|
Lord Krangdar posted:Billy Idle: I know what you mean with that last bit. But can "the author" even be said to exist for most films? Most films are made by many, many people who all effect the final product and all have their own ongoing interpretations of what that final product will mean, which may change over the course of the production. Exactly right, but even if we only have one of the authors on record, we should take that into account. It's like earlier when we were having the argument about Force ghosts (and I know it's a stupid term, but it's convenient). We know* Lucas intended Force ghosting to come as the result of achieving a state of complete selflessness. It's a (fairly) major element of the films and George Lucas, who exercises final control over what makes it to the screen, would be unlikely to let something pass which he didn't think supported his interpretation. So if the correct interpretation is actually the complete opposite, let's at least try to pin down how that came to be, because it's a valid question and, in fact, an interesting one. The intention isn't to use ~*Auteur Theory*~ to shut down discussion, but rather to encourage it. *Or as well as we can know with Lucas. edit: Here's another random example that kind of goes the opposite way. A while ago I just happened to read something about Christopher Lee's role in the prequels (please don't ask me why I was reading it, but remember that I am the kind of person who argues about Star Wars on the Internet). The way Lucas had originally written it, Dooku begged for his life before he was killed. Lee argued that this was out of character for Dooku, Lucas agreed, and so they filmed it Lee's way. Maybe Lucas really did agree, or maybe he just didn't feel like arguing with Lee because of his famous aversion to interacting with actors. The point is there's really no auteur here; there's just a character being constructed organically through the efforts of multiple people. But does that mean either Lucas or Lee are completely worthless people to talk to when trying to get inside the head of that character? I don't think so. Billy Idle fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Jan 9, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:34 |
|
|
Billy Idle posted:But he knows the rebel's name is Luke Skywalker, and he knows he's Force-sensitive. He clearly knows what's going on. There's a lot of nuance in the full dialogue: What is thy bidding my master? There is a great disturbance in the force. I have felt it. We have a new enemy: Luke Skywalker. Yes, my master. He could destroy us. He's just a boy. Obi-wan can no longer help him. The force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a jedi. If he could be turned he would become a powerful ally. Yes, yes. he would be a great asset. Can it be done? He will join us or die, master. The first line establishes that Vader anticipates some sort of command from the Emperor. The spiel about 'the great disturbance' is just laying the groundwork, before getting to the point. "As you know, we have a new enemy..." Vader is already fully aware of Luke Skywalker - it's implied that Luke has become something of a notorious folk hero. The actual command is "kill Luke Skywalker before he becomes a Jedi, and destroys us." Vader voices his disagreement - Luke is powerful, but he's still too young and inexperienced to destroy them. Why not just recruit him? And since the Emperor's mostly just concerned with accumulating power and not dying, he agrees wholeheartedly. The only reassurance he needs is Vader's pledge to kill his own son if it comes to that. There's no duplicity involved here; Vader is just straight-up telling the Emperor what he intends to do. (This also all matches Yoda's prophecy, as it happens - everyone agrees that this is how things will go down.) The SE 'retcons' it specifically so that Vader doesn't know the name of the dude he's been hunting. Vader only knew that it was a young rebel who was working with Obiwan, which makes his decision to recruit Luke weirdly spur-of-the-moment. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Has the relation between Star Wars (PT and OT) and Turner's Thesis already been delved into? I just notice that it's interesting that it is in the frontier that the Old Republic experiences its downfall, as the Jedi Order stands ambivalent at the exploitation of frontier peoples and the government of the interior worlds grows more and more corrupt. The corruption on the inner worlds and the eventual rebellion that happens on the frontier worlds provides the means for Sidious to take power. The Empire that subsequently arises is itself vanquished by rebels who hide out on planets at the fringe of civilization like Yavin and Hoth. Luke and Anakin are themselves from a planet that resembles the Wild West. Yoda and Obi-Wan are forced to meditate on their sins on fringe worlds; in Yoda's case his planet seems to be devoid of any civilization besides himself. If the Star Wars films are a cycle, then it is the continual presence of frontier worlds which allows the Force to replenish the Light Side. Considering the discussion on the Republic's imperialism earlier in the thread I'm sure someone thought of something similar. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The SE 'retcons' it specifically so that Vader doesn't know the name of the dude he's been hunting. Vader only knew that it was a young rebel who was working with Obiwan, which makes his decision to recruit Luke weirdly spur-of-the-moment. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Vader does know Luke's name in the SE. This is from before the Battle of Hoth, when the Imperials are learning of the Rebel base there: OZZEL: My lord, there are so many uncharted settlements. It could be smugglers, it could be... VADER: That is the system. And I'm sure Skywalker is with them. Set your course for the Hoth system. General Veers, prepare your men. ---- That exchange is still in the SE version, unaltered. edit: And remember, it's even a plot point in Episode VI that the Emperor has trouble with his clairvoyant powers when it concerns Vader and his connection to his son. It's the linchpin of his ultimate downfall, after all: Palpatine's Sithly powers are impotent against the power of true compassion. Billy Idle fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
It's important to note that the Old Republic is the Empire. They've got the same logo, the same problems (the Outer Rim is every bit as wretched a hive of scum and villainy, there's still rampant slavery), and even the same useless Senate, at least until its dissolution in A New Hope. All military forces in both ultimately report directly to Palpatine, who uses a deeply misguided Jedi as his instrument of enforcement. Luke ended up being what Dooku was trying to be, or, if you prefer, Palpatine likely expected his temptation of Luke to go like that of his temptation of Dooku. More reasons why I'd have liked to see more about Count Dooku. He could have been a foil to Luke the way Mace Windu was, as well as a foil to Leia, as they were both idealistic aristocrats who led rebellions. The only difference between Dooku and the Skywalker children is the influence of Palpatine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^ Nice, this is an excellent point. From the uncritical observer's point of view who might identify with the Jedi in the prequels, the Republic switches sides to become the Empire. From a practical and logical standpoint that makes no sense; it is indeed the Jedi who (too late) rise up against the Galactic Republic and its closely related successor-state the Galactic Empire. The Jedi are traitors, they're just confused and uncoordinated traitors who are massacred by the war machine they've helped to build. It just goes to show how hapless and confused the Jedi are that they would seek to precipitate a constitutional crisis, by arresting the head of state of all people, in the middle of a civil war. If you remove yourself from the perspective of the Jedi being absolutely good it becomes an appallingly stupid move. That they happen to be correct is really beside the point. In the context of what the film shows us the line between legitimate constitutional crisis and armed coup disappears and Palpatine has every right to react in the way he does. He may have engineered it but the Jedi tottered right into the jaws of the trap. Anyway, about the real Star Wars movies: I actually think both Vader and Palpatine are concealing ulterior motives in their dialog in Empire. Vader wants to find Luke in order to unite with him and overthrow his hated master. Palpatine clearly has no problem "trading-up" apprentices and sees the situation as a win-win: either Vader destroys a rebel or secures his own replacement. In Palpatine's arrogance we can't even take his word that Luke might destroy them at face value. He may simply be trying to manipulate Vader yet again. These guys are Sith, hatred and distrust kind of go by the board.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
I am just now watching through the prequels with my 7 year old son. I love asking him "Who are the good guys?" He always says "The Jedi!" and then Anakin massacres a village of women and children. "Oh well that wasn't good" he admits. Obi Wan forces Anakin to abandon Padme after she falls out of a plane. "Oh well that wasn't good." The scene between Dooku and Obi Wan is great on rewatch. Obi Wan is bound literally and figuratively by the traditions of the dumb Jedi. Dooku flat out tells him Palpatine is an evil Sith and that Obi Wan should join him to take Palpatine out. Obi Wan is so dumb he can't even accept Palpatine is a Sith Lord.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Again, the Jedi are confused. Are they a religious order or the Chancellor's goon squad? Why is it so important to them that everybody stays in the Republic and follow its laws? (Laws that they violate whenever they feel like it.) Obi-Wan identifies so strongly with the Republic that he waxes nostalgic about it to Luke even after it has destroyed everything he cared about. But he's a Jedi and Jedi have to defend the Republic, except when they're overthrowing it. Or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Dooku gets a lot of praise, but I straight up love Darth Maul. Palpatine could not have found a better boogeyman to rile up the jedi. An evil devil man with a thirst for revenge, it's perfect for engaging the jedi tunnel vision. "Holy poo poo a genuine SITH! Stand back everyone. We, the jedi, will deal with this, the most important issue in the galaxy. There's bound to be more than one, too, so we've got our work cut out! *ignores massive galactic conflict*"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I am just now watching through the prequels with my 7 year old son. I love asking him "Who are the good guys?" He always says "The Jedi!" and then Anakin massacres a village of women and children. "Oh well that wasn't good" he admits. Obi Wan forces Anakin to abandon Padme after she falls out of a plane. "Oh well that wasn't good." While the execution may have been a little lacking, I wonder if a large part of the backlash of the prequels wasn't just "Yeah those unambiguous good guys? Turns out they're actually lying and lovely".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Anyway, about the real Star Wars movies: That's another good point. Sith masters use their apprentices, and it's an open secret that the apprentices are always plotting against them. They're both constantly lying to each other, and they know they're being lied to. Vader has to let the Emperor think that it's a win/win for him, and the Emperor has to let Vader think he actually has a chance. When Luke surrenders himself to Vader but still refuses to join him, he thinks that his plot has failed, but he can still fall back on the cover story he told the Emperor in the previous film: "He will join us [not me] or die." It's very neat. Read in that light.... I'd have to look at the exchanges between Vader and the Emperor in Return of the Jed again. I know the EU is kind of an anathema to this thread, but Lucas was pretty involved in The Force Unleashed, which also seems relevant to this notion, as the plot is based on an earlier one of Vader's plausibly-deniable attempts to get help killing Palpatine. I haven't played it, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Has the relation between Star Wars (PT and OT) and Turner's Thesis already been delved into? I just notice that it's interesting that it is in the frontier that the Old Republic experiences its downfall, as the Jedi Order stands ambivalent at the exploitation of frontier peoples and the government of the interior worlds grows more and more corrupt. The corruption on the inner worlds and the eventual rebellion that happens on the frontier worlds provides the means for Sidious to take power. The Empire that subsequently arises is itself vanquished by rebels who hide out on planets at the fringe of civilization like Yavin and Hoth. Luke and Anakin are themselves from a planet that resembles the Wild West. Yoda and Obi-Wan are forced to meditate on their sins on fringe worlds; in Yoda's case his planet seems to be devoid of any civilization besides himself. Turner's thesis is an outdated and racist historical narrative and you’d be hard pressed to form a Turnerian reading of the Star Wars cycle; however there is relationship with the films' focus on the crucial element of hyperstition in the construction of global Empire, of which Turnerism could be an example. For instance Yoda goes from the nomadic mystic native to being complicit in the birth of the Empire that initially defines his nomadic status. Or Obi-Wan’s robes going from an appropriation of a subaltern native population to the canonical garb of a monastic order already complicit in the formation of Empire. The importance of Star Wars isn’t about a specific historical narrative, but in the actual construction and deconstruction of them as the process of de- and re-territorialization in the transition to Empire (most obviously read as global capitalism): “"In the passage from modern to postmodern and from imperialism to Empire there is progressively less distinction between inside and outside….. Modern anthropology's various discourses on primitive societies function as the outside that defines the bounds of the civil world. The process of modernization is the internalization of the outside, that is, the civilization of nature." - Hardt & Negri, Empire Danger fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:While the execution may have been a little lacking, I wonder if a large part of the backlash of the prequels wasn't just "Yeah those unambiguous good guys? Turns out they're actually lying and lovely". I doubt it's a large part of the backlash. I really don't think people would (or should) have had a problem with a well-executed depiction of an out-of-touch, ossified, archaic Jedi Order. Unfortunately we didn't get that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
One thing that's very fun is that Palpatine never lies, in any of the films. He displays drippingly sarcastic mock-concern, but always just says what he's going to do: he'll only use his emergency powers 'until the crisis is over and the Republic is whole again', and so-forth. Palpatine simply counts on the people he's talking to being too stupid to think things through. The crisis, of course, will never be over because a perfect society free of antagonism is impossible. He never lies to Anakin either, and Anakin never lies to him. Again, the message is legitimately that evil will triumph because good is dumb. (Spaceballs is some brilliant analysis - note its conclusion that the Death Star is a transformer whose 'robot mode' is the Statue Of Liberty.) Earlier, in Empire Strikes Back, Ben and Yoda have to lie to Luke to keep him 'on the path'. "Ben! Why didn't you tell me!" Ben doesn't tell him for the simple reason that he's afraid Luke will learn too much - that knowledge will corrupt him. It's basically like the end of The Dark Knight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:While the execution may have been a little lacking, I wonder if a large part of the backlash of the prequels wasn't just "Yeah those unambiguous good guys? Turns out they're actually lying and lovely". Not only are they not particularly good, they're not particularly cool either. People probably would've accepted one or the other, but not both. Like who ever, having seen the OT, imagined the Jedi as celibate monks sitting around a temple being confused and fearful about politics? When I rewatched the films and got to Vader's noooooo scene, this time I got it: He's a loser.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:I doubt it's a large part of the backlash. I really don't think people would (or should) have had a problem with a well-executed depiction of an out-of-touch, ossified, archaic Jedi Order. Some of the criticisms I've heard have basically been "why are there politics in these films I want blasters and lightsabers".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
If the Jedi were cool and good guys, the republic would never have fallen. The Jedi failing to do their job has to precede the original trilogy. But that would mean the Jedi weren't perfect enlightened beings. Clearly, the prequels are bad! Also, lol at 'politics'. What politics? The whole point of the prequels' politics is that they're stupid and pointless. The film agrees with you. Even the loving dark lord of the Sith hates politics and does everything he can to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
It's a good story that deserved to be told in the form of better films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Obi Wan forces Anakin to abandon Padme after she falls out of a plane. "Oh well that wasn't good." What's so bad about this? They were in the middle of a war zone and chasing a man whose elimination or capture could have significantly hampered the Separatist war effort. Obi-Wan was right, Padme wouldn't even want them to rescue her. And there's no question that the Jedi are misguided. But they are good guys. The last film in the trilolgy, when evil is defeated and democracy is restored, is called Return of the Jedi. Luke is a Jedi like his father before him, so he defies the Emperor, then his father, the redeemed Jedi Anakin Skywalker, kills him....which is a good thing, because Palpatine is an evil monster. I guess it's an interesting thought exercise to view the Jedi as outright villains, but they're really not, at leas not as far the films are concernred. The Republic is not the Empire. That's ridiculous. The Republic, for all its flaws, was a democracy that didn't go around blowing up planets full of innocent people just to make a point. The Republic was allowed to become the Empire because of people like those in this thread who can't see the difference between a flawed institution and an absolutely corrupt one. SuperMechagodzilla posted:One thing that's very fun is that Palpatine never lies, in any of the films. "I love democracy. I love the Republic." Those things are definitely not true, unless you want to interpret it ultra ironically and say that Palpatine loves them because they're weak enough to let him utterly destroy them. computer parts posted:Some of the criticisms I've heard have basically been "why are there politics in these films I want blasters and lightsabers". One of the unending complaints about Episode I is that there are too many boring scenes where people discuss the taxation of galactic trade routes. But there's not one single scene where that actually happens. The taxation crisis is simply the backdrop for the conflict, no one ever stands around talking shop about tariffs and revenues. The closest thing I can think of is the one-minute Senate scene where Padme dramatically calls for the Chancellor of the Galactic Republic to be deposed and replaced because he can't stand up to the megacorporation which has a seat in the Senate holy poo poo. edit: Bongo Bill posted:It's important to note that the Old Republic is the Empire. They've got the same logo, It's interesting to note that the Empire's logo is actually slightly different than the Republic's, being a cog with six spokes rather than eight. The Galactic Republic has been reduced and replaced. Billy Idle fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:"I love democracy. I love the Republic." He loves them because they've allowed probably the most Evil man in the universe to have direct control of everything. Democracy works (for him)!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:The Republic is not the Empire. That's ridiculous. The Republic, for all its flaws, was a democracy that didn't go around blowing up planets full of innocent people just to make a point. The Republic was allowed to become the Empire because of people like those in this thread who can't see the difference between a flawed institution and an absolutely corrupt one. It's us. We're the Sith Lords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
sassassin posted:He loves them because they've allowed probably the most Evil man in the universe to have direct control of everything. Democracy works (for him)! While this is true, it is only because his Rube Goldberg-like plan actually succeeds. It's hard to say an institution is inherently flawed just because there's a 1% chance an evil space wizard (easily one of the most powerful ever) could covertly ruin things over a few decades. I don't think it would have mattered what form of government the Republic had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:What's so bad about this? They were in the middle of a war zone and chasing a man whose elimination or capture could have significantly hampered the Separatist war effort. Obi-Wan was right, Padme wouldn't even want them to rescue her. Agreed on all points. To continue that Palpatine quote: "Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!" Another clearly not true statement. He never intended to give back any power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Palpatine would have had a hard time rising to the top of a monarchy
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Empire exists in a permanent state of crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:The Republic is not the Empire. That's ridiculous. The Republic, for all its flaws, was a democracy that didn't go around blowing up planets full of innocent people just to make a point. The Republic was allowed to become the Empire because of people like those in this thread who can't see the difference between a flawed institution and an absolutely corrupt one. Certainly people in this thread know the difference between impotence and evil. I believe the point was more about how the films can be interpreted as drawing that equivalence, and about the implications which would follow from that. Still, the state of the Republic throughout the films neatly parallels the mindset of Anakin Skywalker at all times. When he is a child, the galaxy is ignorant of, and powerless to act against, the sinister forces acting upon it. Then they both are confused and frustrated, longing for peace (Padme) but easily misdirected by indulging in war, discovering and reveling darkly in its capacity for violence. At last their doubts about the Jedi blossom into outright hostility, and they give themselves over to Palpatine to become his obedient instrument of terror. I hadn't noticed that about the logo, though. Perhaps I was on the wrong track. But: did the Galactic Empire betray and murder the Galactic Republic, or are they both one and the same? From a certain point of view....
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Agreed on all points. He never intended for the crisis to abate. It's a lie of omission not commission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Danger posted:Empire exists in a permanent state of crisis. Yeah good point. You win this round.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:And there's no question that the Jedi are misguided. But they are good guys. The last film in the trilogy, when evil is defeated and democracy is restored, is called Return of the Jedi. What makes you think Democracy is restored? Again, consider the example of Animal Farm. quote:The Republic is not the Empire. That's ridiculous. The Republic, for all its flaws, was a democracy that didn't go around blowing up planets full of innocent people just to make a point. Isn't that what the Separatist war is about? The point being that nobody can separate from the Republic. Sure, they don't blow up a whole planet. Instead they wage a whole war. I don't think the relationship could be any more clear than when we see Yoda of all people leading armies of Storm Troopers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:What makes you think Democracy is restored? Again, consider the example of Animal Farm. The Separatist war is entirely a construction of the Sith, using corporate interests to wage it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
redshirt posted:The Separatist war is entirely a construction of the Sith, using corporate interests to wage it. But The Republic goes along with it every step of the way, thinking the entire time that the war is protecting their interests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:But The Republic goes along with it every step of the way, thinking the entire time that the war is protecting their interests. Oh sure, once it turns hot it's a real war (as real as a completely manufactured war could be). But I don't think it represents a true fault line in the Republic, as opposed to one introduced by the Sith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Oh sure, once it turns hot it's a real war (as real as a completely manufactured war could be). But I don't think it represents a true fault line in the Republic, as opposed to one introduced by the Sith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
I just re-watched Episode I today. Man, it's a weird film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:The Jedi Order started the war by invading Geonosis. Why did they invade? To rescue two Jedi and a Senator who were caught spying on the Geonosians and sabotaging one of their factories. You mean the factory where they are assembling droid armies? And the only reason anyone even noticed Genosis was because Obi Wan tracked an assassin there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
verybad posted:I just re-watched Episode I today. Man, it's a weird film. I really enjoy it. It's by far the best of the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Oh sure, once it turns hot it's a real war (as real as a completely manufactured war could be). But I don't think it represents a true fault line in the Republic, as opposed to one introduced by the Sith. How are you drawing these lines between a real or not real war, or a true fault line compared to an untrue fault line? The fact that Palpatine could exploit the flaws in the system for his own ends means there were flaws in the system. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
redshirt posted:You mean the factory where they are assembling droid armies? And the only reason anyone even noticed Genosis was because Obi Wan tracked an assassin there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
I wish Disney would one day consider re-release unedited editions of the star wars saga along with the 2005 micro-clone wars cartoon by Gendy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIj7gIDFDe4 Man Grievous really got huge doses of villain decay in the CGI series.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:34 |
|
|
redshirt posted:The Separatist war is entirely a construction of the Sith, using corporate interests to wage it. Where do the good guys of the "Rebel Alliance" come from, though? I'm sure there is some torturous EU explanation for it but the prequels explicitly set up the connection between Republic-Empire and Separatists-Rebels. States don't spring up from nothing but inherit the apparatus and people of the organizations they supplant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:40
|
|
