|
I, for one, would be perfectly happy with any cast member of BSG being in Star Wars.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Tupac faked his death so he wouldn't have to be in the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
More specifically, the AT-AT should be taken in the same metaphorical breath as the tank in The Last Crusade. Skywalker even stands in position of the grail, as the heretical child of christ and forbidden knowledge of god.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
It should also be pointed out that Lucas was intentionally drawing parallels between the Empire and the USA and the rebels and the Vietcong. In that light it works to have huge, lumbering, over-engineered terrorwalkers undone by transport speeders and tow cables. Lucas was also heavily involved in the early production of Apocalypse Now, and was originally supposed to direct it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:It should also be pointed out that Lucas was intentionally drawing parallels between the Empire and the USA and the rebels and the Vietcong. In that light it works to have huge, lumbering, over-engineered terrorwalkers undone by transport speeders and tow cables. Lucas was also heavily involved in the early production of Apocalypse Now, and was originally supposed to direct it. Suuuuuch an important aspect of those films. A big part of the appeal of Star Wars back in '77 was that "we" got the be the underdogs again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Tupac faked his death so he wouldn't have to be in the prequels. Tupac actually died so he wouldn't have to be in the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Tupac will now appear as a force ghost in the Return of the Jedi 4K Blu-Ray cut.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Finally a change I can appreciate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
It's also important that the ATATs only appear on Hoth, at the very beginning of the film. The entire Hoth section establishes Luke's disenchantment with his role as hero: when Dak talks about his enthusiasm for fighting the empire, Luke's "I know what you mean" is weary. The subtext in Hamill's performance is "I remember how that felt...." This, along with the blurring of sides (Vader employs rebel tactics, while the rebels employ an 'ion cannon' that resembles a miniature death star), sets up what it means to 'turn to the dark side' - the way Yoda understands it. Luke - and the rebellion - could easily end up totalitarian, falling from 'the light side' in their pursuit of real victory. However: what's implicit in Empire, and made explicit in the prequels, is that Yoda isn't actually on the light side. Vader is actually far closer to the light, being a capital-E Evil figure, at odds with the establishment. Vader, unlike the Emperor's other lackeys, is genuinely fighting for freedom - on the very cusp of fulfilling his role as the galaxy's Christ. (And, as noted earlier, the true, authentic light side is the Holy Spirit - the community of believers - directly opposed to Yoda's new-agey pacifism.) The only thing holding him back is his subservience to the emperor. The ATATs, with their spectacular display of power (and their straight-ahead, monocular approach), are of the same logic as the Death Star - the sort of standard 'technological terror' that Vader rejects. Recall that the one dude is killed, by Vader, for attempting a similar sort of shock-and-awe tactic instead of lurking among the asteroids. Luke is fed up with these ATATs for the roughly the same reasons. And so: Luke's ultimate goal, unbeknownst to him, is to reunite with his father and defeat the Emperor. That's a goal that Vader shares, and it defies both the Emperor and Yoda. That's where the light side is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Are you saying Vader always intended to crush the emperor as a goal? The final fight scene of ROTJ has him look back and forth between Luke and the emperor, clearly conflicted with what's right. Otherwise yeah I get the idea Vader brings balance back to the force through sacrificing his life, dying for our sins or whatever. I guess we'll see how that all works out in the new trilogy. Edit: the PT makes it clear that Yoda represents the Jedi order but not necessarily the light side. Though the order may consider themselves the light side they're regularly portrayed doing things that strike as short sighted, status quo, or illegal. Donovan Trip fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Squallege posted:Tupac will now appear as a force ghost in the Return of the Jedi 4K Blu-Ray cut. Pretty much https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAEnvzcUEGI
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Are you saying Vader always intended to crush the emperor as a goal? The final fight scene of ROTJ has him look back and forth between Luke and the emperor, clearly conflicted with what's right. Vader seems to be rather ambivalent about the Emperor. In the original version of Empire Strikes Back, before the Special Edition dialogue changes, Vader has been hunting Luke long before the Emperor steps in to specifically command it - and is the one who suggests recruiting Luke rather than just killing him. Vader does see the Emperor as an ally, but in more of a 'means to an end' sort of way. When he talks about ruling the galaxy as father and son, Vader doesn't mention the Emperor at all. That's not to say that he's deliberately scheming to overthrow him - moreso that he's indifferent. The goal of recruiting Luke doesn't conflict with the Emperor's "shitloads of power!" agenda, so there's no need for conflict. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. As gone over earlier, the Emperor is totally amoral, where Vader is fighting for authentic freedom and justice. Luke himself is not "just" Luke Skywalker, but a leader who stands for the people. As Luke goes, so do they. That - more than the personal relationship - is why Vader wants Luke on his side. Vader actually does want to help people. So, at the end of Return of the Jedi, Vader is conflicted not because he loves evil, but because he's worried what will happen without the power to enforce the peace. And he's rightfully worried, since the rebels may simply restore the Republic - looping everything back to Episode 1 again, solving nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure if the freedom Vader desires is authentic for anyone but himself. In neither the original trilogy nor the prequels does he demonstrate a particular aversion to the wholesale slaughter of innocents, the threat of which is meant to be the cornerstone of the Emperor's tyranny. Does he condone the exemplary destruction of Alderaan because he's a slave to the Emperor, who says Tarkin outranks him, or does he truly believe that order based on the threat of mass destruction is preferable to impotent Republican decadence and misrule by complacent and hypocritical mystics? It all depends on what he meant when he said "I must obey my master." Vader's intentions in The Empire Strikes Back are, in their own twisted way, benevolent: he intends to save Luke from becoming a Jedi, who, of course, are evil from his point of view. In Return of the Jedi, Luke offers him the same deal - alliance - and he refuses, feeding him a line of Sith dogma that any Jedi he knew would accept, and, of course, Luke replies by declaring him dead just as Obi-Wan did. Anakin brings his son before the Emperor, hoping his master will enlighten ("endarken"?) the boy in the same way. Only when he sees that what Luke means by "Jedi" is the opposite of what Yoda, Mace, and Obi-Wan thought does he realize that there's hope for the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
I think Vader's antipathy for the Emperor is real. He's clearly subjugated by him (what with the kneeling at all) which is something we know Anakin has never been about and entered into (the first time he kneels is in Episode 3) under duress. Vader is clearly unhappy in his current situation; witness his insecurity about his appearance in Empire and the line "it is too late for me" in Return. (And of course NOOOOOO in Revenge.) He's had to have figured out Palpatine's maneuvers in 1-3 during all that time working for the man and known that he was manipulated into betraying his friends, no matter how necessary that betrayal felt at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
"Why is he doing this?" Leia asks of Han's torture. Anakin is very explicit about the exact reason for everything Darth Vader does: because "From [his] point of view, the Jedi are evil." He hates evil. He is evil, of course, and he hates himself, but that just makes it easier for him to endure his enslavement. He'll risk any stain on his soul, any loss of life and limb, to prevent his enemies from corrupting of the living legacy of Padme, and in fact he visits his wrath upon his subordinates whose indiscriminate use of technological terror scares Luke away. Only when he sees that Luke is incorruptible, that the Force is in balance in him, that the fulfillment of his own destiny is writhing in pain on the floor moments from death, does he develop the will to overthrow the monster who made him a monster. Edit: Does he choke that dude in the Death Star's boardroom because he doubts the Force, or because he calls Vader a Jedi? ("Your sad devotion to that ancient religion...") Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's also important that the ATATs only appear on Hoth You're mostly right, and entirely right for Empire Strikes Back, and this doesn't disprove the point you were trying to make or anything, but...  ...from Return of the Jedi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Han's torture I find it hilarious that Vader gets close to Han's face to watch the torture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:You're mostly right, and entirely right for Empire Strikes Back, and this doesn't disprove the point you were trying to make or anything, but... They're AT-ST's
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:They're AT-ST's No, there is an AT-AT at the landing area when Luke turns himself in. You're looking right at it. The AT-STs are the little chicken walkers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
reagan posted:No, there is an AT-AT at the landing area when Luke turns himself in. You're looking right at it. The AT-STs are the little chicken walkers. Welp, I tried
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
I remember definitely getting the idea that Vader wanted to bump off the Emperor and rule alongside Luke the last time I saw Empire. The fact that he'd apparently been looking for Luke all along, comments he made to his underlings and the Emperor along the way, the basically defensive way he prosecuted the final duel...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I remember definitely getting the idea that Vader wanted to bump off the Emperor and rule alongside Luke the last time I saw Empire. The fact that he'd apparently been looking for Luke all along, comments he made to his underlings and the Emperor along the way, the basically defensive way he prosecuted the final duel... The way he says "Join me, and we can rule the galaxy together as father and son"... Unless you're talking specifically about ESB, then whatever
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:You're mostly right, and entirely right for Empire Strikes Back, and this doesn't disprove the point you were trying to make or anything, but... I think SMG is talking about AT-ATs for the sake of the theme he had explained within the single film. You don't see AT-ATs elsewhere in TESB.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
edit: forget it, I'm not getting in a fight over star wars.
Rando fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Succumb to your desires.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Red posted:I think SMG is talking about AT-ATs for the sake of the theme he had explained within the single film. You don't see AT-ATs elsewhere in TESB. It seems like he often includes some specific detail in his reading that turns out to be wrong, but when that's pointed out he's always got a way of explaining why it wasn't really all that relevant to his point anyway. I know its at least happened one other time. See: the Lucky Number Slevin thread from a while back Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's also important that the ATATs only appear on Hoth, at the very beginning of the film. This isn't an inaccurate detail though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It seems like he often includes some specific detail in his reading that turns out to be wrong, but when that's pointed out he's always got a way of explaining why it wasn't really all that relevant to his point anyway. I know its at least happened one other time. You've actually missed the point. I was saying that the ATATs are not a recurring enemy in the plot - unlike the Death Star, the plot does not center around the grave threat posed by ATATs, and how the rebels must unite to stop them. That one appears in the background of a single shot in one scene of a later film is wholly irrelevant to the point. ATATs are Imperial status quo, which Vader is breaking from by employing controversial new tactics in his 'obsessive' pursuit of Luke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You've actually missed the point. I was saying that the ATATs are not a recurring enemy in the plot - unlike the Death Star, the plot does not center around the grave threat posed by ATATs, and how the rebels must unite to stop them. I just think its a problem that will inevitably come up when you try to write complex readings of films you actually haven't watched recently. If I was going to bring ATATs into a discussion about the themes of Star Wars, I'd make sure I re-watched the movies first so that I had a good working knowledge of where and how ATATs are used in the films. I find it hard to believe that you have an encyclopedic knowledge of when this ship or that gun is used in Star Wars(because nobody should), yet you didn't hesitate to tell us how important a detail it is that ATATs only ever appear once. That turned out to not be correct, but you can't just say you remembered wrong, no it was actually not relevant to your point all along. I'm just saying I'm noticing a pattern here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Holy poo poo AT ATs are only on HOTH in ESB.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:That turned out to not be correct, but you can't just say you remembered wrong, no it was actually not relevant to your point all along. I'm just saying I'm noticing a pattern here. Dude, it's clear what he meant and even the guy who posted the picture said "this doesn't disprove your point". He doesn't need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the films in order to point out that there is a key fight at the beginning of Empire where they fight huge, domineering war machines and then halfway through the movie Vader kills a dude who tries to use the same overbearing tactics and then by the end Vader is using infiltration and subterfuge to capture Luke. Saying "Gotcha! It turns out there was a brief shot of the same war machine for 5 seconds in the next film!" doesn't disprove this or support your creepy "pattern" of SMG's posts. I mean there was a different director for Empire and Return for christ's sake, why would some detail that one director threw in invalidate a theme that a separate guy established in his movie 3 years beforehand?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Well to be honest I do still remember that Slevin thread and really thought he was a dick in there, so I was quick to jump on this one. If remembering that thread from a few months ago is creepy then I guess I'm guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
It's pretty easy to read the AT-AT is ROTJ in the "AT-AT = Traditional Empire" narrative because from the moment the Emperor arrives on the Death Star it's his show, Vader has no more input until he throws the dude down the pit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:See: the Lucky Number Slevin thread from a while back But in that thread the shot sequence he referenced that supposedly wasn't in the movie actually was in the movie (I found it and posted it).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:But in that thread the shot sequence he referenced that supposedly wasn't in the movie actually was in the movie (I found it and posted it). Really? Maybe I ducked out of that thread early then. If that's the case then I wholeheartedly apologize to SMG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Pointing out the AT-AT in RotJ probably strengthens SMG's statement. We see an AT-AT on Endor for one scene, then never again. I'm probably not the only one who didn't notice it until the 20th time I saw RotJ because it kind of blends into the forest and I'm looking at the shuttle landing. So why don't we see them again? Clearly they work in the forest, but somehow "an entire legion" of the Emperor's "best troops" don't use them in battle?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well to be honest I do still remember that Slevin thread and really thought he was a dick in there, so I was quick to jump on this one. If remembering that thread from a few months ago is creepy then I guess I'm guilty. Probably shouldn't have said creepy because it veers too close to personal innuendo for my tastes, so I'll take that back. SMG can be abrasive but it also gets irritating around here when a thread becomes more about him as a poster than whatever point he is trying to make. I thought the point he made about ESB was pretty solid so it seemed silly to call him out over a minor detail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:So why don't we see them again? Clearly they work in the forest, but somehow "an entire legion" of the Emperor's "best troops" don't use them in battle? If you want an in-universe explanation, they're troop transports, and there's no need to transport troops that are already exactly where they're wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
And it's probably pretty hard to maneuver those things around those big-rear end trees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
B-b-b-but they're "all-terrain!" Probably very difficult to compose a shot of one maneuvering around a dense forest, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 23:03
|
|