left to go but to say: "Yeah, I guess I'm pretty much pulling this out of my ass." But since you don't have the class to do that, you pull out: "I guess we'll never know." Lucas knows. And he's told us, repeatedly. You just refuse to believe it and point to things you've misinterpreted as evidence that he has "changed his mind." You can look to the EU if you want. But you don't need to. He's already explained it and that explanation is satisfactory if you don't already have a pet theory in mind. I'm done. For your sake, I hope you are too!

Well, you deceptively and selectively quoted me. Here is what I said: This accurately represents your view. You believe that Luke provides balance by his very nature as a Sith/Jedi hybrid after the death of the Emperor, Yoda, and Vader. Don't try to weasel out of it now. You see the establishing of balance as a multi-step process: First, the Jedi must die. Then when the Emperor dies along with Vader and Yoda, Luke and his new Jedi order represent balance.

Roll your eyes all you want, but its true. Should we start involving the so called "Dark Jedi" in this discussion? You can sit and read through not just what little we have said here, but the pages upon pages of discussions and articles elsewhere, and come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an ongoing debate. LOL. The reason this is an ongoing debate is because of one concept: Fanboys. Fanboys who get so into something that they actually believe they can do it better than its creator and won't accept when the creator disagrees with their own pet theories. I believe you've had something to say about how much you hate fanboys in the past. Well, look in the mirror buddy. You're now officially one of us. You claim that we can't know the truth. We can. . . because Lucas has told us. And you are just unwilling to accept it because you think you've discovered all these subtle meanings and details that simply aren't there or are there, but mean something entirely different. You've never really seemed to grasp that the burden of proof is on you in this situation because you are contradicting what Lucas has said and what actually already works as part of the series. You think you have come up with something better. Yet you have simply made up some of it (Luke's dual nature) and are merely asserting your opinion as fact for the rest. Tell me, as briefly as possible, what is it, specifically, about Lucas's stated view regarding the prophecy that doesn't work for you? Why does it need "improvement" by you and the other fanboys who won't accept his view? This all reminds me of another post where I was reading about this issue (you're not the only one): The irony that you (Mr. Anti-Fanboy) are the one engaging in all of this is just priceless!

Um, no its not. Where the hell did you get that from? This is you, is it not?

I don't see how this proves your argument. Your argument is that it is Luke that provides balance to the Force because he is a Jedi/Sith hybrid. And that both the Jedi and the Sith had to die before he could be the embodiment of that balance. The Venerable Mr. McDonald, on the other hand says that balance is restored when the Emperor dies at Vader's hands. He makes no mention of Luke at all. He states clearly that it is the act of killing the Emperor which restores balance. Anakin (not Luke) is the instrument of it. . . not your view of Luke's dual nature (which you've invented ex nihilo). You could say (if you wanted to be intellectually dishonest and downright weasely) that what he says doesn't explicitly rule out Luke's dual nature or the death of the Jedi in establishing balance. But, come on man! Look at the handwriting on the wall! I could just as easily say that I think Yoda had to have a third testical in order for the Force to be balanced, and McDonald's article doesn't rule that out either! But, Lucas does rule out all your other factors. Lucas has said that one or the other side had to go to put the Force back into balance. He said explicitly that the side that had to go was the Sith. And McDonald merely repeats it while expounding on the dual nature of Anakin. Yet, in some way you can't explain, you say this article supports your view when it quite obviously does the opposite. You're hilarious dude.

Do you even read your own posts? Or the articles you claim support your position? It now appears that I now have the venerable Paul F. McDonald on my side. Screw George Lucas! Who needs him! Check out the bold text in your own article. And seriously, man. Just stop. It's over. H

Didn't see your follow-up post before submitting. I'll be brief (since BSU Legato seems annoyed and we can't have that! It might "ruin" the thread!). Most of your view of the Prophecy is based on stuff in Episode I (Qui Gon's views on the "Living Force", etc.). Yet, you find it very easy to dismiss what Lucas said about the Prophecy in the Making of Episode I book. When Lucas wrote that, he was already well aware of all the things that you now cite as the basis for your view.

I've got George Lucas supporting his view of the Prophecy. You've got. . . Paul F. McDonald supporting yours? Well, I guess we'll call it a day then if that's all I'm going to get out of you. But I'd also like to point out that the venerable Paul F. McDonald doesn't say anything about the Prophecy and really doesn't support your view of its meaning. He merely waxes eloquent about the Force and expounds upon how Anakin needed to be a Sith before he could kill Palpatine. Nobody is arguing with that. Out, H

And you're basing this on. . . what? Where do the Jedi ever give you the impression that they don't care about the will of the Force? Again, you really seem to be in love with the idea that the Jedi deserved what happened to them. Yet you fail to take into account that it was Sidious himself that was trying to portray the Jedi as corrupt and deserving of annihilation. It's not that the Dark Side controls you. It's that you cannot let go of the power that it provides you. . . to control others and have your will be done through your use of the Force rather than doing the Force's will as its vessel. Only Anakin was strong enough to finally cast off the tempations and power granted to him by embracing the Dark Side. As for the Sith not using the Force to further their own agenda: I'm pretty sure that's actually the definition of a Sith or Dark Jedi. Doesn't Sidious himself say that the Jedi limit themselves, but the Sith allow themselves to use the Force for progress and power? I'd have to see the scene again (or read ahead in the book). But that's what I recall. Sidious tries to portray their perversion of the Force as something good and no different from the Jedi. But, this is Sidious talking, while trying to seduce Anakin. Your willingness to (yet again) buy into Sith Propoganda is a bit troubling! Again, this supposes that the Force actually has two wills. . . a Dark will and a Light will. Which, is just silly (according to what we've always been told). The Force is the Force. It has one will. One side attempts to understand it and follow it. The other side tries to bend the Force to its will. Thus throwing it out of balance. Yes, they are. Because Sidious has made them that way through his unbalancing the Force. There is a line where Mace Windu says that they need to inform the Senate that their use of the Force is now clouded (Is that Ep1 or Ep2). There's a lot of hero worship now of Gui Gon, and yes, he figured out how to merge with the Force. But I think the rest of that is over-stated. The concept of the "Living Force" is not new. It is in the OT just as much as the PT. Indeed, the understanding of there being only one Force and one will, I would think is central to understanding it. Yet it is there where you seem a bit "stuck." You're contradicting yourself now. How can there be a Light will and a Dark will if there is no good or bad? How can someone be "dominated" by the Dark Side once they embrace it, if there is no Dark or "bad" side? Again, contradicting yourself. How can I be stuck on the "non-living Force" because I'm so attached to the OT, if what they are teaching in the OT is the theology of the "Living Force?" In all sincerity, thank you for actually engaging a bit in the debate. But I must poit out that you are still leaving a lot of the prior questions above (and my rebuttals) unanswered. Such as: How can you ignore what Lucas has said on the matter? And, if you claim he wrote that before Episodes 2 and 3 and there were plot points that changed his mind, what possible "suprise" plot point came about that could change his mind considering that the events have been known for decades? How about how Anakin can be the instrument of the "prophecy" that you believe in, even though he didn't kill the Jedi? There's others of course, and those are short, poorly worded abbreviations of those questions asked above, but I'm already delighted that I got this much out of you. H

Exactly! I struggled with how to say this (because this has been stated in some of the film novels before. . . or it might have been in Zahn), but couldn't even come close to explaining it this well. Especially without losing focus and rambling on for another page or so. . . Thanks! H

Regarding how Anakin was conceived (Sith involvement?): There was some debate about this about 30 posts back with more details. H

I'm ignoring your claim that I'm denying the existence of the prequels. Because it's nonsense. The rest of it, I'm happy to address. I can't help it if you're unwilling to read and/or consider the explanation that has been posted several times. As usual, you give no indication that you have actually read, much less considered or understood, the counter-arguments to your boldy asserted "truths." Funny, there was a heated debate with someone essentially espousing your view over at the Original Trilogy Forums. But Uxi's explanation (which has been posted at leats four times here) answered the question you ask, and essentially ended the debate. The guy taking your side conceded that Uxi's explanation made more sense and (more importantly) jived better with what Lucas has said. But, of course, he had the advantage in that he actually appears to take the time to read what other people say. Rather than just spouting his theories and asserting that everyone else is wrong with no analysis or reasons given. One more time: The imbalance in the Force is not a question of quantity of Force users on either side. It is about how the Force is used. A Jedi serves as a vessel of the Force, he does not manipulate (whenever possible) to satisfy his own desires and needs, but instead tries to be guided by the Force itself. A Jedi, therefore, is a protector, or a conserver of the Force. A Sith, on the other hand, uses the Force for selfish reasons, and uses it without any concern for its will. A Sith or Dark Jedi uses the Force whenever possible, for his own needs and power, and is not concerned with conserving it or using it only when necessary. Or, as Uxi put it (much more succinctly): Now, I realize that you appear to be mesmerized by simple math: "Wow! 2 Jedi = 2 Sith! That must be the Prophecy's meaning!" But that's an awfully narrow view. And a stubborn one considering all the evidence (including Lucas's own words) amassed against it. Truthfully, at this point, I think you realize that you're obviously wrong. And, you're now just trying to provoke me into some tirade by making these types of posts without addressing any of the (many) arguments against your view and/or asking the same question even though it has been addressed already several times. Really, I don't think you're this dumb. But you do a really good job of faking it! H

For someone who is ignoring me, you sure are putting out alot of text in response to me. Care to add some substance to that? Or are you admitting that you're full of crap?

And we've had 2 movies come out since then. Just because you don't want to acknowledge these movies, doesn't mean they aren't real. Keep arguing against something I'm not saying (that the prequels don't exist), and we'll just keep on ignoring you. Especially since Lucas has repeated what he said several times since. Something you don't seem to understand. Lucas defined the prophecy and how it was fulfilled. He has repeated it. And he has never said anything to contradict it. Nothing in any of the prequels contradict it. And nothing about what he has said about it contradicts the OT either (which is friggin' why he did it that way!). But what he says does contradict your pet theory. So the burden of proof is therefore on you. If you really think your pet theory is the correct one, you need to demonstrate where the other one does not work or where Lucas contradicts it. Ya know, the more I write, the more I realize that you've got nothing to stand on. You're now arguing that his quotes represent his view of the Prophecy only at the time he made Ep1. Yet, he somehow realized during Ep2 or Ep3 that the prophecy means something else? But, what has changed? The answer is: Nothing. You base your pet theory on the Jedi being killed off by Anakin and Luke being some hybrid of Sith and Jedi (which is untrue, but for our purposes here, we'll indulge it). Are you saying that Lucas just became aware that Anakin will kill off the Jedi? Are you saying that he just became aware of how his own movie (Rotj) ended twenty years ago? The plot points that you use to come to your conclusion have been known to Lucas (and indeed, to us) for twenty-five years. So to argue that Lucas changed his mind about the prophecy between Episode 1 and Episode 2-3 based on these "revalations" is just plain lame. But, here's another point. Lucas never claimed that Vader himself killed off all the Jedi. And that's not the way it happened on screen. Rather, he has said that Vader "helped" the Emperor kill all the Jedi. And did some hunting down and mopping up later. So, if killing all the Jedi is what brings balance to the force by the end of Episode III, how is it that Anakin brings it about when it's actually the Clone Troopers doing all the killing? Anakin just goes to the temple and kills a bunch of kids. How is he the "Chosen One" in that scenario? You might as well call "Jango Fett" the "Chosen One" since it's his clones that kill off the Jedi, not Anakin. Just for fun, let's go through this piece by piece (I've got a server backup running this morning and have little better to do than run your pet little theory into the ground): Step right up for the Battle-Royale! In contention: George Lucas (w/ assist from Uxi in italics): One side needs to be destroyed in order to restore balance. That side is the Sith. Anakin restores balance to the Force by destroying Palpatine. The balance of the force has nothing to do with how many force users their are on either side, but the way in which they use the Force. The Jedi, being always mindful of the balance of the Force, need not die to bring the Force back into balance. Duke Togo's Oh-so-smart Theory (which just about everyone came up with and discarded as soon as they were presented with contrary evidence): Anakin restores balance to the force by killing all the Jedi except two. . . and thus balances things between the Sith and Jedi (he and Palpatine vs Yoda and Obi-Wan). Then, in Jedi, he would seem to destroy that balance by killing Palpatine, but because he also dies, he only leaves Luke who doesn't represent an imbalance because he is a hybrid between Jedi and Sith. Pro Togo Pet Theory It sounds cool and makes some amount of sense at first glance. Con Togo Pet Theory Lucas has directly contradicted it several times via interviews (this should really be all we need, and I could list each quote individually here for effect. But there' also common sense to consider. . .). The Jedi are demonstrated to be mindful of the balance of the Force. Anakin isn't actually the instrument of the vast majority of Jedi deaths in EpIII. Luke is not Sith/Jedi hybrid: Trained by old-school Jedi Luke is not Sith/Jedi hybrid: He clearly reject the Dark Side. "I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed your Highness." Luke is not Sith/Jedi hybrid: "I am a Jedi, like my father before me." Luke is not Sith/Jedi hybrid: The title of the final movie: Return of the Jedi I could go on. But I think everyone gets the point. Really, this whole theory that the Jedi had to die is just in keeping with this new view that they deserved it. I don't even think Lucas intended for us to think that way (though he did want to show us why they fell, because they had gotten a bit arrogant and complacent). Lucas obviously considers the Jedi to be the good guys. But we've got a whole generation of "root for the bad guys" types nowadays that he may not have considered. Nor did he consider the lengths they will go to in order to twist things to their view.

Source: And there he is again, that darn Lucas, ruining the pet theories of fanboys everywhere. Note that here, we have Lucas saying clearly that only one side is the cause of the imbalance (and needs to be destroyed, presumably). But, he also says that the side that needs to be destroyed is the Sith. Now, I don't mean to be harsh, but between this and the three or four other similar quotes directly from Lucas essentially saying the same thing, shouldn't the debate be over?

Okay, for like the fifth time. . . Or, in other words: A properly trained Jedi is mindful of keeping the Force in balance. He does not affect the balance of the Force. We're not talking about the number of Force users on each side, but how the Force is used. In other words, you're still wrong. The Jedi put the Force out of balance as well. No matter how much you don't want the Prequels to be real, they are. Duke Togo, Are you aware that I'm quoting George Lucas regarding the prequels? How am I pretending that they don't exist if I'm telling you what their creator said about the prequels, and the prophecy that is first mentioned therein? Or, in other words: Are you really unable to understand basic english or are you intentionally being this dense to annoy me? Either way, you're making no sense. H P.S. Don't look now, But you know those fanboys you can't stand who come up with their own views and pet theories about Star Wars and then angrily defend them even in the face of George Lucas directly contradicting them. Well, guess what, that's you. Fanboy.

Okay, for like the fifth time. . . Or, in other words: A properly trained Jedi is mindful of keeping the Force in balance. He does not affect the balance of the Force. We're not talking about the number of Force users on each side, but how the Force is used.

My friend and I just had a 30 minute conversation about Star Wars and a lot of the stuff that we've been discussing here. He came up with an interesting theory. The Sith lost control of the galaxy to the Jedi about 800 years prior to TPM (according to Lucas). Yoda was actually there to witness it, apparently. Anyways, the Sith Lord has been in hiding up until that time. But, wait. . . if a Sith uses the Force to augment themselves, and to rule, and their entire goal is to take control and govern with an iron fist with the Force as their instrument of authority. . . then is it really plausible that Sith Lords would be content to merely raise their apprentices, and bide their time waiting to be killed by their apprentices. . . thus keeping the Sith line of succession going until hundreds of years later when their time is right? I don't think so. A Sith is ultimately selfish and unwilling to just hide out, waiting to die so that their ancestors can then benefit. So. . . since the novel (as my friend confirmed) says flat-out that Plagueis was his master, and that he learned the secret of (at least) unnaturally prolonging life from him. . . is it not then possible that Palpatine has been the Sith Lord for hundreds of years. . . since the fall of the Sith? I think the novelization for RotJ alludes to the Emperor using the Force to prolong his life far beyond his normal life-span. Perhaps this was the "first draft" of this concept?

Don't forget Alan Quartermaine (Indian Jones knock-off).