Hurin

Awww crap. . . who let Quadrano639 back in!?!

So it's definitely the M. Falcon and not just another YT-1300 freighter? H

Reddsun1, Save us all time, and you a lot of curiosity, and just go see it. It's $5.50 for a matinee. I'm as old-school and conservative a Star Wars fan as they come. And I enjoyed it a lot. It does a lot to redeem the prequels in my eyes. . . even with the reservations towards their effect on the OT that I've expressed above. I think a lot of the fanatical "fan boys" who are so casually dismissed as being nuts are actually enjoying this movie because Lucas actually has gone back and addressed a lot of the criticizms against the prior two. Which sort of puts the lie to the claim that the fanboys will never be happy and are just in love with complaining while being blinded by nostalgia. By and large, they are happy with this latest movie. I think that's indicative of something.

Yes, I think it was their mistake to be too nice to him (by not sending him packing back to Tatooine). He resented their rules and restrictions even before he had any good reason to do so. He's complaining about Obi-Wan "holding him back" in AotC for no real good reason. He's always upset that he's not getting his due or is disciplined or put in his place (when he deserves it!). I especially remember that scene where Obi-Wan puts him in his place in front of Padme. The real mistake was Obi-Wan's, essentially forcing Anakin on the Council. Anakin was obviously too old to become a Jedi Knight given his predispositions. Indeed, he obviously never took the Jedi code seriously enough. . . as he saw no problem in taking a wife. And it was her attachment to her that eventually would lead to his own downfall and the end of the Republic. Wasn't there a poster that said (among other things): "A Jedi Shall Not Know Love." Well, I think we see why now. One could say that love destroyed the Republic. H

I'm not really sure that this is fair to the Jedi. As even Obi-Wan said in TPM: "The council sees that the boy is dangerous, why can't you see it?" I think the Jedi council really didn't know what to do with him. They sensed that he was dangerous, and that he couldn't be trusted. And the only way they could try to stop him from becoming dangerous was to trust him. . . which they could not do because he was dangerous. Catch-22. Well, Palpatine was never really being a true father figure, but just manipulating Anakin. He fooled Anakin into thinking of him as a father figure. But, in my interpretation, Palpatine sensed the same thing in Anakin that the council did, but saw it as an opportunity rather than something to be feared. From the Jedi Council's point of view, they were really sorta saddled with Anakin by Qui-Gon (and, later, Obi-Wan). To me, their mistake was giving into Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan and agreeing to train Anakin. They tried to make everyone happy by going with half-measures. They allowed him to be trained, but didn't embrace him fully because of the danger the sensed. They should have either sent him back to Tatooine (with enough money to buy his mother's freedom), or embraced him fully (which I'm not sure was possible given what they sensed in him). But that's not often the way things work in an imperfect world. Really, as it was in the OT, you could blame Obi-Wan. He essentially forced the Council's hand and blackmailed them into training Anakin. He said that if they didn't train him, Obi-Wan would do it himself, without the aid of the Jedi. In that situation, they probably felt it was better to at least keep him within the Jedi Order so that they (at best) could avoid what they feared was the boy's destiney, or (at worst) keep an eye on him. H

Of course he can. And, I know very few anti-prequel people who would argue otherwise. But that doesn't make him infallible. Do we not have the right to criticize what we might view as mistakes? Saying that he can do something is not the same as saying that it's a good idea. And noticing changes in tone, humor, target audience, and sensibilty, and wishing that he had taken more care to stay true to the spirit of the originals (even if he felt that limited him) doesn't mean we think that he didn't have the right to make them. And since I liked RotS, I'm glad he had the right to make it. Yep. But, let me just say this one more time as succinctly as possible: If you think that the Prequels changed the meaning of the OT, fine. No argument from me, as long as you understand that it is a change and that it wasn't always that way. If you think that the Prequels, being newer and coming directly from the mind of George Lucas somehow supercedes anything mentioned in the OT in any sort of debate, I disagree, but okay. I can't see a way to convince you otherwise. But, if you think that the meanings, themes, and/or nature of the OT has always been what the prequels dictate because Lucas always envisioned the prequels as what they eventually turned out to be on film, and has now merely revealed those (always intended) meanings to us after twenty years, that's where I start to get a little uppity. (the "you" used above is the generic you. Not directed at you personally) H

Well, I think it would be a real shame to lose the wonderful puppet-work of Empire. I mean, it's a friggin' puppet and it still looked and acted better than the Yoda from TPM. But, I've given up on hoping that Lucas will restrain himself. So I wouldn't be surprised if you got your way. Having said that, I just watched the end of the RotJ DVD. . . and I must say that the Hayden appearance isn't nearly as bad as I remember it being when I first saw it. I can almost get onboard with it now if he still just didn't look so out of place as a young whipper snapper next to Obi-Wan. H

Then what do you call the encampment of dead Tusken Raiders on Tatooine? Target practice? Granted, they had a hand in Shmi's death, but Anakin murdered them all (women and children included) just the same. Tuskens versus Dooku is the difference between white hot rage and passion taking over versus a good moment for premeditation and consideration. 2nd ("hot" blooded) versus 1st ("cold" blooded) degree murder. Murder is murder no matter how you try to define it. Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

Dude! You're ruining the thread! Stop it! In all seriousness though, good find. So really, the point here is: One way or another, Lucas is a liar.

Yeah dude, you should talk. I'm not the one calling names. I'm not the one claiming to be insulted as you did, Togo. I'm not the one who was warned to "take it down a notch or two." Though, out of fairness, having said that, I probably will be now. Apparently, disagreement that you can't dismantle through petty insults = ruined thread. Seriously people, stop being a bunch of babies. Whenever a couple of people stridently disagree and write more than a few paragraphs, you all start the "Stop being mean! We're only about hugs and love around here!" BS. I really don't see what the big deal is. We're discussing Star Wars. In fact, our discussion is related to the "balance of the force" issue. If I'm not mistaken, that's what the thread is for. . . if you don't like the exact details of this particular debate, move on to parts that you do like. Nobody's stopping you from doing what you want to do, reading what you want to read, and writing what you want to write. Grow up. P.S. Judging by the three posts since you wrote that are freely discussing the movie without any reference to my debate with Mr. March, the thread is hardly ruined.

I'm really at a loss here. You're actually saying that his current words have no validity, even when he is directly addressing the very rumors that he had "plans" for nine films? I'm sorry, but that's sorta. . . odd. You yourself seem only to come up with quotes where he says that there is enough material in his imagination for 9-12 films. That is not the same as saying that he was planning on 9-12 films. Or that he developed the latter ones any farther than musings. Yes, it is true that we used to think of Star Wars as nine parts. And now Lucas is directly addressing that and saying that this was a myth that he himself helped to perpetuate, and that he never planned for nine films. And you consider that irrelevant. The creator of the friggin' films is telling you flat out that there have been mistaken impressions, that he allowed them to go on, and even played into them, while correcting the record about "what Star Wars was in 1977." I'm seriously just at a loss to explain why I must only take into account what he said back then (especially since what you've found isn't definitive) and not take into account his retraction and explanation regarding the very things you say should be the only things I can take into account! What Lucas has to say today, especially when he's openly and directly addressing exactly what he said before (upon which your argument hangs), why he said it, and how he feels a bit remorseful about it, is very relevant. Ignoring it or claiming it is irrelevant seems awfully convenient. Re-reading your post (because I'm sure I must be missing something), I'm not sure, but I think you're saying that my knowledge of there being nine films affected my understanding of what Star Wars was. . . and that this new revelation regarding whether he ever really planned around nine can't possibly have changed what I knew about them back then or what they meant. But, all I can say to that is: The meaning of the three movies wasn't changed much by knowledge back then that there were a possible six other films. The movies said what they said, and meant what they meant. And at that point we didn't know the focus of the prequels or sequels. We certainly had no inkling (and I would argue, neither did Lucas) about Padme, Qui-Gonn, or that the prequels would even center around Vader as much as they did. The meaning of the films can only be changed when the other three or six films are created and released. And since that happened twenty years later, things are more problematic. My only point in this has been that people can't look at the prequels and say to themselves: "That's what Lucas had in mind all along and the OT should be viewed retroactively in that light because Lucas knew all this even when he made them twenty years ago."

If you would please explain how I'm not being consistent or my standards are changing, I'd appreciate it. I'm not even sure what you mean here. First, he is saying now, unequivocally, that he never intended to make the latter episodes. And he even comes clean about letting the press think that he did and even encouraging the myth as it grew. From here: I would be thrilled if you could find me a quote of Lucas himself saying: "I originally planned on nine films." Though, really, I'm not sure what that would prove other than he. . . well. . . once planned to do nine films. I merely brought up the nine films myth because it shows just how nebulous this whole idea was that he has some wonderful notebook in which the history of a Galaxy Far Far Away is written, and he merely consults that when he creates his films. What the heck are you talking about? I never said that he never intended to make any other movies beyond original trilogy. I fully believe that he had a vision of what took place before the OT, since he dreamt up the world in which it took place. I just don't believe in the "notebook" myth that all six (or nine) were written at the same time and are now coming out on film untouched by the years or Lucas's changing worldview(s). Which bring us to. . . And I would appreciate it if you calmed down and stopped acting like all this offends you personally. Also, kindly explain how I'm "playing spin." Yes, that's what the trilogy is about now. And if you recognize that this retroactively changes what the OT originally meant, that's fine. And we can debate whether it is a good or a bad change. But what troubles me are the people who come up with odd ways of looking at things such as the "balance prophecy." When they are given one interpretation that still fully fits with all six films but instead choose one that really contradicts the OT and merely assert that the prequels supercede the OT. . . that's where problems arise. At that point, someone is essentially saying: "I don't have to take the interpretation that fits into all six movies because the newer movies are the newer, better, final views of the author that supercede what he did before because he is now simply revealing to us what the OT was supposed to mean all along. It's not that the themes or meaning of the OT have changed, it's just that we understand them better now because he's finally revealed the whole story to us." I find that outlook problematic because it buys into the idea that the notebook myth is real, and that the OT never really meant what it said. We were just ignorant all along for the last twenty years as to its true intentions, themes, and meanings. I don't believe, when Lucas wrote The Return of the Jedi that he then intended to portray the Jedi as essentially unsympathetic (and I'm not even sure now that he intended to do so in the prequels, but the prequels have had that effect). I don't think, when the Empire was ended and Palpatine killed, that he intended for us to believe that this was actually a restoring of "balance" to the force. I don't think, when he introduced Luke in ANH that he intended Luke to be only a tool for furthering the story of Luke's father. I think that the always wanted ot flesh out the "back story" more through films. But that "back story", in my view, would have been dramatically different had he written it twenty years ago. If someone understands all this, great. But saying that the OT always meant this in Lucas's mind and we're now just finally getting a true understanding of his grand vision is. . . again. . . problematic. And, Mr. March, you come perilously close to explicitly stating this when you say: "The story of Star Wars hasn't changed, only the amount of information we are given has altered in the past 20 years." Uh. . . okay. Late Edit: Re-reading your posts to find some common ground (because I think we're actually misunderstanding each other quite a bit), I was struck by this: You keep referring to "sequels". . . but normally sequels take place chronologically later than the original in the fictional timeline. As such, they really don't have as much impact on the original as a prequel, which is what we are discussing. And, in prior non-SW "prequels", care is usually taken to make it entirely episodic so that it doesn't change or spoil the first movie which it fictionally preceds (think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, though I've always wondered why Indy would claim he's not superstitous in Raiders after seeing all that crazy sh*t go down!). These prequels have a much greater impact on the OT than the average sequel would in any other given movie series. And therefore, I don't think you can use the same sequels change things, that's what they do, perspective so easily. I think intepreting prequels demands that you give the original movies just as much respect and authoratativeness as the new ones. Or, to put it another way, we have to be careful in interpreting them. Some might argue we need to be more careful in interpreting them than Lucas was in writing them.

The "nine episodes" angle is a myth, and Lucas himself has said so: And this really validates a lot of what the more realistic people out there have thought all along. Lucas never had all "nine" (or even six) episodes written down as even fully developed outlines with characters. Heck, it's pretty friggin' obvious that Leia wasn't even Luke's sister when ANH was shot. The guy was flying by the seat of his pants back then (and well, I might add) and just liked perpetuating the myth that he had it all figured out ahead of time. And, if you believe that there were nine episodes. . . how can Star Wars then be about Vader's birth, rise, fall, and redemption if he's dead for the last three films? You are aware that it was originally just "Star Wars" and they actually changed the name and the opening crawl to add "Episode IV" to it after it was successful and sequels became inevitable. Right? Actually, Star Wars was the story of a Galactive Civil War and principally about the heros of that war (Luke, Han, Leia). . . until Lucas decided to change the focus and make it all about Anakin. Now, he can do that if he wants. But we have the right to bemoan it too. I don't think he's duping anyone. He's altered things openly. I just think people are duping themselves if they think that what we're getting now is what he "always envisioned." If you really think that Lucas had the plots and details of the prequels (and even the mythical episodes 7-9) written down and fleshed out, and that these new films represent his complete and full vision of Star Wars as he originally had it, I can't help you. Yes, it's a pity that he waited twenty years to complete it, and thus there are such dramatic, and jarring discontinuities in tone and meaning between them then, isn't it? Or do you really think that this is how he envisioned it as he wrapped up filming on the original movie in 1977, or even RotJ? H

I thought about re-reading the RotJ novelizatoin for the first time in about ten years. But does it really hold up after RotS? I remember a lot of explicit introspection with Vader. Is any of that contradicted by Sith or what we now know about him? Or, is it left painfully vague now that we know how much detail it could have had? Part of me wishes they'd bring the original author of the novel back to work some of the threads from the prequel into the novel. He did such a good job on it originally. But that would really represent more futzing with stuff in a manner that I usually dislike! Best part of the novel: As Luke is leaning over Vader with Vader's helmet off, Vader sorta drifts off into a daydream of warm sunshine, flowers, all the things he denied himself. . . and then feels spring rain on his lips. . . but it's salty. He opens his eyes and sees Luke quietly crying over his father, and he is ashamed and momentarily horrified at the thought of what Luke must be seeing. But then, he reaches up, and gently pinches Luke's arm, saying gently: "Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter." I wish it had made it into the film. B

You do realize three Star Wars movies have come out since RotJ, right? Yes, and as I've said, the ending of Jedi meant something very distinct 20 years ago. And you have to be pretty guillable to believe that Lucas had this "restoring balance to the force" in mind when he wrote RotJ back then. You obviously don't think anything is problematic about changing the meaning of the ending of a film (or, indeed, an entire trilogy of films) twenty years after the fact. But, then again, you don't see anything problematic with anything Star Wars related. To do so might make you a "Fan Boy". . . you'd rather just sit in your chair and uncritically drool over whatever Lucas has decided his films are saying this week. At least try to grasp the basic point I'm trying to make before baiting me again. Your baiting would be much more effective if you would put a minimal amount of effort into it. Edit: Uxi's well thought-out and documented (via film novelizations, etc.) interpretation of the prophecy retains the meaning of RotJ from twenty years ago. Your "Luke isn't really Jedi but a mix of Sith and Jedi, thus restoring balance" interpretation really contradicts a lot, including, oh, I don't know, the first three movies and even the freakin' title of the last OT one ("Return of the Jedi). I think everyone would agree (except maybe you) that Lucas shouldn't directly contradict the original films when making sequels (or in the case, prequels). With Uxi's interpretation, Lucas doesn't contradict them. In yours, he does. So I'm going with Uxi's.

You've always felt this way? Or you've felt this way since TPM when the prophecy regarding balance was first mentioned and the end of RotJ was changed from "Luke ends the Empire and the Jedi return when Vader kills the evil Emperor" to "Balance is restored to the force." I like Uxi's explanation as it retains the original meaning to the end of the RotJ. That was a fantastic post, Uxi!

Uh, I may be wrong, but I think it takes place between III and IV. H

There's been some talk here about Luke becoming a disciple of the living force instead of either a Jedi or Sith. Thereby restoring balance to the force. Yet, I'm not sure that Luke sees it that way based on what he says at the end of Jedi. "You've failed your highness. I am a Jedi. Like my father before me." He clearly identifies himself with the Jedi. Trained by Yoda and Obi-Wan. . . old-school Jedi. It seems clear that back then, the Jedi were good. The Sith bad, and there was no middle-ground to be had. The title of the episode (RotJ) is also a hint regarding who is the good side, and how Luke is to be identified. But, then, of course, you have to take into account Lucas's own views and how they may have changed over the past two decades. I really don't think he envisioned all these "shades of grey" in the force when he wrote the OT. He wrote the OT with a clearly defined good and bad side. Along with a light and dark side to the force. These newer movies reflect his more "nuanced" views as an older man. And thus introduces concepts that don't fit in as well with the "less nuanced" OT. H Late Edit: Okay, I didn't explain that well. Let me try again: OT: Good and evil are clearly defined. The Emperor is pure evil with no valid "point of view." Vader is evil too, but redeems himself when he kills the Emperor. Luke is the good guy and represents the "Return of the Jedi" which are unquestionably the good guys and an ancient order of heros that were tragically and treasonously assasinated. New: Nobody is fully good and nobody is fully evil. Even the Emperor has his point of view and it seems that the Jedi may have in fact deserved it. Instead of Vader killing the Emperor and Luke restoring the Jedi Order, Vader is instead fulfilling a prophecy about "balance" and actually taking part in destroying both Jedi and Sith. It is good that the Jedi are dead and Luke doesn't represent the "return" of them. Despite what the movie title says. Now, that latter one may be the new, and valid way that Lucas looks at it. It may be his intended vision. But I think a person would have to be pretty guillable to believe that this is all what was being portrayed in RotJ twenty years ago. And, just on principle, I think it's pretty messy to go back and drastically change the entire meaning of a movie's conclusion retroactively.

Actually, my favorite part of the Battle of Hoth is that the Rebel soldiers aren't even trying to "repel" the invasion. Rather, they're bravely sacrificing themselves to buy time for the evacuation. They all hold their ground until Leia gives the order to sound the retreat, and only then do they run for the transports themselves, while getting slaughtered by Imperial walkers. It's the selfless sacrifice that makes that battle so cool.

Why do you come here, Hurin? To NOT discuss Macross? Ohhh, we are discussing a plot point! That makes us geeks! No more discussing Star Wars, folks! Only geeks do that! We must post this in the Macross section, so all non-geeks know not to discuss anything about Macross. So tell us, Hurin, what can us non-geeks discuss? Maybe we need a world affairs forum, or maybe a sports forum on MacrossWorld. Maybe a forum dedicated to cars, and another for hot women. How about a hardware forum? Manly, non-geek stuff. You don't get it do you? We're all geeks here. We're fans of a twenty year old anime who still buy toys well into adulthood. We're all at least reasonably knowledgable about Star Wars and we're here discussing it. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that makes you at least somewhat geeky. It's actually you who is calling other geeks. And psychotic, delusional geeks at that. My only point is that it's largely hypocritical to do so. And you tend to do so because it (first and foremost) makes you feel superior, and (also important) allows you to dismiss a differing point of view without even needing to engage it. We all have geeky tendencies here. Let's be very clear here: You boldly posted an opinion as immutable fact, and challenged anyone to question it. Then essentially said that anyone who might do so must be an idiot. Then, when I took up the challenge, you simply called me a delusional nerd. . . as usual. I guess that's just the way you operate.

For the life of me, I don't know what you guys are talking about here. I had read about how bad the clone troopers looked with their helmets off, so I was actually looking for it. . . and they all looked fine to me.

Sure there is, but you aren't fooling me into believing that you can see some "gray area" here. You can't have an open discussion with Prequel Hater/Raped Childhood fans. They've entered into the same twisted reality inhabited by women who show up for jury duty dressed up as a Federation officer and people who get married with the vows in Klingon. Its a movie, its not real! Again, anyone who disagrees with you or dislikes the new movies is a somewhat psychotic, delusional nerd who is beneath contempt. But, then again, I've already addressed this rather hypocritical, myopic, and essentially untenable position here, I won't sully this thread with it. Especially since you've spent all day making statement like this and then never really addressing any substantive criticizm of them. I'll just leave you to discuss the nature of the force and how it can be restored to balance. Because, after all, you're not a geek. And that's what non-geeks do.

That sounds like a job for Hurin! So, no room here for degrees? Just more of the intellectually lazy, undiscerning "they're all the same" stuff? It's not even possible that, while the dialog in the original trilogy was clunky, the latter movies might be even worse? That's just an untenable position to you unworthy of debate? It's just a "myth" whose proponents are beneath contempt and merely demonstrate their ignorance of Harrison Ford quotes? Yes, he said that (though he probably said "write"). But, tell me, have you spoken with Harrison Ford about the dialogue in the newer films? Do you know for a fact that he doesn't consider the later dialogue even worse? In case it's not clear, I'm pointing out that the Harrison Ford quote is pointless and irrelevant. Nobody claims that the original trilogy was a treasure trove of poetic dialog. But the original trilogy's sometimes stilted dialogue doesn't (in any way) excuse even worse dialog (written by Lucas without the coaching and interference by more talented writers) in the prequels. Boldy, dogmatically asserting that the dialog in the prequels is no worse than the dialog in the original trilogy because Harrison Ford said so twenty years before the prequels were made. . . isn't exactly persuasive. In fact, it's downright irrelevant. So, if you don't mind, I'll just keep going on believing the "myth" that the dialog in the prequels is (to some degree) more stilted and awkward than it was in the original trilogy, regardless of what Han Solo had to say about it a few decades ago. H P.S. I liked Revenge of the Sith, so I'm staying out of the rest of this stuff.

Okay Togo. I want you to really, really consider this: A lot of Star Wars fans don't feel they are "owed" anything. They just simply don't like the first two prequels. Is that just not possible in your world? Do they have to be "Fan Boys" to think the way they do? Is that the only possible way they can disagree with you? If I think Lucas changed his cinematic sensibility and dramatically changed the tone of his later films, do I have to be some over-zealous fan to think that? This idea that nobody can dislike the new movies legitimately and that all dislike of them must be rooted in nerdy fan-boy-ness is just. . . well. . . sad. Especially because --as I've said before and as is becoming more and more apparent the more I see the (ostensibly less fanatical) "prequel defenders" post-- you guys are just as knowledgable (if not moreso) about Star Wars than the Fan Boys you decry. You're just as big a fans (if not moreso). But somehow, you latched onto this "anti-fan" line of argument as a "catch-all" argument against anyone who dares to criticize, no matter how legitimately. You guys need to just stop pretending that you're "above it all" and somehow superior to the fans with which you disagree. Growing up and getting a life to Togo = Debating (at length)what "Restoring balance to the force" means. Not being grown up and having no life = Debating whether Lucas has lost his touch. That's a really interesting way of looking at things. Face it. Even though you like to pretend to be somehow superior, you're a Star Wars fan just like the rest of us. Just a less discerning one. I will say this though. Anyone who hated RotS was probably going in there wanting to hate it. It was, by and large, a good Star Wars movie. H

I would never defend that phrase. It's silly and (like calling someone a fan boy and/or dismissing them as being some type of "bad fan") serves as a ploy to avoid actually making a cogen argument. However, I did point out that the phrase is not insulting or offensive. It's just stupid. It's coolio. Thanks man. I always appreciate what you have to say, even when I disagree.